1925-06-01

COPYRIGHT ACT AMENDMENT

Mr. W. G. RAYMOND (Brantford):: I
move, Mr. Speaker, that the recommendation in respect of printing, which is contained in the third report of the special committee appointed to consider and report upon Bill No. 2, respecting the Copyright Act, which was presented to the House on the 29th ultimo, be concurred in. The committee recommended the printing of 1,000 copies, 800 in English and 200 in French. It was hoped that 200 would be sufficient in French, although a great deal of interest was manifested in the work of the committee by the French authors. And as members of this House are of course all aware, the literature of Canada is perhaps rather more complete in French than it is in English.
The committee in their work were animated by the idea that perhaps the most important thing to preserve in the nation was its thought, the product of its mind; for after all, the intellectual attainments of any country are its most valuable attainments. The committee recognized the fact that the thinkers have done more for the advancement of the world than even the great commanders or warriors, and that while the work of Alexander, or Caesar, or Napoleon has been swept away by time, just as the sand castles of the boy on the sea shore are swept away by the rising tide, yet the great thinkers like Confucius and Buddha, Jesus Christ, Shakespeare and Darwin, are immortal; their thoughts live forever. It is therefore highly important to preserve the literature of a nation, and it is preserved by the copyright laws which give the necessary encouragement to its authors.
I do not wish to take up the time of the House unnecessarily, but this I think is a question in which we are all deeply interested; we must feel the greatest interest in the intellectual progress of our country. Those who study the development of copyright law will
find it a most fascinating subject; they will find from the first decree on the subject from the Star Chamber in 1556, or some eight years before the birth of Shakespeare, down to the last British copyright act of 1911, there is covered almost exactly the period of development of that great English literature of which we have so much reason to be proud and for which mankind should be thankful. And, as we come down through the various periods, we find in each of them that when there was an improvement in the copyright law there was a corresponding improvement in the literature of the period immediately following.
This bill is an endeavour to bring the copyright legislation of Canada nearer to that of Great Britain and more in keeping with the Berne convention. I hope the government will be able to find a time for the consideration of this bill by the House. The hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier), who has had the matter in charge, has devoted a great deal of time, trouble and care to its preparation, as have all the members of the committee, and I sincerely trust that the government will set aside a time in which the bill may be introduced before the House is prorogued. I should be glad if the House would concur in the recommendation that the proceedings of the committee be printed.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Is the only purpose of
the motion to print the proceedings of the committee?


William Gawtress Raymond: Yes. If there is no
objection I would move that the motion be amended to provide for the printing of 750 copies in English and 250 in French.
Motion as amended agreed to.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 167, to amend an act to provide compensation where employees of His Majesty are killed or suffer injuries while performing their duties.
He said: By the statutes of Canada, 1918, chapter 15, as amended by chapter 14 of the statutes of 1919, employees of His Majesty who are injured and dependents of such employees who are killed are entitled to the same " compensation " as the employees, or the dependents of deceased employees, of perse s other than His Majesty would under similar circumstances be entitled to receive under the law of the province in which the accidents occur. Provision was also made for the utilization of the provincial machinery in determining such
3738	^	COMMONS
CJV.R.-Employees Compensation
compensation. The amendments proposed in this bill are intended to overcome difficulties which have been encountered from time to time in the administration of the act and which have been occasioned by the variety of interpretations placed upon it by the provinces in considering the act in conjunction with the respective provincial acts. Formerly, before an Intercolonial employee could take advantage of the compensation provided in 1918 he had to elect whether he would come under the Provident Fund Act, at that time in force among Intercolonial railway employees, or under the federal act.
Mr. HANSON:: Have the employees elected to come under the federal compensation act?


Mr. COPP:: Previously they had to elect to come under one or the other. That is not necessary now; they have the right to this compensation without making that decision.
Mr.. BAXTER: Will this in any way affect the funds of the Provident association?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Not in the slightest.


Mr. CRERAR:: Does this mean that the employees of the Intercolonial railway will be able to draw relief from two sources?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The Provident fund is an insurance scheme and under its provisions an employee who was injured temporarily received nothing. It applied only to the man himself after he had been with the railway a number of years; upon his retirement he got $30 a month, but his dependents get nothing. And the superannuation ceased with his death. This act provides that the railway employees shall receive the compensation the same as all other railway employees, irrespective of the Provident Fund Act.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Is there any system of
pensions under the Canadian National Railways in which such employees will participate?


Arthur Bliss Copp: No.


Mr. BAXTER:: I understood that we had corresponding legislation in New Brunswick- and I thought the same was true of Nova Scotia-for the purpose of enabling relief of this character to be given and employees of the railway to be dealt with by the Compensation board of the province. I thought that was absolutely in force.


