1924-05-16

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That on Wednesday, the 21st of May instant, and subsequent Wednesdays to the end of the session, government notices of motion and government orders shall have precedence over all 'business except questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.

Business of the House
* Mr. HARRY LEADER (Portage la Prairie): I beg humbly to protest against this resolution. It will have the effect of taking away private members' day thereby preventing hon. members from bringing resolutions before the House. I know the Prime Minister will say that we have all had opportunity to present our resolutions. That is true. In regard to the resolution that stands on the order paper in my name, I may say that I had three opportunities to bring it forward: one on a Monday night at a quarter to eleven; another on a Thursday night at a quarter to ten; and I think another on a Wednesday night at twenty minutes to six. But had I gone on with my resolution on any of those occasions I should perhaps only have had the opportunity of speaking myself; then the debate would have been adjourned and the motion would not have been voted upon. Now, this happened last year and I did not intend that the same thing should occur this year. I thought I had my resolution in in lots of time, but evidently there was so much other work ahead that it was not reached. However, I should like to take this opportunity of protesting against taking Wednesday as proposed. I might mention that a number of hon. gentlemen when speaking during the budget debate referred to the fact that if we desired to practise economy we should start here and set an example to the country by agreeing to a reduction in our sessional indemnity.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker I also wish to protest not so much perhaps at the actual motion as at the situation which results from the practice of late years of filling up the order paper with motions. sometimes before the House meets at all. For instance when we came down here first this session there were already three or four pages of notices of motion. Some of them were-I do not think I would be over harsh in saying this-of an absolutely unnecessary kind, resolutions of an abstract character -one for example dealing with what Britain should do about the Ruhr. What on earth have we here got to do with the Ruhr? I should like to know what practical end can be achieved by discussing abstract questions of that sort. There are many more such resolutions; I could point out a dozen that are equally useless as far as the actual operation of lawmaking here is concerned. What I wanted to say is this:	These motions are
put on the order paper and frequently not taken up when called. As the Prime Min-
141i
ister said on a previous occasion some of them have been called six times and still they maintain their place on the order paper. Two resolutions stand on the order paper in my name. They are unimportant, I will admit. One was the notice of a bill, and the other was the notice of a resolution that I wanted to discuss. Both however would be of some practical advantage-at least I should hope so-as regards the interests of Canada. I put these resolutions on the order paper within a month after the House met, but of course there were a great number of motions ahead of them. They never were called except on one occasion when a number of the members were going to Halifax. I stayed away from that trip on purpose because I thought my motion would come up. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, it came up on the occasion in question at three minutes to six and by speaking to the motion I obtained the placing of it on the order paper amongst public bills and orders instead of it remaining amongst motions. Now, private members' day has been taken from us and the resolution will not come up again. If I am not very much mistaken there have been fewer days devoted to the motions of private members this session than in any other session for a long number of years past-at least for some ten or twelve years. I quite admit that a remedy is needed but I do not think it is the remedy such as suggested by the motion before the House. What I would suggest is this: That the House or the government should consider amending the rules in the following manner: First, that when these motions are called and not gone on with, unless in case of the sickness of the hon. member in whose name they stand, they shall be dropped and have to be placed at the bottom of the order paper again. That -would give hon. members who have something that they really desire to bring before the House a chance to be heard. The second amendment I would suggest is, instead of going along two or three months, and then arbitrarily saying, "We cannot have any more private members' days," that after an agreed on date-say a couple of months after the opening of the House-no more new motions would be accepted; so that no one could put any fresh notice on the order paper, but that members who had notices then on the order paper which had not been called should be given an opportunity to be heard. So far as I am concerned, I am quite willing to forego the opportunity of talking on the matter I am interested in, in order to choke off a lot of these vague abstract resolutions that are before us. But some day, when the government or the opposition, as the case might
Business oj the House

be, are desperately in need of an opportunity to move some particular motion, it could be easily blocked by the opposition or the government putting a lot of abstract motions on the order paper, and then when they were forced to, taking up one order or the other until the time lapsed. But any bona fide motion put on the order paper within two months-or one month, if you like-of the opening of the House would be heard. The other sugestion of dropping those motions that were not called would facilitate, and perhaps put an end to what I really think is'an abuse of the original intention of the rules.


Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant):: When the
matter of taking Mondays came up some weeks ago I made a protest against the motion which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) brought in. However, my protest was unavailing. I have taken the trouble to look into the record of this House for the last thirty years in respect to private members' day, and I must say that the information which I secured in that investigation certainly is not creditable to the present government, or the present parliament, or the present procedure. I am not going to weary the House by giving them the details at the present time, I am simply going to say that in the old days there was practically always plenty of time taken to reasonably clear the order paper of these private members' resolutions. Twenty years ago Thursdays were taken first, Wednesdays were taken next, and Monday was left a complete day when a vote might be had-Monday was left until the last. This year, for the first time, the procedure has been reversed and Monday has been taken first, and that is the only day when a vote can be secured. I may say the record of this House is indeed worse than the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) has intimated. So far as Mondays, which are the only days that really concern us, are concerned, we have had nineteen days between the time that the debate on the Address was concluded, and the date that Monday was taken, and there were twenty-nine private members' motions left on the order paper unconsidered. Since the time I made this record I think there has been an addition of several to the list. No other year in the last thirty approaches anywhere near that record. There were one or two years during the war when there were not very many resolutions on the orders, and when-probably for special reasons-the number of days allowed for private members was smaller than it was, say about three or four years ago. This matter is not concluded; it will come up again; and I want to protest that the rules of the House 
in this respect ought to be amended. I am not prepared to endorse the suggestions already made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), but I do think this is a matter of great importance, because, as I said before, private members are figuring and will figure in the future more prominently in the business of the House than under the two party system, and we must have some extension or rearrangement. I was going to suggest, without debating the matter at any great length- I do not want to go into any further argument-that we ought to have a full day, say Monday, for practically the entire session, and let the government have Wednesdays, when they can take up estimates, or something of that nature without any trouble at all. They are now of practically no use for private members' resolutions, as they can be talked out. The government and the members know this, and why do they not look at it in a sensible way, and give some consideration to private members? I am not going to do anj'thing further at the present time, but I want to warn the government that they have not heard the last of the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour) moved that the House go into Committee of the Whole on Monday next to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to confirm a certain Convention relating to the employment of children at sea, adopted at Genoa on the 9th day of July, 1920, by a general Conference of the International Labour Organization of the League of Nations; and to provide that no child under the age of fourteen years shall be employed on any ship except as permitted under such convention; that a list of persons under sixteen years of age so employed, or a register thereof, shall be kept; that penalties be imposed for violation of the proposed legislation; and that the Act shall not apply where all the crew are members of the same family, or the child was lawfully employed at the commencement of the Act.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having be.en made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into Committee of the Whole on Monday next to consider the following proposed resolution :
That it is expedient to amend the Canadian National Railways Guarantee Act, 1923, chapter 37, by repealing subsection four thereof and providing,-

Resignation of Mr. Mitchell
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
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.
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. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment) (for the Minister of Justice), moved that the House go into Committee of the Whole on Monday next to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act by providing,-
1.	That the Governor in Council may by regulation determine the pay and allowances to be received by the Commissioner and other members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Force.
2.	That the time served by officers in the Dominion Police Force may be included in the term of service for pension purposes, and this provision shall apply as from the first day of February, 1920.
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. D. M. KENNEDY (West Edmonton):: Will an opportunity be given at an early date for the third reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the Criminal Code?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the absence of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), I would not like to reply to the question, but I will bring it to the attention of the minister.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I may say that I brought this matter to the attention of the minister some days ago and he stated that an opportunity would be given.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is correct.


Arthur Meighen: I do not see why we
could not pass the third reading now and be done with it. It would take only three minutes to do so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would not
have any objection, but probably the Min-*ister of Justice should be here when the matter is dealt with.



DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (West Calgary): Might I direct the attention of the Prime Minister at this stage to an item appearing under Public Bills and Orders referring to the second reading of Bill No. 24, respecting divorce. The Prime Minister will undoubtedly recall the undertaking of the government in connection with this matter, and I simply want to suggest to him that I would be prepared to take it up at any time convenient to the government.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think there is an agreement with the hon. member that an opportunity will be given, and we shall try to arrange for it at an early date.



RESIGNATION OF MR. WALTER G. MITCHELL

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: It is stated in the press to-day that the recent hon. member for St. Antoine, Mr. Mitchell, who has resigned, has given the Prime Minister his reasons for his resignation from this House. Is the Prime Minister prepared to give those reasons to the House to-day?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I saw a message to the press from Mr. Mitchell, in which he mentioned that the communication that he had sent to me was a private one, and I think it probably should be for' him to make his own explanation. I do not know that I am expected to.


Arthur Meighen: Did the Prime Minister say that according to the press despatch, Mr. Mitchell said that the communication to the Prime Minister was private?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I saw a communication to a member of the press from Mr. Mitchell, from New York, in which communication he said that he had given his reasons to me in a private letter. The mention of the letter as being private causes me at this moment to say that it is for Mr. Mitchell himself to make known its contents to the public should he so desire.
Supply-Agriculture



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in the chair:
Agriculture-health of animals (administration and enforcement of Animal Contagious Diseases Act and Meat and Canned Foods Act), $2,000,000.
Mr. TOLMIE:: Will the minister kindly
give to the committee some particulars with regard to the dismissal of the late Veterinary Director General?


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: The st.ory is a fairly long one and I do not _want to make it any longer than I can help, but that depends upon how much information my hon. friend requires. The recent Veterinary Director General placed upon file with my department correspondence that he had with an appointee at Washington holding the same position there as he did here, complaining of the Veterinary department in connection with the administration of this particular appropriation being administered politically. I can read the parts of the letter that I have reference to, if the committee so desires; but it is of such an extraordinary nature from my standpoint that I asked Dr. Torrance for an explanation of it, why he sent to an officer holding a similar position to his in Washington a letter of this nature and also where the political interference was on the part of mysel'f or the government in the administration of the department, especially in connection with the embargo on our cattle going to Great Britain and the quarantine provisions in relation thereto. He stated that the interference complained of referred, not to the Canadian government, but to the British government. That seemed so absurd that it was no excuse, so I told him I thought the time had arrived when we should dissolve partnership. We discussed the matter in a business way and he thought he would retire' under the provisions of the Calder Act. This was quite agreeable to me. I am willing to read the letter to the committee or to place it on file.


Arthur Meighen: When the minister suggested the dissolution, did he suggest that he himself be the party to leave instead of the official?


William Richard Motherwell: I had no idea of
that and I have no idea yet. Dr. Torrance has a position in another part of this province.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister suggest that he could not get one?


William Richard Motherwell: No. I am very
glad that he did get one.


Arthur Meighen: Any suggestion that the
minister himself could not get a position, so that that was the better way out of the matter?


William Richard Motherwell: No. If my hon.
friend wants a scrap, I am ready for him. We have done a good day's work already, and if he wants to start right now, I am willing to start. I am not particular whether I get this vote through to-day or not, if that is the humour my right hon. friend is in. I am trying to give the limited amount of information out of consideration of Dr. Torrance. We got on very nicely together; but a document of this nature, even though it is a private document, placed upon file in the office of a foreign government, could not be tolerated. That is all there is to the matter.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Was the letter a personal communication to the chief of the Bureau at Washington?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Mr TOLMIE:: WTil! the minister read it?


William Richard Motherwell: It was a personal letter written by Dr. Torrance to Dr. Mohler, but the whole staff was aware of the fact that it had been sent.


Mr. CRERAR:: How did the minister get possession of it?


William Richard Motherwell: It was sent to my office by Dr. Torrance.


Mr. CALDAVELL:: Had a copy been kept of it?	[DOT]


William Richard Motherwell: It was sent to my office, that is all I know.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Then I take it that the letter would be in the nature of a public communication.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, so far as Dr. Mohler was concerned it was private; it was marked " confidential."


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: But who gave
this confidential communication to the minister?


William Richard Motherwell: Dr. Torrance.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Did the minister ask Dr. Torrance for it?


William Richard Motherwell: No.


Arthur Meighen: I should think it would be a pretty good letter. Perhaps the minister would have no objection to reading it.


William Richard Motherwell: Dr. Torrance showed it to me after he had sent it.


Mr. MANION:: What is the nature of the letter?

Supply-A griculture


William Richard Motherwell: I think I had better read the whole of it. As I have said, it is marked confidential and is dated October 28, 1922. It reads:
Dr. J. R. Mohler,
Chief, Bureau of Animal Industry,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Mohler :
You are no doubt familiar with the fact that the negotiations for the removal of the British embargo against Canadian cattle have reached the point where a discussion of details is taking place. The Canadian delegates in England are discussing these questions with the British government and information has reached me that it is quite probable we may. be asked to modify the Canadian Quarantine Regulations as regards imports of cattle from Great Britain.
You might have noticed that when the Canadian case was being argued before the British Commission it was suggested that if Great Britain removed the embargo against Canadian cattle and allowed them to enter Great Britain freely, that Canada should reciprocate by permitting British cattle to enter Canada under similar conditions. Dr. Tolmie, who was representing Canada at that time, stated that if health conditions in Great Britain, with regard to live stock, were as satisfactory as they are in Canada, such a proposition might meet with favourable consideration, but that he did not consider the cases were parallel, and pointed out the frequent outbreaks of foot and mouth disease from which Great Britain had suffered in recent years.
It is quite possible, however, that a suggestion may be made that we should modify our quarantine so as to reduce the time of detention, and it is with regard to this possible demand that I would like to have confidentially your opinion as it affects the relations between the Bureau and the Health of Animals Branch. We have always felt that we were under agreement not to alter our quarantine regulations without previously notifying you of our intention, and we have received from you the same consideration.
I am strongly of the opinion that quarantine regulations should be based upon scientific knowledge of the diseases against which we desire protection, of the conditions surrounding the traffic in animals, the freedom from disease of the country from which the cattle are exported, and the time occupied in ocean travel. If political considerations are to be introduced into the consideration of the question of quarantine it places the scientific advisers of the respective governments in a very anomalous position, and I feel that where we have to undertake the responsibility of carrying out any regulations that are made we should also have a decided influence in the planning of these regulations.
Should political pressure force me to accept a shortened period of quarantine for imports from the British Isles I have been wondering what would be the attitude of your Bureau in regard to the matter. I have, therefore, thought it well to consult you privately before the matter has reached a decision, and I would appreciate anything you may say and treat it as confidential if you desire me to do so. You may, therefore, feel quite at liberty to tell me frankly what your opinion of the situation is, and what you think would be the result upon our mutual relations regarding the traffic in cattle across our border should any such action as that suggested be taken.
With kind regards, and thanking you in anticipation of your prompt reply, I am,
Yours sincerely,
F. Torrance.
This letter will probably appear unintelligible to the committee unless hon. members know certain facts. Dr. Torrance, naturally enough, wanted to be one of the delegates who should go overseas. Two gentlemen went over, Dr. Grisdale and Mr. Duncan Marshall, and they were accompanied by two ministers. They went for the purposes of conference and I considered that such a representation of the department was ample. Dr. Torrance made it known quite candidly to me that he thought he should be one of those to go overseas and apparently-I suppose quite naturally-he was disappointed at not having been permitted to go. I ex- plained to him that in my opinion two delegates in addition to the two ministers were quite sufficient for the purposes we had in mind. I drew his attention to the following paragraph in the letter as well as to the two preceding it:
Should political pressure force me to accept a shortened period of quarantine for imports from the British Isles I have been wondering what would be the attitude of your Bureau in regard to the matter.
I asked Dr. Torrance to explain to what this paragraph had reference and he said that it related to political interference on the part of the British government. I replied that this was nonsense inasmuch as we had never heard for many years of any such interference. I was not aware of anything of the kind nor did anyone else know anything about it and I intimated that in my judgment there was no justification for the writing of such a document.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Will the minister read the reply to that letter?


William Richard Motherwell: The reply is not
on the file but the substance of it was that the desire was to carry out the old arrangements with regard to quarantine. '


Mr. CHAPLIN:: The minister says that
this letter was written on October 28, 1922. It seems to me that it took rather a long time for the gentleman to hand it over to him. How does it come that so long a time elapsed before the minister got hold of the letter?


William Richard Motherwell: Before taking action I was anxious to see whether this was typical of the manner in which Dr. Torrance had administered the department or whether it was merely an isolated case.


James Dew Chaplin: The question is when did the minister get the letter?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not recall
when I got it.
Mr. CIIAPIjlN:	Was it long ago or
recently?
Suppl y-A griculture


William Richard Motherwell: I received the letter shortly after it was written.


James Dew Chaplin: And apparently the minister waited some time before taking action.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes I was waiting for some corroborative evidence that would either confirm or rebut the suggestion that this was the manner in w'hich, on the whole, Dr. Torrance administered the department.


James Dew Chaplin: And what is the nature
of the "corroborative evidence" which the minister received?


William Richard Motherwell: I will give that,
too.


James Dew Chaplin: Yes, come along with it.


William Richard Motherwell: In justice to Dr.
Torrance I want to say that such evidence as existed tending to show dereliction of duty on his part in other respects, was not, I thought, in itself sufficient to warrant dismissal, or, to put it in a nicer way, to warrant the severance of our relations.


Arthur Meighen: Or, the dissolving of the partnership. That was the first phrase used and it is so good that I do not like to see it dropped.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, that would
be a satisfactory term. I say that none of the reasons that have been enumerated on these pages would be sufficient in themselves, because a great many of them are incapable of proof. But, taking them in conjunction with this correspondence, I felt that there was ample warranty for the action I took in regard to Dr. Torrance.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps I am a little
dense, but I do not quite understand yet, having- heard the letter read, wherein the offence consists; I do not see the crime in it. Perhaps the minister would be good enough to explain to us, who are not so familiar with agricultural conditions, just what is wrong about the letter.


William Richard Motherwell: He is suggesting
that the whole question of embargo and quarantine is being administered politically.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no, not at all.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Where does he say that?


William Richard Motherwell: All right, we will
read it over again. Dr. Torrance writes:
I am strongly of the opinion that quarantine regulations should be based upon scientific knowledge of the diseases against which we desire protection of the conditions surrounding traffic in animals, the freedom

from disease of the country from which the cattle are exported, and the time occupied in ocean travel.
If political considerations are to be introduced into the consideration of the question of quarantine it places the scientific advisers of the respective governments in a very anomalous position and I feel that where we have to undertake the responsibility of carrying out any regulations that are made we should also have a decided influence in the planning of these regulations.
What he had in mind there was that he should not only have framed the regulations but should have gone over to Great Britain and negotiated any change therein. I know that, for he had a conversation with me regarding it.


Mr. LADNER:: What was the conversation?


William Richard Motherwell: That he should go to Great Britain as one of the representatives.


Arthur Meighen: Is the fact that he
wanted to go to Great Britain as one of our representatives, apparently instead of Mr. Duncan Marshall, part of the corroborative evidence?
.Mr. MOTHERWELL: No. If I had not known what was in his mind I would have been more astounded by the nature of this letter. But I do know that he wanted to go.


Arthur Meighen: What is wrong with
that?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know
whether what he had in mind as "political interference" was the appointment of my deputy or of Mr. Duncan Marshall.


Henry Lumley Drayton: He does not
say it was either.


William Richard Motherwell: The whole thing
was so astounding that when I asked him candidly what he meant, he said that he meant interference by the British government. I pointed out that that could not be so, and he did not say any more.


Mr. STEVENS:: I think the committee
ought to get a clear perspective of this incident,-I call it an incident, but it is a great deal more when it affects an individual of the standing of Dr. Torrance. We have here one of the most flagrant violations of the statutes of Canada, indeed, a defiance of those statutes, that perhaps could be imagined. In 1920 this parliament passed the Civil Service Act. We all know perfectly well that the task of the Civil Service Commission was a tremendous one and could not result in complete harmony and success in the course of a few years. We also realize that the Civil Service Commission has not in

Supply-Agriculture
all its activities given complete satisfaction to everybody. But the principle and the idea behind the legislation has appealed to the people and has been accepted by the Civil Service generally as a very welcome protection against unreasonable interference. Here was a civil servant of high standing whom the minister dismissed at a moment's notice, as I will show in a moment. He brings to the House
a letter_a copy of which I have under my
hand and which I shall analyze, perhaps a little more fully and a little more fairly than the minister has yet done-and he admits that that letter alone is not sufficient justification for his action in dismissing the Doctor. Then he holds in his hand what he terms "corroborative evidence." And what does he say about that corroborative evidence? Without presenting it he says: Well, I admit it is not very significant and the offence is not serious.


William Richard Motherwell: I will read it all
if you wish.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And he says that it could not be proved. Furthermore, as the final and deciding factor in the case, he states that he knew Dr. Torrance had some idea in the back of his mind. That is a pretty flimsy ground upon which to dismiss a civil servant of the standing of Dr. Torrance. Now, let us examine the letter. I want the committee to bear in mind that the charge against Dr. Torrance was that he had declared there was political pressure being brought to bear upon him. That is the charge of the minister. Let ns see upon what it is based. The letter, written by Dr. Torrance, head of the Health of Animals branch, is addressed to Dr. J. R. Mohler, chief of the Bureau of Animals Industry in Washington. The letter is marked *"confidential"; it was confidential between these two gentlemen. Now let us get the perspective. Dr. Torrance and Dr. Mohler administer the Health of Animals in their respective countries. In order that the quarantine regulations of Canada and the United States, regulations which are always irritating in a measure to these who are subject to them, should be carried out with as little irritation to the public as possible, these two chief officials of their respective governments were in constant touch and working in substantial harmony. Let me give an illustration to show there was nothing sinister in Dr. Torrance's action. Take the inmigration authorities-and my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) who handles that branch is now in his seat and will bear me out-supposing the immigration
authorities of Canada and the United States did not work in harmony in many respects, would there not be tremendous irritation to the public? My hon. friend will agree with that. It is one" of those little courtesies between officials of two governments which is necessary if friendly relations are to continue.
I am not going to read the whole letter because it is already on Hansard. The first portion the minister will not himself complain of in the slightest degree; it is a reference to the foot and mouth disease. At this time negotiations were on foot with Great Britain. Great Britain was demanding that her animals should have access to our market with a minimum of quarantine and a lowering of the standard of the regulations which at that time obtained. But it must be borne in mind that even in that very year there were twenty-two cases of foot and mouth disease in Great Britain. To show that Dr. Torrance's and Dr. Mohler's apprehensions were well founded, all I have to do is to remind the committee that since that time, animals to the value of millions of pounds sterling have been destroyed in Great Britain because perhaps of one of the worst outbreak of this disease every experienced in that or any other country so far as I know. Let us keep that in mind. Is it not an indication that both Dr. Torrance and Dr. Mohler were careful, cautious and well-informed officials of their respective governments? Now, up to this point we have nothing but what is of the highest, and most commendable character in regard to this official -who was so summarily discharged. The first clause I read is in these words:
It is quite possible, however, that a suggestion may be made that we should modify our quarantine-
Remember, Dr. Torrance is writing to Dr. Mohler. Now, this is the point:
There was an expectation that a request for modification of the quarantine regulations would be asked for by Great Britain.
Hon. members will note that the request is expected to be made by Great Britain. This is the crux of the whole business, and I am sure, will persuade hon. members that there is nothing in the contention of the minister.
-so as to reduce the time of detention, and it is with regard to this possible demand that I would like to have confidentially your (Dr. Mohler's) opinion as it affects the relations between the Bureau and the Health of Animals branch.
That is, between the third country, the United States, and Canada. Now I come to the paragraph which is so offensive to the minister. Dr. Torrance continues.
I am strongly of the opinion that quarantine regulations should be based upon scientific knowledge.
Supply-Agriculture

Is there any objection to that? Is that sound, or is it offensive? Is it right or is it wrong? Is Dr. Torrance on good ground, or is he flirting with some influence that is injurious to this government? These are the questions that the committee are called upon to decide. He continues:
I am strongly of the opinion that quarantine regulations should be based upon scientific knowledge of the diseases against which we desire protection, of the conditions surrounding the traffic in animals, the freedom from disease of the country from which the cattb* are exported, and the time occupied in ocean travel.
These, he said, are the considerations that should be borne in mind; these are the influences that should determine the nature of the regulations to be passed. Now we get to the offence. I ask the minister,

and I wish the Prime Minister were in his seat, because this is an important matter, and it affects the government-and I ask the committee, to listen to this point, keeping in mind what I said a moment ago, that it,was anticipated that pressure would be brought to bear upon the Canadian	authorities-Dr.
Torrance-to lower the quarantine period of the admission of British cattle into Canada. That is the basis; that is the apprehension; that is the anxiety in the mind of this official. This is what he says:
If political considerations are to be introduced into the consideration of the question of quarantine it places the scientific advisers of the respective governments in a very anomalous position.
Now, let us think that over. That is the offence; that is what Dr. Torrance is charged with having done to warrant his dismissal from office. Dr. Torrance said to the minister that what he meant was that political pressure, political relations of Canada with the Mother Country, considerations affecting the general^ relations of countries, would enter into this and outweigh the scientific reasons upon which the regulations should properly be founded. Is there anything unreasonable in that deduction? Is there anything unreasonable in Dr. Torrance's explanation? Is it not the most sane and reasonable explanation of his statement?


Mr. HOEY:: What would those "political
considerations" be?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There are two classes of political considerations. I admit that you can narrow the word "political" until it becomes nothing but a sinister term-
5 p.m. word political. But the word "political", applying to political considerations as between Canada and the Mother Country, would be something of this character:	We are asking Great Britain for
access to her markets. Great Britain says
[Mr. Stevens.!
"All,right, we will remove our embargo, but in order to do that we have to satisfy our breeders in England, who object to your cattle coming in here, who say your cattle have to be slaughtered at the port of entry. Let -us have something to give to our people. Let us have a political consideration: you lower your quarantine regulations and give us favourable access for our breeding stock into your market." Now that is a political consideration. Let us look at it from another angle. How could there be a party political consideration in this matter? How could anyone with the widest stretch of imagination interject into it a party or local political consideration? You cannot do it and read this letter as being from a sane person; and no one will question the sanity of the letter. Now, I read further:
And I feel that where we have to undertake the responsibility of carrying out any regulations that are made, we should also have a decided influence in the planning of these regulations.
There is nothing unreasonable about that. Now I come to the next clause, and this the minister says is awful, it is terrible. Any official who would use the words I am about to read should, according to the minister's idea, - be summarily dismissed, should not be retained in the sendee for a minute, even though he is, as this official was recognized to be, a leader in his profession, a man of high standing and integrity and so regarded in other countries. Furthermore he was appointed not by his political adversaries, but by the Laurier government in 1896. I merely interject that to show that there was not, as a matter of fact, any party consideration at all. Dr. Torrance says-and I would like the committee to note this:
Should political pressure force me to accept a shortened period of quarantine-
Now, let me pause there. At no period in this letter does Dr. Torrance-


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: May I ask
the hon. gentleman a question?-I regret that I was not in when he commenced his argument. Is that letter written to the Veterinary Director General of the United States with reference to a discussion between the Canadian and the British governments?


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is a letter written
to Dr. Mohler. Let me continue this point. Keep in mind that the charge is the use of this word "political," and keep in mind also that the subject of the discussion was the possible demand for the lowering of the quarantine regulations in Canada so far as admitting British cattle was concerned and its immediate effect upon our relations with

Supply-Agriculture
the United States in the interchange of that traffic. He goes on to say:
Should political pressure force me to accept a shortened period of quarantine for imports from the British Isles, I have been wondering what would be the attitude of your bureau in regard to the matter.
Am I not justified in saying that Dr. Torrance was strictly adhering to a reasoned and proper attitude-that should friendly political relations bring so much pressure upon this government as to override the considered scientific opinions of him and his associates, what effect would that have upon the attitude of the government toward the traffic between Canada and the United States? Is that not clear? Could Dr. Torrance have put the matter more moderately or inoffensively?
I submit that he could not; I submit that he did it in the most reasonable and gentlemanly manner possible. The minister may analyse this letter from now until doomsday and he will not get out of it the slightest indication of offence or insult to him-not the slightest. If he has taken it out, it exists in his own imagination; certainly it does not exist in the letter. We asked the minister to be good enough to read Dr. Mohler's reply, but he refuses to do so.