Mr. GRAHAM:: It is a case of interpretation.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I do not want to discuss
the matter at length now, but about a

couple of months ago some gentlemen saw me in connection with this matter. These gentlemen are under the impression, whether rightly or wrongly, that there is some scheme on foot by which the management of their provident fund is to be taken away from them. I understand that if an employee of the railway is injured the government, under existing legislation, will pay in accordance with the scale of compensation in force in the particular province in which the injury occurs. The provident fund, I believe, is made up of subscriptions by the employees and is resorted to in case of infirmity or old age. I think I have the assurance of the minister, but I would ask him to make it perfectly clear, that there is nothing in the proposed legislation which will in any way affect that provident fund.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Not at all.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Will the minister go
further and say that what has been lacking in the previous legislation will now be made good and the employees will get compensation under this amendment?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Under the present legislation
an employee has to elect whether he will come under the compensation act or the provident fund. The provident fund, as my hon. friend knows, does not give anything to the dependents of a man injured or killed while working on the railway. Under this amendment the provident fund is left intact and compensation is worked out by the compensation board in each province.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: This does not infringe on
the provident fund at all?


Arthur Bliss Copp: No.


George Perry Graham: I think all the provinces
but one interpret compensation in the manner made clear by this bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS FIRST READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 161, from the Senate, for the relief of Harriet Elizabeth Couch.-Mr. Clifford.
Bill No. 162, from the Senate, for the relief of Margaret Helen Strickland.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 163, from the Senate, for the relief of John Henry North.-Mr. Duff\
Bill No. 164, from the Senate, for the relief of Walter Thomas Pratchett.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 165, from the Senate, for the relief of Mary Jane Apedaile.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 166, from the Senate, for the relief of Cecil Donnelly.-Mr. Ladner.

Questions

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

Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Did the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners arrange with the Vancouver Terminal Grain Company (Spillers) for the use by the latter of the conveyor galleries and grain loading equipment on a jetty, adjacent to the elevator of the said Vancouver Terminal Grain Company?
2.	If so, what is the tariff rate for charges for the use of said conveyor and loading system?
3.	Did the chief engineer of Vancouver Harbour Board make a report on the cost of the jetty and recommend a per bushel rate of one-half cent as loading charges?
4.	Has any request been filed by R. H. Gale, president of the Vancouver Terminal Grain Company, for a lower schedule of rates than that recommended by the chief engineer?
5.	If so, what rate has been asked, and has the said application been granted?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.	[DOT]
2.	I cent per bushel.
3.	Chief engineer made a report only as to cost of jetty, did not recommend any charge.
4.	See answer to No. 3.
5.	Mr. Gale has verbally asked for a rate of 1/10 cent per bushel, which has not been granted.


BRITISH PETROLEUM WELL No. 4-TEST
*Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	Has there been a test made by the Canadian National Railway officials of crude oil taken from the British Petroleum well No. 4 in the vicinity of Wain-wright, Alberta?
2.	If so, what were the results obtained?


George Perry Graham: Mr. Speaker, such
a test has been made, but as it was made purely for a private company, the Canadian National management think, and the government agrees with their opinion, that it would be unwise to give this information to parliament.


CANADIAN SCOTTISH AND CANADIAN BRITISHER
Mr. COOTE:: 1.	Who were the contractors for the construction of the ships, Canadian Scottish and Canadian Britisher?
2.	In what year was the contract let?
3.	What was the amount of the contract?
4.	What payments were made to the contractors and on what dates?
5.	When did the contractors refuse to complete the
ships?
6.	By whom were the ships finished after the failure of the contractors to complete?
7.	What amount was paid these parties for the completion of the ships?
8.	What was the total cost of the two ships?
9.	What amount was paid by the government to parties having claims against the contractors?
10.	When was bond given by the contractors for the completion of the ships, and what was the amount of the bond?
11.	When was demand for payment of the bond made by the government on the bonding company?
12.	What was the total tonnage of these ships?
13.	What was the cost per ton for construction of these ships?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	The contract was negotiated with the John L. Mullen Construction Company (who afterwards assigned their interests to the Prince Rupert Drydock and Engineering Company, Limited), in October and November, 1918. The order in council authorizing the construction of the ships is dated 12th December, 1918. The formal contract with the Prince Rubert Drydock and Engineering Company, Limited, was signed on the 21st February, 1919.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	$198 per ton deadweight. Estimated for the purpose of the contract 8,100 tons deadweight at $198 per ton = $1,603,800 for each ship.
4.
Canadian Scottish
Date of	No. of	
payment	instalment	Amount26 Feb., 1919 ..	.. .. 1	$ 160.38010 Oct., 1919.. ..	.. .. 2	160,38024 Dec., 1919.. ..	.. .. 3	160,3803 March, 1920..	.. .. 4	80,19018 March, 1920..	.. .. 5	160,38020 May, 1920.. .	.. .. 6	320,76024 Sept., 1920..	.. .. 7	240,570 $1,283,040
Canadian Britisher
Date of	No. of	
payment	instalment	Amount26 Feb., 1919 ..	.. .. 1	S 160,38024 Nov., 1919 ..	.. .. 2	160,38024 Dec., 1919.. .	.. .. 3	160.3807 April, 1920.. .	. .. 4	80,19026 April, 1920.. ,	,. .. 5	160,38020 May, 1920.. .	.. .. 6	160,38028 July, 1920.. .	. .. 8	160,380$1,042,4705 The department	was advised by telegram	from Prince Rupert dated 1st November, 1920,	that work on the	construction	of the two
ships had ceased. On the 7th December, 1920, an order was made by the court adjudging the contractors bankrupt.
6.	The Wallace Shipyards Limited, North Vancouver, B.C.
7.	$1,226,515.24.
Questions