William Richard Motherwell: I have not a copy of it here.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have a copy of it
under my hand, and I will read it, because it indicates again the reasonableness, the soundness of the correspondence on the part of Dr. Torrance. This letter is headed:
United States Department of Agriculture. Bureau of Animal Industry, Washington, D.C. Address reply to "Chief of Bureau of Animal Industry."
It is dated the 31st of October, 1922-and that point ought to be borne in mind; all this correspondence was in October, 1922. It is addressed to Dr. Torrance, Veterinary Director General, Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, and reads:
Dear Doctor Torrance:
I have read your letter of October 28th and am deeply interested in any action you might be forced to take which would weaken the protection of Canada against invasions of foot and mouth disease and other foreign animal plagues.
Dr. Tolmie presented the case truthfully when he stated to the British commission that he did not consider the cases of Canada and Great Britain parallel, and pointed out the frequent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease that have occurred in Great Britain in recent years. We in America know that the conditions are much more favourable in Great Britain for controlling outbreaks of highly contagious diseases than in most sections of Canada and the United States. I believe it would be impossible to eradicate foot-and-mouth disease on our great plains if it once got a good start.
I would be very sorry to see you forced to shorten the time you now hold imported animals at your quarantine
stations as I am of the opinion that thirty days quarantine gives only a reasonable margin of safety. Usually we would expect symptoms of foot and mouth disease to appear within a week or ten days after natural exposure, but in some instances in our last outbreak the symptoms did not appear so soon.
I know your feelings in the matter and appreciate the position in which you are placed. Of course the bureau would regret to see a modification of your quarantine reducing the time of detention. If you are finally obliged to make such a change, it will be necessary for the bureau to alter its import regulations so as to prohibit importations from Canada until sufficient time has elapsed to know certainly that the animals to be imported are not infected. I think that, considering the little inconvenience from holding animals in quarantine for so short a time as you now hold them, and the possible results to the Canadian live stock industry from shortening the quarantine period, it would be a mistake for the British commission to insist on any change in your quarantine regulations at this time.
Sincerely yours,
J. R. Mohler,
Chief of Bureau.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Is that letter marked confidential, too, or private?


Henry Herbert Stevens: This letter is not marked confidential as far as my copy goes.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is the answer to the
confidential letter?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the answer to
the confidential letter written by Dr. Torrance to Dr. Mohler, October 28, 1922. Now,
I ask the committee to get this point clearly: All this correspondence indicates two things ___first, the anxiety on the part of the Canadian and United States Health of Animals officials as to the possible result of lowering the quarantine period in Canada; secondly, the imperative necessity on the part of the American bureau to increase their restrictions against Canada should this country take that step. Follow me back and I will repeat what I said a moment ago in regard to the other letter. Dr. Torrance in his turn expressed his anxiety that the pressure from Great Britain, other than scientific, would be such that it might be necessary for Canada to do this, and therefore he wrote this letter to find out what the effect would be. He was forced to do it in order that when the time came he would be in possession of the whole information. I say that Dr. Torrance ought to be complimented for his foresight, for his moderation, and for the manner in which he handled this very difficult problem. Instead of that, what occurred? The minister called Dr. Torrance into his office one day, and without notice, without any warning, without any charge, without time to give any answer, told	Dr. Torrance, within a few
moments after he had entered his office, to give him his resignation or take his discharge.
Supply-Agriculture

If he resigned he would be entitled under the Calder Act to his retiring allowance of about 81,500 a year. If he did not resign on the spot without leaving the office he would be dismissed in his sixty-fourth year and would get no retiring allowance. That was the choice before Dr. Torrance. I ask the committee to consider that. No charges, no opportunity to explain, no opportunity to answer, no impartial tribunal-nothing of that kind at all.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: How long was it after the correspondence may I ask?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That occurred about a
year after. I have the exact information here somewhere.


William Richard Motherwell: July of the following year.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In July following the
correspondence in October-July 7th. Now . picture to yourselves the position Dr. Torrance was in after having given seventeen years of his life and the very best period of his life-because when Dr. Torrance was engaged in 1906 he was at the top of his profession and remained so during that period -to the service of this country. Dr. Torrance at the age of sixty-four is not the Dr. Torrance, with his prospects, at the age of forty-seven or forty-six as the case may be when he entered the service. He was faced with losing his $1,500 of retiring allowance and he did not at that moment sign the resignation. He asked for twenty-four hours. Is that unreasonable?-I ask this committee. Mr. Chairman, during your long parliamentary experience have you ever seen a case parallel with this? Would the minister himself attempt to justify an alternative of that kind placed before an official of this standing and upon the flimsy basis which I have presented to the committee? Not only that. Such conduct was utterly uncalled for, not only from the standpoint of equity, but from the standpoint of common decency from man to man which ought to be accorded to the most irresponsible individual. Not only that, but there was an utter disregard of the general provisions of the Civil Service Act and the whole spirit of that legislation. I know of many such cases and we purpose as time goes on to bring a few more of them before the House.
I have one in mind that a minister sitting near the Minister of Agriculture perpetrated which does not show so wanton a disregard of legislation as this, perhaps, but is also an indication of the way in which the spirit [Mr. Kle\ena.)
of this legislation is not only disregarded but flagrantly and impudently violated by this government. I feel pretty warm about this. I have a high regard for Dr. Torrance. There was no political significance in Dr. Torrance's services to this or preceding governments-none whatever. He was appointed in 1906 under the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He continued down through the years until last year and was a public servant of the highest standing-of the highest standing in his profession-and highly respected not only by officials of the Canadian government but by those governments with which he had to deal. "Oh," the minister says, "I know what was in the back of his head, I saw through his head. I saw a picture there in the back of his head." What was this thing, this sinister and terrible thing, he saw in the back of his head? You would think Dr. Torrance was contemplating murder. You would think my hon. friend (Mr. Motherwell) saw or divined that this civil official was about to rob the treasury or run off with the minister and his office, or something of that kind. What was in the back of his head? This: Dr. Torrance said that if they were going to discuss again in Great Britain the question of quarantine regulations regarding live stock, the, head of the live ^ stock branch ought to be at the discussion. Hon. gentlemen may pause and consider that for a moment. Was that a sin, was that a crime? Supposing we were going to discuss some highly technical legal matter affecting the Justice department would you send out to Alberta and get Duncan Marshall, or would you send for the Deputy Minister of Justice? The Deputy Minister of Agriculture went. There was no objection to that; no objection to Duncan Marshall; no objection to an officer other than the deputy minister if he wanted to go for a little trip. But should not the Director of the Health of Animals branch have gone, not only as a matter of course but as a matter of necessity? If he is to properly administer this branch, if his professional services are of any value to the country, then surely he ought to have been there when the regulations in which he was to have a part in framing were under discussion. Let me refer to this letter. This is the matter which the minister had in the back of his head:
I am strongly of the opinion-
This is what was reflected from Dr. Torrance.
-that quarantine relations should be based upon scientific knowledge-

Supply-Agriculture
Did Duncan Marshall have that scientific knowledge? I think the answer is so obvious that the only possible escape of the minister is to frankly admit that in a moment of impetuosity and temper, unbecoming to his age and experience, he gave way to a little jealousy in regard to this official, exercised his power and ordered his dismissal. Dr. Torrance did not have -to resign under those circumstances. I do not think this government had the power to demand his resignation, but Dr. Torrance was faced with this proposition; he did not have time to take chances as to whether legally or not he could resist this demand and await a dismissal and investigation. He did not know that. He saw $1,500 of pension being ruthlessly taken away from him-"Resign or be dismissed and you lose your pension." These were the words of the minister. If you can imagine, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, a more unjust and iniquitous piece of work than that, I would like to know it.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: The hon. gentleman will remember that in 1911 his friends dismissed a large number of employees.


William Richard Motherwell: Perhaps we will
have to go back to the beginning. I did not want to spend too much time on this matter. I thought perhaps we could get through this and make some progress. The hon. member, I presume, has made the best case he is capable of making for the gentleman whose case is under consideration. Let me read from Dr. Torrance's letter to Dr. Mohler which would have covered the entire case he was asked to cover. I requested Dr. Torrance to write a friendly letter to Dr. Mohler asking what effect the change on the quarantine regulations would have on our relations with the United States. Here is the paragraph that covers that:
It is quite possible, however, that a suggestion may be made that we should modify our quarantine so as to reduce the time of detention, and it is with regard to this possible demand that I would like to have confidentially your opinion as it affects the relations between the bureau and the Health of Animals branch. We have always felt that we were under agreement not to alter our quarantine regulations without previously notifying you of our intention, and we have received from you the same consideration.
In order to comply with the usual international courtesies of giving notification, I asked Dr. Torrance to -write Dr. Mohler confidentially, stating that there was a possibility of this being done and what would be .the possible effect upon our relations if it were done. That is all I asked him to do. I know what I asked him to do and what was in my mind. When my colleagues went over to Great Britain I asked them to inform me if there was
any change in the quarantine relations that might possibly affect our relations with the United States, and I also intimated that, from the standpoint of international policy, there should be some communication of a confidential nature from myself or some one of my department to the staff at Washington tentatively, telling them what might be done. Instead of quitting at that, here is the kind of letter he writes, and deliberately hands it to me afterwards as if it were all right. That shows the disposition and temperament of the party. He writes a dissertation on political pressure, and if he is "forced" to do this, and so on. The reply is to this effect: "If you are forced or if you are compelled," shewing that Dr. Mohler got the impression that there was some sort of wrong pressure being exercised on this side; if Dr. Torrance had to yield to them such and such would ensue in regard to the regulations. Keep that in mind, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, while we are discussing this.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister think, if Dr. Torrance had the slighest notion in his head that he meant by his words-"political pressure" what the hon. minister had suggested, he would have gone immediately to the minister?


William Richard Motherwell: You would scarcely think that?


Arthur Meighen: Or do you think any mar with brains would think that?


William Richard Motherwell: That is why I
hesitated for six months, to see what kind of man he was. One has to believe his own senses in the matter, and come to his own conclusions. Here is the paragraph that was supposed to be a complete fulfilment of my instructions to Dr. Torrance to write a diplomatic letter that would comply with the proper international courtesies that should be observed between one country and another considering the pleasant relations we had had with the United States on this question; and I should say he gave a political dissertation on the political pressure exercised by this government or the British government to bring about something he objected to strongly. I do not want any officer of that nature around me, and I exercised my right to say so.


Mr. BRETHEN:: What reply did Dr.
Mohler give?


William Richard Motherwell: He could only give one reply. The reply was put in his mouth practically. What would you do if some political pressure was brought upon Canada,
Supply-Agriculture

of some sort to compel us to do this? He could only say one thing:	"We would cancel
our regulations under which we are working with you." It was put in his mouth by Dr. Torrance.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Did the minister suggest to Dr. Torrance that the letter to Dr. Mohler be a confidential letter.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, it was marked that way, and this is the way it is being
treated as confidential.


Mr. SHAW:: The minister tells us he got a copy of the letter within a week or so after it had been sent. Did he complain to Dr. Torrance at that time about the contents of the letter?


William Richard Motherwell: No, I did not read the letter at the time he forwarded it to me. In fact, I do not think I read it for some little time, if I remember rightly; and I think he sent it through the mail shortly after that. The House was in session for five months. Further, the period between October and July, was a reasonable length of time to find out if that was the general way in which Dr. Torrance administered the department he presided over. After the session closed in July, I was cleaning up affairs of one kind and another that had been hanging over, before going West and this was taken care of at that time. If the committee desires to know the corroborative facts and reports that came to my ears from many sources to substantiate the very conduct that is outlined in this letter I will give it to the committee, but I do it with some reluctance. It is hardly fair to Dr. Torrance, and on the other hand it is hardly fair to me. If I am to be blamed for this act alone of Dr. Torrance,'and for delayed action on my part for six or eight months without some valid reason, I may say there was a valid reason. I wanted to give him a show. Dr. Torrance and I were personally friendly. I think he treated the department in what he thought was the right way, but he was constantly committing blunders of this nature and of a similar nature. I am prepared to read a memorandum handed to my deputy, compiled by a member of the staff of the department who should know, with respect to Dr. Torrance's administration of the department in many respects. There is nothing confidential about it, but it is not fair to Dr. Torrance.


Arthur Meighen: Go on with it.


Robert James Manion: Was the deputy requested to give this information, or did he give it voluntarily?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Probably it was " voluntary " on request.


William Richard Motherwell: It just shows how foreign it was to my mind to do what my hon. friend has suggested. I did not ask my deputy to give it to me; I did not ask him to prepare it, and I do not think he asked that it be prepared. But it was prepared by another member of the department and handed to him to give to me.


Arthur Meighen: Who was he?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know for sure.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister be good enough to read this memorandum from somebody he does not know?


William Richard Motherwell: I got it from my deputy, and that was sufficient evidence to me that it was worth while handing it to me.


Arthur Meighen: The person who takes
the responsibility, the minister does not know. I think it would be interesting to have it read. I think it would be a curiosity.


Mr. DOUCET:: Before the minister reads that document, does the deputy minister take the responsibility for it?


William Richard Motherwell: I understand, no.


Arthur Meighen: Does anybody take the responsibility for it?


William Richard Motherwell: For some of it, I will.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister read it now and tell us what parts he will take the responsibility for and what parts nobody will?


William Richard Motherwell: The first one I will read but will not take the responsibility for.


Arthur Meighen: Read it all.


William Richard Motherwell: The whole file?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: It is as follows:
Some reasons why	could have been
asked to resign:-
He used the frank of the deputy minister for his personal mail and the personal mail of his family. Every Monday morning he brought his mail to the office and handed it to the messenger to be franked. This practice went on for a considerable time and the Postmaster General wrote to him asking him to discontinue ;it. He did not discontinue it and kept up this practice and the Postmaster General had to write him the second time before he discontinued it.
I do not know anything about that.


Arthur Meighen: Nobody responsible for that?

Supply-Agriculture


William Richard Motherwell: No, but it can
easily be found out. I did not go to the Postmaster General to find out.


Arthur Meighen: If the minister thinks
this may have occurred a year after the dismissal, it may be well to find out.


William Richard Motherwell: This is one before his dismissal and I believe it is true:
He had the power to issue scrips for liquor and he would issue scrips and send the messenger to the vendors to buy the bottle and have the messenger deliver it to certain members of parliament.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister take responsibility for that?


William Richard Motherwell: I believe it is true.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister take responsibility for it?


William Richard Motherwell: No, but I believe it is true.


Arthur Meighen: But he will not be responsible for it?


William Richard Motherwell: No; you will have to substantiate it by sworn testimony.


Robert James Manion: I may say, as a physician, if he had the right to issue prescriptions to patients that he was committing no offence in any case if he knew the members required it, and knew that they were ill.


William Richard Motherwell: They have certain privileges, I suppose, that other people do not enjoy, but I was not aware that that was one of them.


Arthur Meighen: No privileges more than anybody else.


William Richard Motherwell: He used to spend his vacations down the Saguenay and his family and son-in-law generally accompanied him. After being at the summer resort for three weeks he expressed all his belongings from the summer resort back to the branch collect and the department paid for it. During the war his son was overseas and he used to call his son and sign his name and his son would cable back and sign his name and all the cablegrams each way were charged to the department.
A site was picked out at Hull for a research station and could have been bought at a low figure, but his son-in-law got an option on this property and it is rumoured that he got quite a rake-off for selling it. The same thing applied to the quarantine station at Quebec.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister take
responsibility for that?


William Richard Motherwell: No.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister take
responsibility for one line of it?


William Richard Motherwell: Where you have
all those reports coming from a fairly responsible authority in the same department and substantiating this letter-


Arthur Meighen: Who is the authority? '


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know
whether I know the name of the party or not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister ask his deputy who wrote that memorandum?


William Richard Motherwell: My deputy just
told me that it was given to him confidentially. There is just one way of getting at this. The hon. gentleman is pressing me for corroborative evidence that I_ acted properly in connection with this letter. The letter to me was sufficient, but I wanted time to elapse just to see whether it was a letter he wrote on the spur of the moment without knowing the importance of it. I did wait and I have this. This is not sufficient in itself, but it is corroborative; it is very important. Before you could substantiate it, you would have to set the Enquiries' Act in motion or something of that nature in order to get sworn testimony regarding this.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the date of the memorandum?


William Richard Motherwell: There is no date
on it, but it was not very long ago.


Arthur Meighen: Was it after the dismissal the minister got it or before?


William Richard Motherwell: After the dismissal I received the written memorandum, certainly, but I knew a number of the complaints before. Reports were coming to me frequently.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: Hon. gentlemen
are evidencing by their corn and their appropriate bushel how they would act. Several of those reports came to me, last session, two or three months before the dismissal took place.


Arthur Meighen: From whom?


William Richard Motherwell: From many sources, even people I met on the street.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: Wait until I read
the memorandum and I will come to the ones I have reference to.


Arthur Meighen: The minister says that
he made the dismissal on the strength of the letter he read and on the strength of certain facts contained in the memorandum, which memorandum has the authority of nobody, and which memorandum the minister never saw until after the dismissal took place.
Supply-Agriculture


William Richard Motherwell: But I had some of the information before. It had to be compiled.


Arthur Meighen: It was just on the street, in the air.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, you even
got it from individuals on the street.


Arthur Meighen: From whom?


William Richard Motherwell: Wait until I come to that:	i
In 1917 the deputy minister sent him. . .	.
That is Dr. Torrance.
.	.	. .West to meet the Western Canada Live Stock
Union to make arrangements for the eradication of mange and he attended one meeting staying for about fifteen minutes and left for the golf links and he was never seen at any of the meetings after. As a result, nothing was done regarding the eradication of mange at that time. About six months later the deputy minister and Dr. Hilton had to go West to Calgary to attend a meeting to arrange for the eradication of mange which should have been- done six months previous if the gentleman in question had attended to his business and stayed away from the golf links. When Dr. Grisdale and Dr. Hilton arrived in Calgary to attend this meeting the first question that was thrown at them was " Where is the man with the golf sticks " and this name stuck to him all the time he was in the department.
He also furnished inside information to the members of parliament regarding the cut in the Estimates before they were published which caused the minister considerable trouble.
Mr .STEVENS: Will the minister at that point take responsibility for that statement?


William Richard Motherwell: I	got information
a year ago. I do not know whether it was from members, but judging from the questions asked by members, it could have been got in no other way than through Dr. Torrance's office. Only he and my deputy knew it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Was the memorandum
prepared by Dr. Hilton, the gentleman who was kept in the position?


William Richard Motherwell: No, and I am informed, not by any official of the Health of Animals Branch.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does the minister recollect yet who prepared it?


William Richard Motherwell: I think I know. I am not sure, however. It was given to Dr. Grisdale confidentially by a member of the staff of the Department of Agriculture.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister say
this? Would he consider it fair, reasonable and just to read a memorandum without presenting the person's name, using it as corroborative evidence to deprive a prominent

official of his position, without giving that, official a single moment even to see that memorandum or reply to it?


William Richard Motherwell: Did I not say at
the very beginning that, out of deference to Dr. Torrance, it was not fair?


Arthur Meighen: The minister said he
would take responsibility for it.


William Richard Motherwell: For one or two
of the items.


Arthur Meighen: He has taken the responsibility for none. He says there is someone responsible for the rest, and he will not say who it is. Can the minister conceive of more dishonourable conduct than what he is exhibiting in this House at this time?


William Richard Motherwell: What would my
hon. friends have said if I had not read it? My hon. friends pressed me for further information and I gave it.


Arthur Meighen: The moment the minister read a line of it he was bound to give the authority, and I demand that authority now in behalf of common justice.


William Richard Motherwell: If I get permission from my deputy I will give it.


Arthur Meighen: The deputy is there;
ask him.


William Richard Motherwell: The whole correspondence with Dr. Mohler was confidential and I so informed hon. gentlemen; but because the committee demanded it I gave it. It seems to me that the whole procedure is manifestly unfair to Dr. Torrance, and hon. members on the other side of the House were warned that if the matter were brought up in parliament evidence would be forthcoming that would be none too creditable to this gentlemen. I had no desire to give any evidence of the kind to the committee, because I wanted to save Dr. Torrance this unpleasantness.


Arthur Meighen: What is the evidence?
What is the nature of this evidence which the minister describes as being "none too creditable" to Dr. Torrance?


William Richard Motherwell: Here is sufficient
evidence for any reasonable person.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister abandon all the other rubbish that we have been hearing, about no one taking any responsibility, and stick to the letter?


William Richard Motherwell: I can stick to the letter, yes.

Supply-Agriculture


Arthur Meighen: And will the minister
go further and say that he has no other reasons for Dr. Torrance's dismissal?


William Richard Motherwell: No, I will say
nothing of the kind.


Arthur Meighen: Well,	if the minister
has other reasons, what is the nature of the evidence?


William Richard Motherwell: I have said, I
have evidence which, while I would not be prepared to swear to it in a court of law, some of it, if not all, I nevertheless believe very largely.


Arthur Meighen: I should like to know
what other reason the minister has besides that letter.


William Richard Motherwell: There is sufficient
reason.


Arthur Meighen: Will he submit any
other evidence to the committee?


William Richard Motherwell: I did not want
to read the letter, but my right hon. friend himsdlf insisted upon its being produced.


Arthur Meighen: But what the minister
has just read is not evidence. The minister could have had a clerk write it, and he knows it. He refuses to give the name of any authority for scandalous and defamatory statements made against a public servant; and any one who will quote such statements and refuse to give the authority for them, when urged to do so, is not fi^ to be a Minister of the Crown.


William Richard Motherwell: All that is required is to bring the matter before a committee of the House and! we shall see whether we can prove it or not.


Arthur Meighen: Prove what? Is the
minister going to appoint a committee to investigate something that has been said by no one, or by some one whose name we do not know?


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
knew what the matter was.


Arthur Meighen: The minister said he
would take responsibility for a part of the allegations, while some one else would be responsible for the rest.


William Richard Motherwell: No; I did not say that.


Arthur Meighen: But now apparently he
will not accept responsibility for a line of it; and although he will hold no one else responsible for it he retains, and gives ex-142	[DOT]
pression to, a doubt to the injury of Dr. Torrance.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
insisted upon my reading it.


Arthur Meighen: The moment the minister reads a line of it he is bound to give the authority.


William Richard Motherwell: Let me say this,
Mr. Chairman, that if we had observed the proprieties in this matter, if hon. gentlemen had not insisted so strongly on the thing being read, these confidential communications should not have been made public at all.


Arthur Meighen: That is nonsense. The
letter is marked "confidential" at the minister's request, but it is a matter of public business and it is absolutely proper that it should be brought to the attention of the committee. We are prepared to discuss the dismissal of Dr. Torrance on the basis of that letter; but it is highly improper for the minister to introduce allegations and repudiate all responsibility for them.


William Richard Motherwell: I did not say anything of the kind.


Arthur Meighen: Why does the minister
not give us the authority if there is one?


William Richard Motherwell: I stated that I
would accept responsibility for one particular item.


Arthur Meighen: We have not got it yet; what is it?


William Richard Motherwell: My right hon.
friend's state of mind is something like what it was yesterday in regard to his dates; he does not remember.
This man had power to issue scrips for liquor, and he would issue them and send messengers to buy a bottle and have them deliver it to certain members of parliament. I will assume responsibility for that statement, for I inquired into the allegation and I believe it to be true.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Who were the members
of parliament?


William Richard Motherwell: And in view of that fact I hold that I was justified in asking for his dismissal.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister pretend that even if that were true it constitutes an offence against any law or regulation?


William Richard Motherwell: II have already
asked my right hon. friend to keep his chair warm.


Arthur Meighen: I will keep the minister warm to-day, I can assure him.

Supply-Agriculture


William Richard Motherwell: Don't get fussed up; I have a good case. Let me tell my right hon. friend that if any of my officers do the same thing they will meet with a same fate, and after all, what was that fate, if you like to describe it thus? Two months' salary and four months' leave of absence with pay; and before the expiration of that time he had a second job. Nothing was done in any way to prejudice him.


Arthur Meighen: Except his dismissal.


William Richard Motherwell: And, if you ask
me, I am sure that if Dr. Torrance's feelings were consulted in this matter he would request to be saved from his friends.


Arthur Meighen: I think he would, seeing that the minister has included himself among his friends.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not see the
point. However, let me continue with the letter. Evidently, Mr. Chairman, hon. gentlemen do not like the corroborative evidence.


James Dew Chaplin: We have not heard it yet.


Arthur Meighen: Who does not?


William Richard Motherwell: Let us get back to the document itself. I say with all respect-that I have never seen an officer in any department, and certainly have never had anything to do with one, who would write a letter of that character, especially to a foreign government in whose files it would be kept. There is no question that all the members of the staff would know about it. And as a matter of fact, word came back to us that they were astonished at Washington that we should keep in our employ a man who would write such a letter.


Arthur Meighen: Who said that? Will the minister tell us who is responsible for the statement that the officials in Washington had expressed astonishment at the fact that, as he puts it we should have kept such a man in our employ?


William Richard Motherwell: It came through
Dr. Mohler.


Arthur Meighen: Very well; but who said it?


William Richard Motherwell: I understand it
came from Dr. Mohler.


Arthur Meighen: Did Dr. Mohler say that he was astonished?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister take
the responsibility for saying that Dr. Mohler so stated?


William Richard Motherwell: I could not do that as he did not tell me.


Arthur Meighen: It would be an affront
to common sense to suggest anything of the kind.


William Richard Motherwell: In fact, I expressed my own astonishment and my astonishment was given visibility by my interview with Dr. Torrance on the subject. My hon. friend forgets apparently that Dr. Torrance writes this:
If political considerations are to be introduced into the consideration of the question of quarantine, etc.
What can that mean-" if political considerations are to be introduced?" Obviously it is a complaint against some government or the department of some government; there is no question about that. All that fine-spun theorising on the part of my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) is the sort of argument of which only a lawyer could be capable; only a lawyer could so split hairs and pare cheese-


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is an accusation I cannot allow to pass unchallenged, Mr. Chairman.


William Richard Motherwell: It was not intended as an accusation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister charged me-


William Richard Motherwell: I never charged you with anything. I simply say that I defy any hon. member over there, or for that matter anywhere else in the House, who has not a legal mind, to split hairs the way the hon. gentleman has done.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not a lawyer.


William Richard Motherwell: That being the
case, then, I have to compliment the hori. gentleman, for he certainly betrays a lawyer's mind in his aptitude for analysis and his ability to twist things and make them appear what they are not. Now, let me quote again the sentence to which I was calling the attention of my right hon. friend :
If political considerations are to be introduced into the consideration of the question of quarantine, etc.
I ask hon. members again, what can that possibly mean?	[DOT]


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the minister infer
from that sentence any suggestion that Dr. Torrance is insinuating a play of party politics?

Supply-Agriculture


William Richard Motherwell: If that is not his meaning, what then is it?


Arthur Meighen: How in the name of
common sense could party politics have anything to do with the statement as quoted by the minister? *


William Richard Motherwell: That is precisely
what I wanted to understand from Dr. Torrance; I wanted to know why he introduced politics into the matter.


Arthur Meighen: Surely the minister can perceive the true significance of the sentence.


William Richard Motherwell: The minister cannot interpret the sentence as my right hon friend does; the minister must be very dense.


Arthur Meighen: I think he is.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, hon. gentlemen will have to decide just where the density is.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister want to suggest that political pressure does not exist all the time, quite properly, between this country and Great Britain and every other country in the world? And does not political pressure in that connection always mean-unless any one wishes to import party into the matter-that there exist certain necessities and exigencies of government because of the demands of the people? Could anything be more manifest than that? And that is precisely what Dr. Torrance had in mind. Nothing else makes common sense; and while the minister may possibly be unable to conceive of a letter written in terms of common sense, I do not know why he should attribute such a state of mind to any of the officials of the department. The importation of the party sense into the meaning of the adjective in this case is utterly absurd and ridiculous, and the interpretation which the minister puts upon the sentence is altogether false; and the fact that the doctor sent the letter at once to the minister would show that if nothing else would.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend is
at liberty to put any construction he likes upon it.