8.	Canadian Britisher, $2,132,565.58; Canadian Scottish, $2,142,585.74.
9.	$286,495.
10.	The contractors were under security from 11th February, 1919. The bond which was outstanding on the date of default was given on 21st April, 1919, and was in the sum of $321,000.
11.	Bonding company was notified of the default of their principal under the bond. 2nd November, 1920.
12.	Canadian Britisher, 8,320 tons deadweight; Canadian Scottish, 8,305 tons deadweight.
13.	Canadian Britisher, $256.32 per ton deadweight; Canadian Scottish, $257.99 per ton deadweight.


PELAGIC SEALING TREATY 1911
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Under the treaty of 1911, between Great Britain, United States, Japan and Russia, what compensation has been paid to, (a) Russia; (b) Japan; (c) Canada; (d) United States?
2.	Has the treaty and subsequent arrangement thereunder of July, 1911, been officially published in Canada and if so, where may these publications be found?
3.	Under Article 16 of the said treaty has any notice been served by any of the four signatory powers that the said treaty will be terminated?
4.	Has there been any accounting given for the seals killed at Robben reef, Japan and Commander island, Russia ?
5.	Has Canada received payment of 15 per cent under articles 12 and 13 of the said Treaty?
6.	Has pelagic sealing been carried on at Okhotsk sea since the treaty was entered into?
7.	Have the United States authorities reported on the status of the sealing herd? If so, what steps have been taken to check the accuracy of the said reports?
8.	Did the experts, at the time of the treaty, estimate that its effect would bring the herd up to about three million?
9.	What is the total number of seals killed on the Pribylof islands since 1900?
10.	Is the government aware that the number killed since 1910 on the said island, is about double the total catch by Canadian sealers prior to 1910?
11.	Did W. T. Hornaday, the seal expert, estimate that the herd numbered to-day about three million seals ?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	(a), (b) and (d) Canada has no information. (c) $694,548.16.
2.	The treaty was published in the Canada Gazette of December 16, 1911; in Volumes 1 and 2 of the Statutes of Canada 2 George V.; in Sessional Paper No. 84 of 1912 and in the Annual Report of the Fisheries Branch of the Department of Marine and Fisheries for 191112.
3.	Canada has not been informed that any of the parties to the treaty has given such notice.
4.	Yes.

5.	Canada has received the 15 per cent provided for by article 12 of the treaty for the years in which killing seals for commercial purposes took place on the Russian islands until 1920. Since then no information is available as to whether seals have been killed on these islands. Canada has received the 10 per cent provided for by article 13 of the treaty for the years in which killing seals for commercial purposes on the Japanese islands took place.
6.	Not so far as Canada is aware.
7.	Yes. In 1914 two officers of the Canadian government visited the Pribylof islands for such purpose. No such steps have since been taken.
8.	Any expression of opinion by experts at the time the treaty was concluded would doubtless be based on the length of the period during which the treaty would remain effective.
9.	No information.
10.	No.
11.	No information.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-FREIGHT TRANSFERRED
Mr. KELLNER:: How many tons of freight were transferred from the Canadian National Railways to the Grand Trunk Pacific west of Font William during the year 1923-24?


George Perry Graham: In view of the fact that these lines are operated as one unit, the management state that this information is not available.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-CHATEAU LAURIER SUITE
Mr. HLJBBS:: 1.	Is another suite of rooms being fitted up in the Chateau Laurier hotel, or renovations being made in any suite, by the Canadian National Railways for the use of Sir Henry Thornton?
2.	If so, what has been or will be the cost of this work?
3.	Was the cost of refitting the bath $900?
4.	Is Sir Henry paying this expense personally?
5.	If not, who is?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	No.
2,	3, 4 and 5:	Answered by No. 1.


MR. ERNEST McCAY
Mr. HUBBS:: 1.	Has Mr. Ernest McCay been dismissed from the position of customs officer at the port of Kingsville, Ontario ?
2.	If so, what were the reasons for such dismissal?
3.	Were any charges made against this officer?
4.	If so, of what nature, by whom were they laid and was an investigation held?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1. Yes.

Home Bank
2.	For conduct unbecoming an officer of Customs and Excise in allowing auto trucks owned by him to be used in the transportation of beer for export to the United States and also for engaging in business and thus violating the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act.
3.	Representations were made to the department.
4.	Investigation was made by Mr. G. Graham, assistant inspector of Customs and Excise.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-TORONTO BUILDING
*Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	For what price has the property on the north west corner of King and Yonge streets, Toronto, been sold?
2.	What commission, if any, in respect of such sale is payable and to whom?
3 Who are the purchasers, and if a company, who are the promoters?
4.	What annual rent has the Canadian National Railway System agreed to pay for space in the building to be erected on said property and for how long a period ?
5.	What annual rent has the government agreed to pay for space in said building and for how long a period ?
6.	How many floors in all will be rented by the government and the Canadian National Railways?


George Perry Graham: Mr. Speaker, the
business to whidh this series of questions refers is still a matter of negotiation. While the negotiations have, I believe, proceeded a considerable length, no recommendation has yet come from the executive of the Canadian National board to the Minister of Railways to be submitted to the government respecting the sale of this property.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: My information was, Mr. Speaker, that the negotiations had reached the stage of a deposit having been paid.


George Perry Graham: That may be so.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Answered.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Henry Lumley Drayton: For a copy of the lease made by the holding company of the Scribe Hotel property in Paris purchased by the Canadian National Railway System, and any other papers and documents in any way relating to the said lease of the said property or the title thereof.


SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT- EDMONTON
Donald Ferdinand Kellner: For a return showing the cost to the government of all leather goods used by the Medical branch of the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment in Edmonton, Alberta.


MATANE WHARF
Richard Burpee Hanson: For a copy of all correspondence, contracts and other documents exchanged between the Department of Public Works and others, in connection with the construction of a public wharf at Matane, in the County of Matane, Quebec.


ST. LEONARD, CUSTOMS EXAMINER
Mr. DOUCET:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Department of Customs and Excise, the Civil Service Commission and others, relating to the appointment of a customs and excise examiner at St. Leonard in the electoral district of Restigouche-Madawaska, New Brunswick.


SADDLE LAKE INDIAN RESERVE
Donald Ferdinand Kellner: For a copy of the contract covering the transfer of a portion of the Saddle Lake Indian Reserve to the Soldier Settlement Board.


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: Mr. Speaker, I offer no
objection to the resolution, but I would say to my hon. friend (Mr. Kellner) that I have a memorandum from the chairman of the Soldier Settlement Board intimating that there is no such contract.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That when this House adjourns on Tuesday, June 2nd next, it stand adjourned until Thursday, June 4th.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following prposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to repeal section 25 of The Income War Tax Act, 1917, as enacted by chapter 46 of the statutes of 1924, constituting a lien upon the assets of the taxpayer for unpaid taxes assessed under the said act.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A, ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved thait the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of the sum of five million four hundred and fifty thousand dollars for the purpose of paying to the several persons who were creditors of The Home Bank of Canada for money on deposit or in current account such proportionate part of the amounts for which they are determined to be creditors in the liquidation proceedings as the said sum will provide, and to authorize the Governor in
[Stage Direction]
Employment oj Immigrants
Council to raise by way of loan such sum as may be required for the purpose of making the payment aforesaid.
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:
Hon.   S@: I would like to ask the government whether they have yet passed an order in council relieving the municipalities from the taxes imposed on them by an order in council in connection with a term contract fcr the export of 60,000 horse-power?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not as yet.



EMPLOYMENT OF IMMIGRANTS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (East Calgary):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Immigration arising out of a telegram which I received from the Trades and Labour Council of Calgary, as follows:
Calgary Trades and Labour Council informed that forty men who were sent by the Calgary Labour bureau to Raymond sugar beet fields found that there were no jobs for them as the C.P.R. had placed immigrants recently arrived from Europe for this work. Please investigate.
I should like to ask the Minister of Immigration if the information contained in this telegram is correct, and if so, whether he thinks it is a wise policy to follow?


George Newcombe Gordon: I would draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that that is properly a question for the order paper, not to be put on the orders of the day.


James Alexander Robb: I do not find any fault with my hon. friend for asking that question. I have received a similar wire from Mr. J. E. Young, of Calgary. I find upon investigation over the long-distance telephone that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company were inquiring as to whether -the Raymond district beet growing interests had endeavoured to secure the help locally or in such centres as Calgary. I am informed that this is a placement of Hungarian farm labourers, who are accustomed to that work. In addition to this, the Deputy Minister of Immigration this morning wired as follows to the Division Commissioner of Immigration at Winnipeg:

Wire received from J. E. Young, Calgary Trades and Labour Council, advising that forty men despatched by Calgary Labour Bureau to Raymond sugar beet fields found no jobs owing to placement C.P.R. immigrants recently arrived. Please investigate and furnish full facts, covering type of immigrants placed in Raymond district also showing whether beet interests have made endeavour to secure help required either locally or in such centres as Calgary. Wire reply.
I shall be glad to advise my hon. friend when the reply is received.