Arthur Meighen: Dr. Torrance never
thought of putting any construction on it.


William Richard Motherwell: What the doctor
said-


Arthur Meighen: I wonder who put that in his head.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Will the minister tell us
what he said?
142i


William Richard Motherwell: He wrote:
If political considerations are to be introduced into the consideration of the question of quarantine, it places the scientific advisers of the respective governments in a very anomalous position, and I feel that where we have to undertake the responsibility of carrying out any regulations that are made we should also have a decided influence in the planning of these regulations.
That was a straight intimation to me, who knew the circumstances; that it was penned because he did not have an opportunity of going over with the experts.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Did the minister charge
Dr. Torrance with the political partisanship that has just been referred to?


William Richard Motherwell: Dr. Torrance was
a political partisan of the first water.


Leon Johnson Ladner: That is not my question.
Did the minister discuss that aspect of the question with him?


William Richard Motherwell: No I do not think I did.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Did the minister have a
discussion with him at the time of his resignation?


William Richard Motherwell: That was the only discussion I had with him.


Leon Johnson Ladner: When was that?


William Richard Motherwell: About the first
week in July.	.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The 7th of July?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. [DOT]


Leon Johnson Ladner: Did the minister have this letter from Dr. Mohler in reply of the 3rd November, 1922?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know
whether I had or not, I have not the letter here. The 3rd November is a month afterwards. It would be about that, the reply came inside a month.


Leon Johnson Ladner: It is five days after.


William Richard Motherwell: That is inside a
month.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Has the minister that
letter?


William Richard Motherwell: Not here.


Leon Johnson Ladner: May I read a copy?


William Richard Motherwell: Do you mean from Dr. Mohler? Certainly. It has been read once already.
Supply-Agriculture


Leon Johnson Ladner: Did not the minister five
days after, receive the letter of Dr. Mohler and a copy of Dr. Torrance's letter to him?


William Richard Motherwell: I think so. We have Dr. Mohler's letter on file. I have read it. But as he is not responsible to this House I did not bring a copy of his letter.


Leon Johnson Ladner: When did the minister
ever ask Dr. Torrance about this political partisanship?


William Richard Motherwell: I have no recollection of discussing it with him at all until the July following.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Did not the minister have the letters there?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, but the session came on in January. Departmental business accumulates and is attended to when the session is over.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Will the minister tell us
the nature of the conversation at the time Dr. Torrance was dismissed?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. I have already done so. I produced this letter and asked him to give an explanation of what he meant, who was bringing political pressure upon him to do so and so. His explanation was that it was not the Canadian government nor myself that he had in mind, but that the political pressure was being brought by the British government.


Arthur Meighen: Wasn't it?


William Richard Motherwell: No, but reverting
to my previous remarks, apparently for reasons that led Dr. Mohler to say:	If you
are compelled to do so and so in connection with these regulations, then we will have to do so and so. There is no question Dr. Mohler's answer was prompted by the nature of Dr. Torrance's letter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Has there been at any
time pressure from the British government to reduce the period of quarantine?


William Richard Motherwell: It has been discussed in connection with breeding cattle, but there has been nothing of what we usually term political pressure; there was a conference.


Arthur Meighen: What kind of pressure
would the minister call it?


William Richard Motherwell: Just simply friendly negotiations. When you use the term political pressure, it is always capable of being understood as party politics.
[Mr. Motherwell.!	.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Has the minister the
correspondence in that matter with the British government?


William Richard Motherwell: I understand from my deputy that the correspondence is in connection with the lifting of the embargo and is marked confidential.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister could not
lay it on the Table of the House?


William Richard Motherwell: We will look it
over. I think we took the file off last year and laid it on the Table with the Prime Minister's correspondence.


Leon Johnson Ladner: On July 7, when the conversation took place, did the minister demand Dr. Torrance's resignation?


William Richard Motherwell: After I showed
him this letter I told him I thought the time had come for us to dissolve partnership.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Did Dr. Torrance ask for an 'opporunity to consult his friends?


William Richard Motherwell: No and yes. He
asked for an opportunity to see Premier King.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Did he ask for time to reflect upon it?


William Richard Motherwell: He asked for an
opportunity to see Premier King. I told him that I had already seen the Premier.


Arthur Meighen: You would not let the
Doctor see the Premisr.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Did he ask for time to
consider his position?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not recall
whether he did or not. He asked for an opportunity to see the Premier.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Was the question of his
gratuity or allowance discussed?


William Richard Motherwell: Surely.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Were any arrangements
made?


William Richard Motherwell: We started right
there to discuss it when he asked for an opportunity to see Premier King. I said I had already seen the Premier and my colleagues with respect to the matter. When he found that out he began discussing the retiring regulations and the amounts.


Leon Johnson Ladner: What was the nature of
the discussion?

Supply-Agriculture


William Richard Motherwell: Along the lines of
his length of service and the computation based upon it. I remember there were a number of years when he was engaged intermittently in Winnipeg, and there was some doubt whether those would count.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Was any amount discussed?


William Richard Motherwell: We discussed the
length'of time, and my memory is that his total service, including the period in doubt, was seventeen years, and excluding this period it was ten or eleven years of continuous employment. He was employed by the government intermittently in Winnipeg as inspector for about six years. He raised the question if I did not think that under the circumstances, he was within a year of being entitled to retire-he was sixty-four years of age-and would I consider a proposal to count the whole period. I do not know what the terms were. I said I would put a favourable interpretation on his claim to be considered as having been in the service seventeen years. We did so. It went through the usual routine -I can never remember all the different rigamaroles that have to be gone through- but that computation was refused by the Auditor General.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The minister is now getting away from the point. I am referring to the discussion about the specific amount that Dr. Torrance would receive if he resigned instead of being dismissed. What was the amount mentioned to him?


William Richard Motherwell: I have told my
hon. friend.


Leon Johnson Ladner: No, you have not mentioned the amount at all.


William Richard Motherwell: I cannot remember all these things. I do remember the period of years because it came up two or three times later. It does not make any difference what the amount was. We put the most favourable construction on the time, and called it seventeen years.


Leon Johnson Ladner: That is not the point.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I am asking a specific
question respecting a specific conversation and a specific fact mentioned in that conversation. Did the minister represent to Dr. Torrance that if he resigned the specific amount would be $1,500?


William Richard Motherwell: If those in authority over me, that is the Auditor General or the Audit Board-my hon. friend must remember that I am not the court of last appeal-


Leon Johnson Ladner: That is not my question.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, we discussed
it, and so far as I am concerned, I was going to favourably consider the longest period that he suggested, seventeen years.


Leon Johnson Ladner: That is not an answer yet.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know
the amount. How could I remember it?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Did not the minister mention $1,500?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know today how the time is computed.


Leon Johnson Ladner: That is not the point. Did not the minister tell Dr. Torrance that if he resigned instead of being dismissed he would get an allowance of $1,500?


William Richard Motherwell: On the face of it that could not be so.


Leon Johnson Ladner: That is not the question.
Did the minister tell Dr. Torrance that he would get an allowance of $1,500.


William Richard Motherwell: No.


Leon Johnson Ladner: That is the answer.


William Richard Motherwell: How could I tell
him that? I did not tell him anything specific, because the matter was in doubt. But I did tell him he would get the most favourable consideration that I could give him, based upon the long period that he suggested- seventeen years. It went through the usual formula until it got to the Auditor General, and the Auditor General would not let the last six years count. Then he came back to me and we had negotiations with the Civil Service Commission. I had correspondence with Dr. Torrance; he wrote to me about it too, indicating that the amount that he was being allowed was less than he had anticipated. I wrote back and said I had recommended the amount that he wanted, but that the Auditor General would not let it go through. I presume that is one of the reasons the Auditor General is there-to check up anything that exceeds the exact regulations and to see that these things are subjected to the proper interpretation, which a great many of us cannot be expected always to have at our fingers' ends.


Robert James Manion: Before the clock strikes six, may I make a suggestion? There were a number of letters that the minister did not have on the file. I presume that this matter will go on this evening, and I suggest that he bring the remainder of the file with him.
C.N-R.-Branch Lines


William Richard Motherwell: The hon. gentleman means the letter from Dr. Mohler and the correspondence with Dr. Torrance? I shall be pleased to produce those.
Mr. MEIGHE'N: And particularly produce the evidence that Dr. Mohler expressed the opinion that we should not retain an official who would write that letter.


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, he would not put that on file.


Arthur Meighen: No, I do not think he
would put it on file or on his lips or anywhere else, and never did.


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, yes.


Arthur Meighen: It is merely a pipe dream on the part of the minister.


William Richard Motherwell: I will venture the guess that there was not an officer in Washington in the department concerned by whom this was not a subject of conversation, and just of the nature I have suggested.	.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS SECOND READINGS
Bill No. 105, respecting a patent of Thomas Williams Pritchard.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 106, respecting The General Animals Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 107, for the relief of Amy Selain Slater Therrien.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 108, for the relief of Harold Adrian Proctor-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 109, for the relief of Harry Charles Arthur.-Mr. Martell.
Bill No. 110, for the relief of Tony Bazar. -Mr. LeSueur.
Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Gordon Johnston Hutton.-Mr. Stewart (Hamilton).
Bill No. 112, for the relief of Douglas Carlyle Bell.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 113, for the relief of Elma Cath-eryne Caulfield.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 114, for the relief of Alice Bertha Boyce Baker.-Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 115, for the relief of John Lee Williamson.-Mr. Church.
[Mr. Manion.3



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 38, respecting the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company.-Mr. Humphrey.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee to consider Bill 31, respecting construction of a Canadian National Railway line between Grande Fresniere and Rinfret Junction.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.

Mr. GRAHAM:: Suggestions were made in committee by the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) and by the hon. member for St.. John (Mr. Baxter). The amended bill provides that the average mileage of each line and the cost per mile shall be stated. In one bill there was a suggestion that a fuller statement than we had proposed in the original bill as to expenditure and so on shall be provided and placed on the Table of the House each year. An amendment was proposed by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter) that the construction of the line should not begin if, after final estimates had been given by the engineers, they were of the opinion that the line would cost more than the amount stated in the bill. I think these were the three things.
On section 1-Power to construct and complete line described in schedule._


Henry Lumley Drayton: This is a branch
line connecting with the Huberdeau line.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Company may issue securities and Governor in Council may authorize guarantee thereof.'
Henry Lumley Drayton: We are not objecting to the line. It is a proper one to be built. But we will have to adhere to the principle we invoked last year, that the amount to be guaranteed to any Canadian National line shall be shown in the estimates, as has already been done in reference to past construction. The bill as it stands does not require that. I therefore, move that the following proviso, which gives the right to the

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
government to guarantee, shall be added to this section:
Provided the amount so to be guaranteed shall first be included in the Estimates and voted by parliament for that purpose.
This was thoroughly debated last session, and there is nothing new in it. Our position still is that parliament should be in control of all matters of capital expenditure year by year, and we contend that the control of parliament is lost if the bill is put through in this form. The other point that we think of great importance is that unless the amounts so to be spent are included in the annual budget of the railways submitted to the House there is no proper basis of comparison, and we are changing in a very vital manner our past practices, thus forbidding anything like a proper comparison. For those reasons, which were urged at great length last session, I move this amendment.


George Perry Graham: This matter, as my hon.
friend says, was very thoroughly discussed last year and parliament decided that the three-year programme, as we have outlined it, is the more practical way of constructs ing these lines. There is a precedent in the way, not of a guarantee, but of a straight vote of cash, in which the item did not appear at all at any time in the Estimates. That is the grant to highways. There are many other statutory payments as regards which the items appear in the Estimates only as a matter of record and guidance noted as "paid by statute." and are not voted year after year.


Arthur Meighen: What are those?


George Perry Graham: Technical Education,
Employment Service of Canada, Aid to Agriculture and the Highways Grant did not appear in the Estimates at any time. I speak having some knowledge because the highways were in the same department over which I am now presiding, and I know the reasons which actuated the government then in not putting those items into the Estimates. If those items were placed in the regular Estimates each year, they would be confined to a certain expenditure. The amount to be expended each year on highways depended altogether upon the amount that the provinces to which this grant was given would expend; but nevertheless, this expenditure was, to a certain extent, under the control of the Department of Railways and Canals, because no money could be paid out of the consolidated revenue of Canada except on the report of the engineers of the Department of Railways and Canals and the approval of the plans and of the construction as well. It was practical to
do this in that way, although it was somewhat of a departure. This is practical, and I submit that even if there were no precedent, it is time that we had one. Take the construction of branch lines scattered throughout the Dominion of Canada. If you have a vote each year, there is a constant fear of interference with construction, because each year the estimates have to be voted. To-day we find ourselves asking for authority to construct these lines, but they cannot be commenced before these bills pass through this House, go through the Senate and are signed by the Governor General and approved. If there were estimates, the case would be just the same. The estimates are not before the House yet, and we would be dragging along with our estimates until June or, perhaps, later. In this way, while no control is taken away from parliament, because provision is made in the bill that every expenditure and proposed expenditure must be placed on the table of the House each year for discussion by parliament, action can be taken on this construction each year. But there is this great advantage, that construction is continuous until the expiration of the act. Next year, say during the winter, on account of this act being in force for three years, the companies who have charge of this construction can get out their ties without any fear of having their railway construction stopped on account of the estimates. They can proceed with their construction on the very first day that the season of construction opens. Consequently, before harvest Itime comes;, when so many men are wanted, particularly in the West, 'they will have a great deal of construction done. I will give a concrete example. In 1920, if I remember correctly, one-half approximately of the branch lines that we are now asking for power to complete were started under an estimate. Had there been a three-year programme, one-half of *he lines which we are now asking for power to construct, would have been constructed and the trains running over them; but no estimate was asked for in a later year and the construction stopped. The only practical way to work out this construction is on the basis of a three-year programme, with full particulars of everything done and proposed to be done to be laid on the table each year for the consideration of members.