ALBERTA COAL

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: I have a telegram, which I did not bring down with me, but which is to the effect that the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) has made no arrangements as yet for the transport of Alberta coal eastward under the provisions of a certain vote. Would the minister say what is the cause of delay as to that?


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: The matter was .under negotiation when our estimates were being prepared. It is my intention to bring in a supplementary estimate covering our proportionate share of the cost of this experiment.



DEBT AND EXPENDITURE


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles A. Stewart: I wish to refer to a statementmade by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mieighen) on Friday last, page 3702 of Hansard, in which he brought me to task for a statement purporting to have been made by me and recorded in the Edmonton Bulletin of the 23rd of October, 1923, with reference to the public debt of Canada. When this statement was brought to my notice on Saturday I had the records looked up and my secretary furnished me with the statement from which I quoted on that occasion, and in fairness to myself and to my right hon. friend as well I want to make a correction. The Edmonton Bulletin evidently 'stated that there was an increase in the public debt of 46 per cent.


Arthur Meighen: Before the war.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, before
the outbreak of the war. The quotation which I was using was that from 1911 to 1914 the controllable expenditure jumped from $65,000,000 in 1914 to $102,000,000, or an increase of 46 per cent. Quite clearly I could not have said that it was an increase in the public

Civil Service Act
debt, although I may have been misquoted. I may add that I entirely missed the statement in this matter which my right hon. friend said he had previously made and to which he said I had offered no reply.



CECIL R. SMITH

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg):: On May 6 I asked in the House, on the orders of the day, the following question :
Since the Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Cecil R. Smith, admitted bootlegger, that an income tax cannot be levied on the gains derived from illicit business or from the commission of crime; and since this judgment thereby definitely classes bootlegging as a crime, what action does the government propose to take to recover the illegal gains and punish the criminal?
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) answered:
The matter has not yet been considered; I understand that judgment was delivered yesterday.
May I ask whether a decision has yet been given with regard to the covirse to be pursued in this connection?


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: The question of the advisability of
an appeal from that judgment to the Privy Council is under consideration. The question of taxing crime or the product of crime is a rather difficult one. There is another difficulty arising from the fact that most of that revenue would be derived from violations of provincial laws, and it is a question whether this Dominion should take the money derived from that source.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If my hon.
friend will allow me, I would suggest to him that a declaratory act brought in at the present time would seem to be very, very much in place.


Ernest Lapointe: The whole question is
under consideration.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT, 1918, EMPLOYEES-REVENUE AND CITY POST OFFICES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Postmaster General) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918, as respects certain post office employees, and to provide, (1) that when it has been determined by the Governor in Council that any post office, the employees of which do not come under the Civil Service Act, is to be brought under the said act, any person then employed in such office who has had at least two years postal experience, one of which was in the office in question, and who was, at the commencement of his service, within the limits of age prescribed by the Civil Service Commission, and who satisfies the Civil Service Commission that he possesses the necessary qualifications, shall be considered eligible for appointment to any position in such office without competitive examination, provided, however, that any person employed in any such post office on the date of the coming into force of this provision shall be eligible for appointment, even though he was not at the commencement of his employment within the limits of age prescribed by the Civil Service Commission;
(2) That upon an appointment being made, the person appointed shall receive the same salary as he was receiving immediately prior to such appointment, except that if the salary prior to appointment is less than the minimum rate of the position to which he is appointed, his salary shall be increased to such minimum rate, and if the salary prior to appointment exceeds the salary of which he would have been in receipt had he entered the service at the minimum rate of the class and had been allowed a number of annual increases equivalent to the number of years of his service, the salary to be paid to him upon appointment shall be fixed by the Civil Service Commission.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Would my hon. friend tell us something about this?


Mr. MURPHY:: Speaking generally, there
are two classes of post offices, revenue post offices and city post offices. In revenue post offices the postmaster is paid out of the revenue, and he engages and pays his staff out of the revenue. In the city post offices, as they are called, the postmaster and his staff are paid out of the parliamentary appropriations. In the Civil Service Act which was in force up to 1918 there was a section providing for changing a revenue post office into a city post office, but for some reason which has not been explained to me, probably due to an oversight in the consolidation of the	act	in that	year,
this particular section was dropped. The resolution now before the committee and the bill to be founded upon it merely propose to re-introduce the section which was in the act up to 1918.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the policy of the department with respect to bringing these so-called revenue offices into the category of city post	offices? We have	a number oflarge towns in the province of New Brunswick, the town	of St. Stephen,	for	instance,	producing a	large revenue	and	with a	large
number of clerks, but it is not under the Civil Service Commission. Personally I think it ought to be, because it is a very important post office. What is the policy of the department with respect to such offices as I have indicated?


Charles Murphy: The question which the
hon. member has addressed to me is one that I myself addressed to the officials, and the answer given was that there was a rule previously in existence under which when the revenue of a post office had reached approxi-

Civil Service Act

mately $35,000 per year, and the population of the town had reached approximately, I think it is 10,000-but I would not be sure as to that-the procedure was set in motion for changing a revenue office into a city post office. I may add for the information of my hon. friend and of the committee, these are details which will not be fixed by the department and the Civil Service Commission.