Arthur Meighen: I have heard the minister's argument on this point several times, and I have no doubt that he has heard me express my contentions several times. Nevertheless, I purpose repeating them, because, needless to say, I have not in the slightest
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

degree altered my view, and it becomes more and more firm every time I hear the minister express his views. The minister says: The reason we do not want to come to parliament for this appropriation each year is, first, that there are precedents in respect of other legislation where a several years' programme was provided and where the money did not require to be voted to be spent each year. He cites some at my request. I will deal with this argument first. There is no precedent in connection with the National Railways. From the very commencement of that enterprise, every dollar from the beginning to the end of the year each year was voted' by parliament, whether it was to be raised by way of specific loan to the enterprise or by way of guarantee, and it is of some importance that the books of this country present a sequence; that we do not keep turning and twisting our method of bookkeeping and thereby confusing the whole electorate and taxpayers of Canada. This is what we are doing in more spheres than one now. But there is no precedent, not only in the National Railways, but in anything else, save based on a definite principle, and that principle sticks out from every case cited by the minister. What were the cases he mentioned? He mentioned the Technical Education Act, the Agricultural Instruction Act, the Employment Service of Canada and the Highways Act. Those were the four. I do not think there are any more. The minister knows just as well as I the great difference in that class of cases from the ordinary case. What is the difference? Why, there we were passing legislation for co-operative work with other governments. The other governments had to have, the basis of a statutory enactment. They had to know whether they would enter into this construction extended over a period of years with the government of Canada. They wanted to know what they could depend upon. This was, in a word, not something wholly within the compass of this parliament; it was something that depended upon the will of another body over which we had no control at all, which was not our creation, a distinct and separate government. That applies to the whole of them. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) will remember all this because he was in the government then.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have just come in and
I did not catch the first part of my right hon. friend's remarks.


Arthur Meighen: I am calling attention to the distinction of the cases where we have

passed legislation providing for statutory annual payment up to a definite maximum each year, without the necessity of coming every year to parliament for a vote. The cases cited by the minister were Technical Education, Agricultural Instruction, Highways and Employment Service. Each and every one of them was a case in which there was cooperation with other governments who contributed their share. I know of no other case.
The minister said that we are going to establish a precedent now if we never had one before. I submit that in the first place this utterly destroys the sequence of our bookkeeping; and if the minister is going to take this course, then for goodness' sake let him put a curb on the tongue of his Prime Minister or some of the other ministers, maybe his own, instead of continually coming to the House and saying, "Just look at the estimates; see how much less they are than those of last year. Behold the economists now in power!" For the sake of presenting intelligently to the people of Canada the real state and currency of public affairs, do not let us keep changing our methods of bookkeeping. If we are bound to do so we shall; but we certainly do not have to in the present instance. "But," says the ministeV, "we have to get out ties and we want to know whether or not we shall be able to go on. We are building so many miles this year and we want to know just what we shall be able to do in this direction next year." Well, have we never built lines before? What is the obstacle now? The minister knows that the government of which he was a member, when it built the National Transcontinental, came to parliament every year for the money that was required; and I never read in Hansard in those days, nor did I hear while I was in the House, any complaint from the minister or any suggestion that there was a handicap in the government's having to do this. The minister objects that he has to wait for the vote. How long is he obliged to wait? No sooner has parliament met than the government can secure an appropriation; they can get one-sixth right away. There is absolutely nothing in the world . to hinder them from doing this any year. The minister must realize that it is all a humbug to talk about having to wait until parliament votes the money. There has been no difficulty at all in getting preliminary estimates passed. Why not accept the amendment? I should like a suggestion from the minister before I sit down. I am quite sure that he would not be hampered in the slightest if he accepted the system suggested, and it would preserve the sequence qf the methods of bookkeeping

C.N-R.-Branch Lines
and enable the public really to judge of the comparisons of one year with another.
The minister said that we had control anyway. My contention is that we have no control, and I should have pointed that fact out before. We have no more control after we have committed ourselves. It is true we could repeal the act; but we could also repeal the Agricultural Instruction Act or any similar act. But that would not be the right thing to do in the case where we have a contract with other governments; it would not be honourable. The minister argues that we have control even though we may not vote the money every year, because parliament must be told each year what is. to be done, so that parliament can complain and grouse about it if it wants to. That is true. But what is the use of doing that when parliament has no check? And then the next breath the minister says that if in 1920 the late government had adopted the course which is now proposed, instead of the course it then took, the roads would have been built. What does that mean? It means that if we had put a bill through and tied the hands of parliament, whether or not we felt we could afford to go on from year to year, we would have had the work done. Is that consistent with the minister's contention that parliament has control? The fact is that in that case parliament would have no control. So that we are taking out of the hands of parliament its primary function in the control of annual expenditure. That is the first duty of the House, and if we are going to establish this precedent now where shall we end? We could advance in respect to any mortal thing just the argument that the minister is making to-night. For instance, in the construction of this building, the minister of that day could have stood up and said:	"We do not want
to have to come to parliament every year because we may find ourselves, With the foundations laid, unable to proceed, and parliament might refuse to vote the money. The contractor wants to know whether he will be able to go on next year and the year after that and for that reason we do not want to be under the necessity of coming to parliament every year." That is exactly the * argument which the minister is presenting at the present time; and I say that if we adopt any such course the temptation to every government will be to do the same thing and we should be in a hopeless mixup and the public in a worse.


George Perry Graham: The matter was so
thoroughly discussed last year, when it was approved of by parliament, that I do not
intend taking up the time of the committee at any great length to-night. I outlined in committee the method of financing the undertaking but it was not discussed; and while I fully expected my right hon. friend to raise the point he has brought up, I really do not think that there is anything in it. I am not speaking with any intention of being discourteous. Parliament has just as much control in the matter as it has ever had, for a full statement is given to the House every year. My right hon. friend suggested that we could repeal other acts, such as the Highways Act, but that inasmuch as they involved co-operation with provinces it would not be honest to do that. In other words, if such an act had no reference to any province it would be all right to repeal it. Now, if it were found that there was something radically wrong there is no question that any of these bills could be repealed as easily as an estimate can be dropped. But for practical purposes I submit again that the method we propose is the most advisable, under present labour conditions and the conditions generally in the country which are of a character that did not prevail at all when the Transcontinental was constructed. The conditions in relation to the Transcontinental were different from those under which the work in this case is being done, because labour was especially provided for in the case of the Transcontinental, whereas in connection with these branch lines the labour that is available in the particular district will be utilised, it is expected, without interfering unduly with the farmers' help in the busy season. Parliament undoubtedly has full control in the matter, but this I say is the practical way of doing it. The government, the railway board and the engineers are of the opinion that the lines could be built fairly expeditiously and at a .minimum cost, and there is nothing to hide nor is there any intention of hiding anything.


Arthur Meighen: How does the minister
distinguish these branch lines from the hundreds of branch lines that have been built before?


James Dew Chaplin: The minister is constructing the Welland canal, but he does not take in respect of that work, the position he' holds now. He lets a contract in that case, to run, say, three or four years, but each year he comes to parliament with [DOT] his estimates so that parliament can decide what money shall be spent in any particular year. This is all we ask in respect of these railways.
C.N.R.-Branch Lines


Charles A. Stewart: The controversy seems to be as to whether we shall vote a definite sum for a period of three years if the bill is passed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We do not vote anything.


Charles A. Stewart: Each one of these lines calls for a fixed sum.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We are voting
nothing; this is not a voting bill. The bill is to get away from that. The whole question is whether we are to vote funds or not.


Arthur Meighen: The mind of my hon.
friend (Mr. Stewart) is in the right state, and I hope he will not have it affected by contact with his colleague the Minister of Railways.


Charles A. Stewart: My understanding was that there was to be a fixed sum in each of the bills.


Arthur Meighen: But we are not getting a chance to vote it.


Charles A. Stewart: Is it not in the bill?


Arthur Meighen: We are asked to pass the bill.


Charles A. Stewart: I think there is a fixed sum attached to each bill and beyond that the railway board cannot go unless they secure a further sum for the purposes for which it is required. My hon. friend says that annually we should put that sum in the estimates of the proposed amount to be spent that year. If that is done, each year the contractor or the board will have to await the vote before they make their arrangements to carry on the work, which undoubtedly means, as my hon. friend knows perfectly well, that it will be at least June before construction work is started, quite apart from the purchase of ties.


Arthur Meighen: Was it June in the case of the National Transcontinental? Was it June in the case of the Grand Trunk Pacific? Was it June in the case of the branch lines that are already mostly built? In respect of every one of these there was a vote.


Charles A. Stewart: Both my hon. friend and I are familiar with the railway 'guaranties given by both the federal and provincial governments. For example, $20,000 a mile was guaranteed on a certain mileage of road. Parliament voted it and the government were given authority to pay it out on progress estimates. My recollection is that we did not vote the money annually by way of estimates.


Arthur Meighen: We voted every dollar.


Charles A. Stewart: I have a
perfectly clear recollection of the provincial procedure. I merely mention it in passing as the method by which construction was carried on. There was no cessation of construction; it went on continuously until the amount voted by parliament for the specific purpose was exhausted. Now you have here a three-year contract. I have no particular desire to withhold anything from parliament, but my understanding is that we are voting for each one of these lines a certain specific sum of money-if I a,m wrong I should like to be . corrected-and that it is to be spent over a period of three years. If that is the case, I fail to see that parliament has not full control of the amount voted specifically for each line. If that amount is exhausted, certainly parliament will be called upon to vote more money. If we were not voting this specific amount I am not sure that there would not be a good deal in the contention of my hon. friend, but under the circumstances I cannot see why we have not complete control.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why would not everything the minister says apply to the Welland canal or any other public work?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
know the conditions surrounding the Welland canal. My argument is that you are voting, for example, $2,000,000 by the enactment of this bill, and you are consulting parliament norw as to the amount that will be expended upon each one of these branch lines.


Arthur Meighen: Why should this parliament decide wihat the next parliament may do?


Charles A. Stewart: There may be something in that contention. But my hon. friend is arguing that parliament has no control over the expenditure. I contend that parliament has absolute control under this bill.


Arthur Meighen: I argue that parliament
has no control year by year as it ought to have over all expenditure year by year. Think of a Liberal government, boasting its liberalism standing here between parliament and its rights in a case which is not distinguishable in any degree from any public works that have been undertaken for the past fifty years I


George Perry Graham: I am not going to follow my right hon. friend, because I have stated the case from the pure business standpoint, and my friend the Minister of the Interior

C.NJt.-Branch Lines
has supported my argument. I am not sure after all that it would not save this country money if in every public work the full amount of the expenditure was put in at the start, either in the bill or otherwise.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister favour that?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend as a
member of former governments has consented to start a work costing $200,000 on a $20,000 estimate. Unless a member has had experience he will imagine he is voting for a $20,000 expenditure, and in the absence of a full explanation he will be surprised when year after year the vote eventually runs up to $200,000. Now, we are inserting in these bills the full cost of construction, and a clause, suggested by the hon.. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter) has been added that if the engineers find after final surveys that the work is likely to cost more than this amount, construction is not to be started until after we have come back to parliament. That is pretty good control.


Arthur Meighen: Has not that control always existed?


George Perry Graham: No.


Arthur Meighen: Of course it has in every other case.


George Perry Graham: The clause suggested is
not in any other bill that I know of.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly it is not, because in the other cases the money is voted year by year; why in the world would it be inserted there? How does he think the country is going to save any money merely because it is stated in the bill in the first place what the total cost is to be? If it turns out that the cost is more, you just come back to parliament and get the extra money; that is all.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend does not catch the point. Before the company start this work if they find out it is going to cost more than the amount stated they have to come back to parliament before they spend any money on construction at all; while with the usual estimate, after you have spent $10,000 or $20,000 you cannot stop even if in the long run the total cost exceeds $200,000.


Arthur Meighen: Suppose the engineers
turn out to be wrong in their estimate?


George Perry Graham: There is a possibility of that always, but we have to depend on human agencies. In the estimate, I suggest the engineers know when they start that the work
will cost $200,000, but only $20,000 is asked in the estimate, and those of us not in touch with the situation would be committing the country for $200,000 when we thought we were only committing it for $20,000. In this case every member knows exactly the amount intended to be expended on each branch line. Let me point out that I am informed that in the United States all large contracts for public works are voted for a term of years with the entire amount expected to be expended contained1 in the first vote. They have to report progress to congress each year with full information of what has been done: but until the amount voted in the first estimate is exhausted congress is not asked for any further vote.	That is the
principle of this bill.


Arthur Meighen: Suppose a work is to cost $10,000,000, and to be built over a period of ten years, is the whole $10,000,000 charged in the estimate of the one year in the comparison of that year with another?


George Perry Graham: I do not know how the bookkeeping works out, but I do know they state the whole amount in the estimate for the entire work; at least full information is given as to the entire work.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly; and in this
parliament too.


George Perry Graham: There is nothing new in this, it is a purely business proposition. It was the same in respect to our highways, where parliament had power to step in any year.


Arthur Meighen: As I understand the minister, certainly the legislative body gets full information. And we ought to get every time all the best information the engineer can give of what the total expenditure will be. But to suggest, that the United States Senate and House of Representatives vote one year the money that is to be expended over a long period of years in great enterprises- why, does the minister suggest that the cost of the Panama canal was voted in one year?


George Perry Graham: I do not know what legislation was in force then.


Arthur Meighen: There would be no continuity in the estimate at. all then. Do what is done in the United States; that will be satisfactory to us.


Charles A. Stewart: We are voting for this particular line, $357,000, and we are asking that construction may be over a period of three years. The amount may be expended in two years if the work is carried

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
on successfully. I confess I have no particular objection to what my hon. friend says, except this: You will run the construction to a late period in the summer if you have to wait annually for estimates for construction. If you vote $20,000 for this line this year and you spend the whole of that amount, no further work can be done until a new vote is taken after the 31st of March next.