William Irvine: We cannot hear very clearly back here, Mr. Chairman, what the discussion is about, but I thought I heard the minister say that there were two kinds of post offices. I was just thinking there must be three kinds, because we have neither of these kinds in Calgary, and I was wondering if this resolution was to provide for building a post office in Calgary; I could not hear what it was about.


Mr. BOYS:: Is there any intention of
making this applicable to towns of less than
10.000	population and where the revenue is less than $35,000?


Charles Murphy: Not at present.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The regulation the minister mentions cannot be uniformly in force because the city of Fredericton has less than
10.000	population, while the revenue is over $35,000. I think it is desirable and would be in the interest of the public service that as many as possible of the post offices in these large towns, if not exactly city post offices, should be brought under the regulations as to city post offices. And the reason I say that is this. The postmaster pays himself out of the revenue he receives, and employs and pays his own help. All the assistants in these town post offices work long hours and very strenuously, and I' do not think they get the compensation that employees of a similar class get in the city post offices, and thereby an injustice is done to them. As a matter of fact it is a question of bargaining between the postmaster and his help. He endeavours to get- the work done at, as cheap a rate as he possibly can, and pockets the balance.


Charles Murphy: This amendment will
overcome the very difficulty that my hon. friend speaks of.


Mr. W. F. CARROLL (Cape Breton South and Richmond):: I agree with the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) that the minister should do something to place the post offices of towns of smaller population on a city basis for the reasons set forth by the hon. gentleman. We have several towns in the province of Nova Scotia-there are some in my own county-with, say, a population of
7.000	people. The postmaster in these towns,

of course, gets a nice revenue-I am not finding any fault with the postmaster on that account-but the trouble is he does not give the service because he does not hire the assistance that is required in the post office. I might cite the case of the town of Glace Bay, with a population of 18,000 and, I think, a revenue of something in the vicinity of fifty or sixty thousand dollars. I congratulate the minister on the fact that last year he appropriated $20,000 for the Glace Bay post office; also, I think, for one at Welland, and for one in British Columbia. I think the department is working along the right lines in endeavouring to give us a better service even if the towns do not contain a population of 10,000 or 7,000 provided they have a revenue of, say, $20,000. I think that in moving along these lines the people are likely to get a better service.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Murphy thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 168, to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918, respecting certain post office employees.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. SPEAKER:: When shall the said bill be read a second time? Now?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is the bill distributed? I have not seen it.


Charles Murphy: Next sitting of the House.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee to consider the proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the act respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway Line from the end of the China Clay Branch to St. Remi d'Amsherst in the Province of Quebec, chapter fourteen of the statutes of 1924, and to provide that the compensation to be paid by the Company in respect of the acquisition of an unencumbered title to the right of way and all prior construction thereon of the River Rouge Railway Company or the Rouge River Railway Company between China Clay and St. Remi d'Amherst, be determined by the Exchequer Court of Canada and shall be based on the value to the company of such right of way and prior construction but shall not in any case exceed fourteen thousand dollars.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
George Perry Graham: This is not a new line; a bill for its construction was passed last year. In these approximately two miles of railway

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
to be constructed there is a right of way and some construction that had been procured and built by what was known as the River Rouge Railway Company. In the bill passed by the House of Commons last year there was no restriction as to the amount that might be paid for the right of way and the construction. The upper house amended the bill by placing a maximum amount to be paid for this right of way and the work constructed thereon at $5,000. In endeavouring to proceed with the construction the company found that they could not secure the right of way and the construction thereon for the sum of $5,000 as it represented a far greater value than that amount. This year they asked for an amendment so that they could proceed *with the work, the amount to be paid for the right of way and the construction thereon to be determined by the Exchequer court but in any event not to exceed $14,000. I may say that that amount was inserted because the engineers of the road made a report that that is approximately the value of the property.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will my hon
friend tell me if this is the same line where we have this situation-that a very small bit of construction has been done and a claim has been made for a large amount of ground?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: As a result of the construction. I suppose this is with a view of purchasing the amount of construction I was referring to. How does the matter stand, having regard to the land situation? Do we get the land as we were anticipating last year?


George Perry Graham: That is a matter of the future, I imagine. The difficulty that arose last year was that it was feared that the River Rouge company by the construction of these two miles of line, in addition to the line that had been constructed by the company, might secure the land subsidy from the Quebec government for the entire amount, because, as I understand it, the amount is not payable until the whole line is constructed. That objection has been removed by the Quebec government undertaking that the land grant would not be transferred to the River Rouge company.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was just wondering, though-I am speaking only for the purpose of getting information-what the situation was. My recollection was that the case was covered by an act. I think if the company have any rights, grossly technical 23&i
and unfair though they might be, those rights would rest upon an act. Now, an act cannot very well be set aside by an undertaking of the government unless the government implement that undertaking by amending their act. I think that when the matter was previously before this House, we had the undertaking of my hon. friend that the work would not go on until he saw to it that either we got the land in question or that nobody else should get it. I was in great hopes we would get that land. It is a branch which is being built entirely in the interests of the neighbourhood; and	the	government at	the	timethought it	was	so much to	the	advantage of	the	neighbourhood	that	that
branch should be built that they made a very generous provision in land acreage for the construction of the branch.


George Perry Graham: The whole line.


Henry Lumley Drayton: For the ten
miles?


George Perry Graham: This is only two, this
piece.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This is only
two miles of it. The situation, then, was that the province of Quebec, being exceedingly anxious to have this line built, threw it open for construction, and the River Rouge company got on the ground first. They did not get very far. They built very little; I believe there has practically been no actual construction except enough to keep the thing alive in a stretch of not more than two miles, and I do not think all the work was done even in the two miles; it stopped there. The old Canadian Northern proceeded under the assumption that if they built they would get the land grant and they constructed, I think, about eight miles. I am speaking from an old memory and my hon. friend has the paper before him. Then the River Rouge Railway company put forward a claim as of right. They said, "You are building this line, but we get the subsidy, ' and they insisted upon getting the subsidy because the railway, just as soon as it was built, would be part of their line. They started the construction and they claimed they should get the whole of it. In order to prevent that being done the then executive of the Canadian Northern, as I recollect it, put some old rolling stock at the end of the line in such a way that it was impossible for them to make connection with the small construction which they had on the other side.
I do not know whether those facts are exactly correct, but, although my recollection
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

is an old one, it is pretty clear on that subject. The claim impressed itself upon me at the time as being an outrageous one, and dor that reason I recollect it. I submit, in connection with that line, that the government *ought to get the land or the subsidy. If they paid for these other two miles they should :get it without any doubt. I do not know why we should go on this two-mile stretch, unless We got the money or the land. I am confident we have gained nothing. The construction there would be entirely useless from the standpoint of the Canadian National Railways. The only consideration in using the property would be the land itself as land, and I would not think the right of way on land in that part of the country would be worth much. Be that as it may, if we actually paid these people that were behind this wonderful venture, I should have thought there was no doubt that we were entitled to the land grant, and I would ask my hon. friend to tell us how far we have got along in our negotiations in regard to getting that land for the Canadian National.


Mr. FORTIER:: Is my hon. friend aware
that the subsidy from the province of Quebec has lapsed, and that the money to be voted is to pay for the land that the company acquired originally, and also to pay for the improvements already made by that company on those two miles between China Clay and St. Remi d'Amherst?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. gentleman Who has asked me the question knows more about the immediate facts than I do, a3 I am speaking from an old recollection. I do not think there was any cash subsidy involved at all, and I do not know that there is any limitation on the land grant; but even if there is a limitation, it does seem to me, as it is a matter of policy with the Quebec government that the eoilstruetion of this line was worth so many acres of land, that they could afford to give it to this little Rouge River concern, ten miles in all; it is worth infinitely more to have this place 4 p.m. opened up and helped by the Canadian National, and the same policy ought to apply. In other words, is there any reason why the railway of the people cannot be treated just the same way. as the railway of an adventurer? If it is a good thing to give to private interests large blocks of land to accommodate construction -and we know how generally, in the first instance, building of lines generally meets with failure so far as an immediate return is concerned-why is it not a good thing to tSir Henry Drayton.]
continue that grant of land in case of the general public?


George Perry Graham: This is merely an amendment to a bill that is already law, and refers definitely to one particular matter that I outlined a moment ago. There is no danger of the River Rouge company getting this subsidy. I am not prepared to state in what position the subsidy is as far as the Canadian National is concerned, but I can assure my hon. friend that if there is any possibility of getting the subsidy the Canadian National will get it. This bill is merely to allow the Canadian National to refer the value of the work done, including the construction of the two miles, to the Exchequer court, and to name the amount to be paid. The restriction is imposed that it must not be more than 844,000, because that is the outside estimate of its value by the Canadian National.


Hyacinthe-Adélard Fortier: I hope this amendment
will not have the effect of preventing the immediate construction of that branch line. Last session parliament passed a measure for this construation, and the amendment passed by the Senate caused a delay in the work; but I repeat, the construction of this branch line is most important for the people in that district. The section 'between St. Eustache and St. Jerome has been completed and has been opened for traffic, to the great satisfaction of the people of the counties of Two Mountains, Terrebonne and Labelle. In order to improve the branch lines the construction of these two miles is absolutely necessary. My people are desirous of having this branch line completed as soon as possible, and we had hoped that it would have been constructed during last year. I hope that it will be possible to commence the work at once. I trust that the reference of the dispute concerning the value of the work which has been done to the Exchequer Court of Canada will not result in further delay, and that the minister will give me the assurance that this construction will not be delayed on account of the amendment now brought down.
The legislation which is now submitted has been rendered necessary by the amendment made by the Senate to the bill passed by the House of Commons last session. It is simply a matter of justice, I think, that all the improvements already made by the River Rouge company should be paid for. But the Senate, by its amendment, permitted the gov-vemment to pay only 85,000 for these improvements, and it has been estimated by experts that the value of these improvements will amount to a larger sum than $14,000; at all events the sum of $14,000 would be accept-