Arthur Meighen: What is the trouble about getting a new vote?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
suppose there would be any trouble, if parliament decides that this line shall be built. But you do stop the continuity of construction.


James Dew Chaplin: In what way?


Charles A. Stewart: Any railway construction in this country must be carried on before frost sets in, and if you have to wait for an estimate the next year, with a short season for railway construction, you will be into June before you can begin work again. Labour is a movable commodity in Canada; railwaymen desert railway work in the harvest season, particularly in the West, and that means that the cost of railway construction is added to. I would be the last to argue that any right should be taken from parliament or that parliament should not know exactly what is being done with the money voted. But when you vote this $357,000 for 12 miles of railway, there is absolute control under the provisions of the present bill, and you have a period of three years within which to spend the money if that length of time is required for the construction.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not like to see my hon. friend do so much violence to his principles. He does not want to take away parliamentary control. Well, he does not have to do it; he can stay by his principles if he wants to. In the first place, we are not voting money by this bill; we are simply enabling the government to exercise certain rights of guarantee. I am sure my hon. friend will be horrified to find that a single cent should be spent unless it is properly voted by parliament, but as I say we are not by this legislation voting a dollar. My hon. friend knows how votes are made effective. He knows about the Supply Bill; he knows about the statutory estimates. He knows that our supply bills are charges upon our consolidated revenue fund. He knows all about our system of bookkeeping, and checks here and checks there, i He knows how these systems are used for the purposes of comparison in arriving at an idea of the value of ser-

vices here and services there. These are the principles my hon. friend stands for, but they all go, so far as these lines are concerned. It is idle to talk about a three-year period within which construction may be completed. There is no reason why this little line should not be built at once, particularly in the prairies where no difficulties in construction are encountered, and the way to get these lines built at once is to have the votes appear in the year's estimates. My hon. friend is right in saying that railway construction work cannot proceed when the frost is in the ground, and that there is only a short season. But every autumn and winter the preparations can be made, material, ties and all that sort of thing got ready, for the commencement pf work as soon as the frost is out of the ground. That is what always has been done under the annual vote. My hon. friend knows, too, that the vote is carried over for six weeks after the statutory year, and also that as a matter of course interim supply is voted. Looking at it in the light of his own principles, which he has already enunciated, my hon. friend, it seems to me, will have to vote against this proposition.


Charles A. Stewart: I am sure
my hon. friend does not want to misquote me. I do not see that I am violating any principle. I understand perfectly well that the company may issue bonds,
9 p.m. notes, or securities which the government may guarantee for the construction of these lines. My hon. friend says that these lines ought to be built in one year. I do not know whether that could be done, but it is obvious that there can be no guarantee beyond the amount specified in the act, and if you were voting the money direct the same principle would apply. As I understand it, my hon. friend is not objecting to the amount, $357,000; he simply says that such portion of that amount should be voted each year as may be required for that year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend
has not quite got the point If there is to be any real consistency in the carrying on of the public business these items ought to appear in the estimates this year and just the same for the one' year as for the three years.


Charles A. Stewart: I must confess that I cannot see the point.
Amendment (Sir Henry Drayton) negatived; Yeas, 11; Nays, 65.
Section as amended agreed to.

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
On section 4.-Mileage and1 cost are estimates only but not to be exceeded by more than 15 per cent.


Mr. MILLAR:: In view of the fact that
clause 5 is now incorporated in the bill-


The CHAIRMAN:: We have not got to
clause 5 yet, we are considering clause 4.


John Millar: I wish to discuss clause
4 in the light of clause 5. I should like to ask the minister if 15 per cent is not rather small. As I understand clause 5, it means that should a re-survey of a branch line that has been already started disclose the cost to be more than 15 per cent above the amount named in the bill, the work will not be undertaken. In view of the fact that the cost of labour and of material fluctuates, and delay in construction work is sometimes caused by bad weather, a 15 per cent margin is very small. That would mean that many of the branch lines might not be built this year. If that is the case the situation is rather serious because many families in some of these districts are simply holding on believing they are going to have these branch lines this year. Should the lines not be built they intend to move out. I may be wrong in my interpretation of this clause and if so I should like to be set right.


George Perry Graham: There may be something
in what my hon. friend says. This provision of 15 per cent was placed in the bill to meet an objection which had been raised that the minister had too much authority and could go on under the old bill and spend all that he desired, as his estimates as to distance and cost were only approximate. I think the interpretation my hon. friend has drawn is all right, and being of that opinion I am inclined to believe it is not a bad idea to hold the engineers to the estimate. In the case of lines partially constructed they ought to be able to estimate pretty carefully, because in a good many instances all they are going to do is to lay the steel. It may be a small percentage as my hon. friend says, but the engineer assured me the other day in discussing this matter we were safe in fixing that amount in any of the estimates particularly in the case of those lines in which there had been partial construction.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think that so far as the prairie lines are concerned there ought not to be the slightest difficulty, unless a sink hole is encountered or some unforeseen trouble. But I anticipate the only place where there may be trouble is where an expensive piece of bridge work has to be done or some extraordinary bit of country encountered. In the case of prairie lines I should think there would be absolutely nothing of the kind. The whole proposition was as to whether there was to be an absolutely free hand given without the slightest control. I do not think my hon. friend need worry about the way the section reads.


George Perry Graham: There might be difficulty where rock was unexpectedly struck or something of that kind, or where deep cuts were needed, but provision for that would be made in the final estimates. In the construction of prairie lines I do not think there will be any difficulty.


Mr. LEWIS:: I think the limit is quite adequate. If the engineers have .made a careful survey of the line they ought to be able to tell within 15 per cent of what the estimated cost would be. If rock should be struck, where there has been partial construction, as the minister suggested, and the amount is insufficient, the matter could be rectified the following year.


Mr. GOULD:: But if construction was to take place this year, and by chance 15 per cent was not sufficient to complete the line to, say, within one mile of its terminal, that would be a very serious difficulty, and very great hardship might result. I am inclined to take the same view as my hon. friend (Mr. Millar).


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Statement to parliament annually.
Henry Lumley Drayton: There are a
couple of changes which ought to be made here although the minister will think they are merely formal. Doubtless my hon. friend's idea there about presenting these returns to parliament is that they should come down when the other statutory returns are called for. It would not be fair to parliament to table them at the end of the session.


George Perry Graham: Oh, no.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think what my hon. friend contemplates is bringing down the statement during the first ten days of the session.


George Perry Graham: No doubt.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then I would
move with my hon. friend's consent, that the
C.N-R.-Branch Limes

first line should be changed so as to read " The minister shall present to parliament during the first ten days." Just add the words "the first ten days."


George Perry Graham: Carried.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The other point is that a statement might be submitted that would simply show the results in gross. I think the different activities, whatever they are, should be shown. So I would suggest inserting the words " in detail " after the word " showing."


George Perry Graham: In what line?


Henry Lumley Drayton: In line three,
to have it read " showing in detail."


George Perry Graham: The few amendments we have here will go into the other bills; the amounts only will be different.
Amendment ' agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



KAMLOOPS-KELOWNA DIVISION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 33, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line, Kamloops-Kelowna division, province of British Columbia.
Motion agreed to and the House wrent into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Power to construct and complete line described in schedule.
George Perry Graham: The same amendment will be inserted in this bill, except the schedule.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Company may issue securities and Governor in Council may authorize guarantee thereof.
Henry Lumley Drayton: This line is in the same position as the other fine, and we think it is a line that ought to be completed. I desire to move the same amendment as I moved to the last bill, and I presume the hon. minister would like my speech to be taken as read.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The amendment reads:
Provided the amount so to be guaranteed shall first be included in the estimates and voted by parliament for that purpose.

I do not want to delay the House by taking a vote. I am quite content that the amend*-ment should be declared lost on division, the whole Conservative opposition voting in favour of the resolution, and the whole Grit party voting unanimously against it.


George Perry Graham: Very well.
Amendment (Sir Henry Drayton) negatived on division.
On section 3-Certificates of minister as to mileage of said line of railway.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister
agrees to exactly the same amendments as were made in the last bill.


George Perry Graham: Surely.
On section 8-Statement to parliament annually.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This clause is to be amended, by adding after the word "during" in the first line the following words:
The first ten days of.


George Perry Graham: Yes, and after the word
"showing" the words "in detail" are to be added.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 41, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from Peebles southerly in the province of Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in the chair.
On section 1-Power to construct and complete line as described in schedule.
Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no objection from this quarter of the House to this bill. It is a bit of line that we think ought to have been built before.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Company may issue securities and Governor in Council may authorize guarantee thereof.
Henry Lumley Drayton: In connection
with this section, you will please note the amendment made to the other bills and defeated. To save time, I am perfectly willing

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
that they should be considered as now put and lost on division. I move that section 2 be amended by adding thereto the following words:
Provided that the amount so to be guaranteed shall first be included in the estimates and voted by parliament for that purpose.
Amendment negatived on division.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Statement to parliament annually.	[DOT]
Mr. GRAHAM moved that section 8 be amended by adding after the word "during" in the first line the words "the first ten days of" and after the word "showing" in the third line the words "in detail."
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 42, respecting the construction of a Canadian National line extending the Gravelbourg branch to Neid-path, in the province of Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in the chair.
On section 1-Power to construct and complete line as described in schedule.
Henry Lumley Drayton: This line also is a railway which we think ought to be built, indeed, ought to have been built before now.


Arthur John Lewis: I want to make just a little explanation while this bill is going through. When this matter was in the resolution stage,
I spoke on behalf of this line being connected up with Swift Current, and the Swift Current paper made a comment on the situation that the bill was not. providing a railway running into Swift Current. The Regina Leader took up the situation and said: How could they expect the government to approve a railway running into Swift Current when the hon. member for Swift Current was opposed to the railway policy of the government? I should like to know just when I was opposed to the branch line policy of this government. This bill has been before parliament for two years and never has it been the government's intention to extend the railway from Neid-path into Swift Current. I have spoken on
this bill for three years in succession and placed before parliament the arguments why the line should be completed to Swift Current. The hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. McTaggart), whose constituency is in close proximity to the line spoke in favour of the situation also. I called on the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) to speak on behalf of it, and he said that he understood the people of Swift Current wanted the line, but that he felt there were far more important branches needed in the rural district and, until they were completed, he did not feel that this line was essential. All I want to say is this, that so far the government has never suggested that this line be brought into Swift Current. Furthermore, I understand that railways are out of politics, and even if I were against the government's branch line policy, they would not penalize a member or jeopardise a city just because I was against the bill. Moreover, I understand that this policy is being brought forward by the National Railway Board and not on account of politics. For that reason I thiijk the Regina Leader is altogether out of order. I trust the government's policy in this respect.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Company may issue securities and Governor in Council may authorise guarantee thereof.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON.: I move that the following words be added to section 2:
Provided that the amount so to be guaranteed shall first be included in the estimates and voted by parliament for that purpose.
Amendment negatived on division.
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Statement to parliament annually.
Mr. GRAHAM moved that section 8 be amended by adding after the word "during" in the first line the words "the first ten days of" and after the word "showing" in the third line the words "in detail".
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported!, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee to consider Bill No. 43
C.N-R.-Branch Lines
[Stage Direction]
respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line extending the Ste. Rose du Lac branch to Rorketon in the province of Manitoba.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Marcil Bonnaventure) in the chair.
On section 2-Company may issue securities and Governor in Council may authorize guarantee thereof.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON moved that the section be amended by adding thereto the following words:
Provided that the amount so guaranteed shall first be included in the estimates voted by .parliament for that purpose.
Amendment negatived on division.
Section agreed to.
On section 8

Statement to parliament annually.
Mr. GRAHAM moved1 that section 8 be amended by adding after the word "during" in the first line, the words " the first ten days of," and after the word "showing" in the third line the words "in detail."
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon, GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 48, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line from Turtleford to near Hafford in the province of Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in the chair.
On section 2-Company may issue securities and Governor in Council may authorize guarantee thereof.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON moved that this section be amended by adding thereto the following words:
Provided that the amount so guaranteed shall first be included in the estimates voted by parliament for that purpose.
Amendment negatived on division.
Section agreed to-

On section 8-Statement to parliament annually.
Mr. GRAHAM moved that section 8 be amended by adding after the word "during" in the first line the words "the first ten days of," and after the word "showing" in the third line the words "in detail."
Amendement agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee to consider Bill No. 50, respecting the construction of a Canadian National line from near Kelvington in the province of Saskatchewan northerly 13 miles.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in the chair.
On section 2-Company may issue securities and Governor in Council may authorize guarantee thereof.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON moved that this section be amended by adding thereto the following words:
Provided that the amount so guaranteed shall first be included in the estimates voted by parliament for that purpose.
Amendment negatived on division.
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Statement to parliament annually.
Mr. GRAHAM moved that section 8 be amended by adding after the word "during" in the first line the words "the first ten days of," and after the word "showing" in the third line the words "in detail."
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and' passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 51, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line from Prince Albert to near Paddockwood, in the province of Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed) to, and the House went into committee, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in the chair.

C.A7.R.-Branch Lines
On section 1-Power to construct and complete line described in schedule.
Henry Lumley Drayton: The position here is exactly the same, Mr. Chairman. This is a line which we think ought to be built; it is overdue.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Company may issue securities, and Governor in Council may authorize guarantee thereof.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON moved that section 2 be amended by adding thereto the following words:
That the amount so to be guaranteed shall first be included in the estimates and voted by parliament for that purpose.
Amendment negatived on division.
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Statement to parliament annually.
Mr. GRAHAM moved that section 8 be amended by adding after the word "during" in the first line the words " the first ten days of," and after the word " showing " in the third line, the words " in detail."
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 52, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line between Eyre, in the province of Saskatchewan, and Acadia Valley, in the province of Alberta.
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in the chair.
On section 1-Power to construct and complete line described in schedule.
Henry Lumley Drayton: The position here is again the same. It is a line that should be built, and would have been built, if it had not been for my friend's desire to adopt a novel procedure last session. But it seems to me there is a mistake in the schedule. The mileage already graded is forty-two miles, and the mileage, including the existing grading, is stated to be twenty-five miles.


George Perry Graham: They are going to put
steel on the twenty-five miles.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is, the
twenty-five miles of steel will be put entirely upon the existing grade?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Company may issue securities and Governor in Council may authorize guarantee thereof.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON moved that section 2 be amended by adding thereto the following words:	[DOT]
That the amount so to be guaranteed shall first be included in the estimates and voted by parliament for that purpose.
Amendment negatived on division.
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Statement to parliament annually.
Mr. GRAHAM moved that section 8 be amended by adding after the word " during " in the first line, the words " the first ten, days of,' and after the word " showing " in the third line, the words "in detail."
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 53, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line between Eston and White Bear, in the province of Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in chair.
On section 1-Power to construct and complete line described in the schedule.
Henry Lumley Drayton: This railway is in exactly the same position as the others. It is another prairie line that ought to be built.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Company may issue securities and Governor in Council may authorize guarantee thereof.
[Stage Direction]
C.N.R.-Branch Lines
[Stage Direction]
Sir HENRY DRAYTON moved that section 2 be amended by adding thereto the following words:
Provided that the amount so to be guaranteed shall first be included in the estimates and voted by parliament for that purpose.
Amendment negatived on division.
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Statement to parliament annually.
Mr. GRAHAM moved that section 8 be amended by adding after the word "during" in the first line the words "the first ten days of," and after the word "showing" in the third line the words "in detail.2
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 55, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line from St. Paul, in the province of Alberta, southeasterly 21 miles.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in the chair.
On section 1-Power to construct and complete line described in schedule.
Charles A. Stewart: I would like the word "southeasterly" in the title amended to read "easterly." The Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National had some controversy about the line running south of the Saskatchewan. That, I understand, has been adjusted and the line will go in so as to give service to the people along the river. It is suggested that the one line would serve that north country by its diversion to the north. However, the engineers have been asked to make a reconnaissance of that country to see whether by going a little further north with this extension easterly from St. Paul they could give the needed service, when the line is built in between the Canadian National and the river, to the south.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This does not make any
material change, does it, in the direction and location indicated to the committee on the maps when we were examining into the matter? If it does, of course we ought to scrutinize it with a little more care.


Charles A. Stewart: If the line
runs in a southeasterly direction from St. Paul de Metis it certainly will not be of any

service to Bonnyville and the thickly settled territory to the north of St. Paul. These settlers requested that another line be built 10 or 15 miles to the westward of St. Paul, which would mean two lines1 in that locality. By this line running a little more to the northward it might serve the locality much better and would still connect 10 p.m. with the line coming in from the eastward.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is no material alteration in the general direction of this line?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Mr. KELLNER:: Is it the intention to use the present survey, or will there be an entirely new survey?


Charles A. Stewart: They would have to change the survey for this line, because it connects most directly between a point in Saskatchewan and St. Paul de Metis in Alberta.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I questioned the engineer very definitely on that point in the committee and he said they were going to use the same survey. I also asked about that other proposed branch:	The request is that
that line branch out at Ashmount and go up to the Cold Lake country, and he said it was one of the branches that 'they anticipated building some time, but not immediately. I tried to get him to make a commitment in the matter, because the provincial government are also considering building branches into that same territory.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member refers to what we described in the committee as the northerly route?


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Yes. I thought it fair to the provincial government that the engineer should at least definitely state whether there was any prospect of their changing the route of this proposed branch and going farther north, and he said that was not expected at all, they were going to make use of the existing data.


Charles A. Stewart: I am going to ask that we be given the opportunity, unless it is impossible, to serve these people; it is possible to go closer to them than is contemplated by the proposed line. It is a very difficult thing to interfere with the engineers. We will have to abide by their decision after all.


Mr. SPENCER:: It is my opinion that the country about which we are talking is so large that it cannot be served by one railway.

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
I think that a line will have to go somewhere along the proposed route. Perhaps it may go a little north but of course that will have to be left to the engineers. There will have to be another line running farther north probably starting from Ashmont and serving the country of St. Vincent, Rife, Bonnyville, Durlingville and tapping the Cold Lake country. I think this will be necessary because the country north of the Beaver river is a good country, and just as soon as there is railway transportation within reasonable distance there is not the slightest doubt in my mind but that it will be settled. The Minister of the Interior mentioned that there was a line going from Lloydminister in a northwesterly direction between the river and the present Canadian National line, and he intimated that this would serve those people as far as the river, possibly those just the other side of the river. I think that was his intention. It is pretty difficult without having a map before us to get hon. members to realize the huge distances that have to be traversed in that part of the country. For instance the distance from Vermilion to the river, Saskatchewan, is about forty-seven miles. Now if you split that country with a railway, as it is the intention to do, even then there are twenty-three odd miles before you get to the river. Then there are the very steep banks of the Saskatchewan river to be crossed before you reach the other side. Therefore I do not think that railway will be of very much service to the people on the other side of the Saskatchewan. Of course it would have to be left to the judgment of the engineers, but in my opinion if we are going to keep the people who are already settled in that country in great numbers-having gone in on the promise of a railway years ago-two railways will have to be constructed to serve that huge territory. Of course we realize that we cannot get all these facilities at once, but I do hope that the railway suggested in this bill will be started this year. I have had letters this last week from several people in that vicinity recounting the number of settlers who were losing heart and pulling out. They have been there for many years, and they hoped every year to see the railway come along. Up to the present time it has not come, and they now hear rumours that the route may be changed to this point or the other point. It is this very uncertainty that is losing us at the present time a number of settlers. I sincerely hope that if this bill goes through, as I hope it will, that it will Be started this year.


Charles A. Stewart: Am I to
understand my hon. friend does not want the amendment?


Henry Elvins Spencer: I have no objection to
the amendment as long as the railway is not taken too far north. It could go northeasterly or southeasterly, but if the route followed is easterly I do not think there will be much harm done.


Charles A. Stewart: That is
agreeable to me.


Henry Elvins Spencer: But it is my opinion that we cannot serve that country properly with only one railway.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Regardless of what the
amendment provides there ought to be some information as to what particular township you expect to land up in when you get that twenty-one miles constructed.


Charles A. Stewart: My proposition is to leave it entirely to the engineer.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: If you do that, in the
event of the engineer being sincere in the statement to the committee, it will go right where the survey is now.


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
help that. I may say for the information of the committee that I had representations from a delegation that came down here from Bonnyville at considerable expense. These people have been in the country for sixteen years. I am not sanguine that the engineers will change this route but what I did ask them to do was to make a reconnaissance of the country from Ashmont via Bonnyville to Cold lake. If the line were to run in an easterly direction it might not serve the Bonnyville territory because they would have to travel a considerable distance to the railway.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Is it your' opinion that
one railway will serve that country?


Charles A. Stewart: I would not
like to say.


George Perry Graham: I suppose the real object
of the amendment is to give the engineers a little more latitude rather than to tie them up to one location?


Henry Herbert Stevens: How does the amendment now read?


George Perry Graham: That the line shall be
easterly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Instead of a southeasterly direction? Is that the only change?
C.N.R.-Branch Lines


George Perry Graham: That is the only change.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is in some township.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: There is no township
mentioned.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The schedule of the bill
reads:
From St. Paul in a southeasterly direction to a point in or near township 57, range 6, west of the 4th meridian, in the province of Alberta.


Charles A. Stewart: The title
reads now:
From St. Paul in the province of Alberta southeasterly twenty-one miles.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We are not concerned
about that. That is merely a title.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I should like to point
out that if this railway is going to end up in township 63 or 64 it will be an entirely different matter. You are getting the line away altogether from the settlement which is down along the Saskatchewan river.


George Perry Graham: Township 57, range 6, it
says in the schedule.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: But if the road is run in an easterly direction it will probably end in township 63 or 64. The committee should have more information on the matter.


Charles A. Stewart: If the line
is going to end in section 57 there is no use in amending the bill. We might as well leave it alone. I do not think it is a mistake, however.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Do I understand the
minister aright that he considers the Elk Point country not as good as the Bonnyville country?


Charles A. Stewart: I would say they are about similar.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I think they are very similar. I appreciate the position the Minister of the Interior is in, having had a delegation down here, but the trouble is that I have had representations from two sources, pulling in opposite directions.


George Perry Graham: Which direction do you
pull in?


Henry Elvins Spencer: The largest representation is asking for the railway along the line of the original survey, but I realize that another railway has to be built to serve the people further north.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I think the Minister
of the Interior has brought some of the trouble on his own head. I have a copy of a letter which appeared in the Edmonton Journal purporting to be from the Minister of [Mr. Stevens.2
the Interior to the Edmonton Board of Trade, and which reads:
I have been very busy securing an extension of this line from St. Paul de Metis eastward, and have succeeded in having an amount included in the branch lines bills. It does not necessarily follow that any particular location has to be adopted, and I am now prepared to discuss location with the delegation, and to press their views upon the engineers who will be in charge of the extension.
The Edmonton Journal comments on this letter as follows:
What the delegation is seeking is an extension of the St. Paul branch in a northeasterly direction toward Cold Lake, so that it may serve a better and more productive section of the country than if it were routed in a southeasterly direction along the Saskatchewan river, as originally planned.
I thought I would mention this matter because I am quite convinced that it would probably be a good idea to leave these branch lines to the judgment of the engineers; we are advised from time to time that there is no undue political influence used, and I would not say there was even political influence in this letter.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Pretty strong,
but perhaps not undue.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I.am willing to congratulate the minister on the careful wording of the letter. It is very carefully worded.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would like to suggest,
in view of the precedent laid down this afternoon in the peremptory discharge of an old civil servant for political interference with scientific procedure in connection with one department, that the minister who has undoubtedly allowed politics to enter into this important matter, interfering with the decision and opinion of the engineers, should be summarily dismissed and asked .outright for his resignation. That would create harmony in keeping with the policy of the country.


Charles A. Stewart: I am delighted with the letter and glad to hear the statement of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). I am sure my hon. friend has often sought to work in the interests of his constituents. These are not my constituents; but I am interested in all the people in Alberta, and in any delegation that comes here, and I certainly will continue to try to use my influence to meet what I think are legitimate requests. If there is any harm in that then I am guilty. The Edmonton Board of Trade were interested in the line, and knowing the country as I do, I saw no harm in bringing it to the attention of the engineers, which I did. I got no promise from the engineers that they would

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
change the route. I did get a promise that they would make a survey of the whole country and make up their minds as to which was the best location to serve the people up there.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps the
committee will excuse the minister if he promises not to do it again.


Charles A. Stewart: I will not
promise that.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Will the minister explain if this statement that he was instrumental in getting a grant for an extension for 21 miles east of St. Paul de Metis is correct or was that done under the ordinary methods of procedure?


Charles A. Stewart: There is no grant. It is just in the same position as any other extension.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: The hon. minister does not get my point.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, I got it a long while ago. I get your point very frequently. Your point is to try to discredit anything that the Minister of the Interior might do in the vicinity of Edmonton. Now just keep right at it, so far as I am concerned. I am interested in all the people in the different localities. These branch lines are being discussed; delegations are coming here; letters are being written, and out of courtesy to the people who write the letters I have to take an interest in these things. In a sense the Board of Trade of Edmonton did make a request at the instance of the people in that locality, and I certainly have no apology to make.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: What authority has the minister to make a statement that I was trying in any way to embarrass him? I have never done so in this House. If the reading of the letter is the trouble, I do not think the Minister of the Interior should be bothered.


Charles A. Stewart: Do you
think the letter is material to anything that has transpired to-day?


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I did not say it was.


Charles A. Stewart: Then what
is the object of bringing it up?


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: There is one thing the minister might explain. He said he was instrumental in having a bill brought in in reference to the branch lines we are now discussing. That is not the function of the minister.


Charles A. Stewart: If suggesting this is one of the matters for the consideration of the railway board of the Board of Management of the Canadian National Railways or of the Canadian Pacific Railway,-because I have gone to both on the same mission, pressing the claims of these localities-is a crime, I have been guilty. Further than that I have not gone.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Would1 the minister be kind enough to tell us how to get in touch with the board? How is it done?


Mr. BELAND:: Go to Montreal.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think my hon. friend really knows. Will the minister not tell us how it was done.


Charles A. Stewart: I invariably see the chairman, Sir Henry Thornton.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Company may issue securities and Governor in Council may authorize guarantee thereof.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON moved that the section be amended by adding the following:
Providing the amount so to be guaranteed shall first be included in the estimates and voted by parliament for that purpose.
Amendment negatived on division.
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Statement to parliament annually.
Mr. GRAHAM moved that the section be amended by adding after the word "during" in the first line the words "the first ten days of;" and after the word "showing" in the third line the words "in detail."
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 61, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line, being a joint section from Rosedale southeasterly in the province of Alberta.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in the chair.
C.N.R.-Branch Lines
Henry Lumley Drayton: How many
more bills has the minister that he thinks he will pass to-night?


George Perry Graham: This is the last tine. I
am going to ask that the committee rise, and the House adjourn.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I hope my hon. friend will promise that after this bill is put through, the House will adjourn and we shall all go home.


George Perry Graham: I cannot guarantee that
my hon. friends will all go home. I will promise that the House adjourns.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We will look
after the rest of it.
On section 2-Company may issue securities and Governor in Council may authorize guarantee thereof.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON moved that section 2 be amended by adding thereto the following words:
Provided that the amount so to be guaranteed shall first be included in the estimates and voted by parliament for that purpose.
Amendment negatived on division.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Statement to parliament annually.
Mr. GRAHAM moved that section 8 be. amended by adding after the word "during" in the first line the words "the first ten days of" and after the word "showing" in the third line the words "in detail."
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GRAHAM moved the adjournment of the House.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Will my hon.
friend tell me two things: First, what the business on Monday will be and, second, at what time we shall meet to do business on Monday? I think civic summer time goes into effect on Saturday at midnight.


George Perry Graham: I think, following precedent, that we adhere to the time established in the municipality, the city of Ottawa. That

will be daylight saving time. Let everybody put his clock on an hour. The business on Monday will be the estimates of the Minister of Labour, after that the estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and if we get through with those, I will try to take up railway bills again.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
Monday, May 19, 1924