Proposed Loan
able to the River Rouge Railway Company.
I am only representing the electors of the county of Labelle, who wish to see this branch line built as soon as possible. I am sure the committee will understand that in this desire they do not in any way want to injure the interest of other people. If it is deemed necessary to pay any larger sum than the $5,000 authorized I think we should adopt the amendment and pay the actual value of the improvements made by this railway. I may add the assurance from the minister (Mr. Graham) that the construction of this branch line will not be delayed any longer but that it will be begun at once.


Mr. McTAGGART:: How long has the
Rouge River Railway Company held the charter, and how much work has it done?


George Perry Graham: It has had the charter
for a considerable time but I am not familiar with the details. The company did do a great deal of grading and it purchased the right of way and laid down a number of ties and other material, on the ground.


Henry Lumley Drayton: As for the ties, they have long since resolved into their original component parts; I am perfectly safe in that statement. I suppose the grading is still there, although a good deal of it must have been washed away. I do not know that there can be any title there at the present time; I doubt whether there is, unless renewals have been granted. The only thing I should be afraid 'of in connection with this undertaking is the possibility of re-creating a right in these people; we should not recognize them as owners until we are satisfied that they are such. I think the minister will find that the money has really all gone; the right of way to-day is valueless so far as the grading is concerned.


George Perry Graham: Parliament has authorized the construction of this line, and if the company cannot get the right of way, with the grading that has already been done, which the engineers say is worth far more than the amount now named, they will have to secure a new right of way which will involve doing again what work has been accomplished. The Exchequer court can examine all the facts, and I think the company should be allowed to make use of the material that is already there. Certainly the legal department of the Canadian National Railways will see to it, as stated in this bill, that they have an unimpaired title to the property.


Hyacinthe-Adélard Fortier: The line has been surveyed and the roadbed already exists. I know something about this matter, because the
farmers of St. Remi d'Amherst who worked on the road have not yet been paid.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is worse
and worse.


Hyacinthe-Adélard Fortier: It is only a matter of justice that they should be paid and that the work should be gone on with.


Neil Haman McTaggart: Is this company a
going concern?


George Perry Graham: I think they have gone.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Graham thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 169, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from the end of the China Olay branch to St. Remi d'Amherst in the province of Quebec.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PROPOSED LOAN OF $164,000,000

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide authority for the raising, by way of loan, under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, by the issue and sale or pledge of securities of Canada, in such form, for such separate sums, at such rate of interest and upon such other terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may approve, such sum or sums of money as may be required, but not to, exceed in the whole the sum of one hundred and sixty-four million dollars, for paying or redeeming or otherwise retiring the whole or any portion of loans or obligations of Canada and for public works and general purposes, and to provide that the principal so raised by way of loan and the interest thereon shall be a charge upon and payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
He said: This resolution is to provide for the maturities of this year which are as follows:
Ju|y 1	5	60,800 00A'«ust 12	
23,333,333	33September 15	
90,000,000	00November 15	
8,000,000	00December 1	
42,014,500	00
5164,408,633 33
Henry Lumley Drayton: It is entirely
refunding?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will my hon.
friend give the number of loans to be paid off with their rates of interest?
Proposed Loan


James Alexander Robb: I am glad my hon. friend has asked that question, because last year in our refunding we made a considerable saving of interest, but I fear we will not be able to repeat it this year for the rates of interest on the maturities are already fairly low. For instance, the present rate on the $60,800 is 3t . per cent; on the treasury bills due in London, England, amounting to $24,333,333.33 it is 4| per cent; the $90,000,000 due in New York is at 4 per cent; the $8,000,000 due in Canada is at 4 per cent; and the $42,000,000 odd, also due in Canada, is at 5 per cent.


Mr. OOOTE:: Did not the minister tell us
a year ago that the refunding bill passed then would cover all issues up to 1927?


James Alexander Robb: I think my hon. friend is correct, had I made long-term renewals, but the market condition was such that it was more profitable to make short term renewals. So we must go into the market again this year to provide for the renewals made last year. Taking the short-term money last year-and it was much cheaper than the long-term-we were able to effect an annual saving on interest account of $2,643,264.92.


George Gibson Coote: What is the total of the loans falling due this year that are to be renewed?


James Alexander Robb: The total is $164,408,633.33.


Mr. MANION:: How do the long-term
rates compare this year with those of last year?


James Alexander Robb: To show the committee how
closely men who have money to invest watch the market-just as closely as those who have wheat or cattle to sell-I may say that one hour after this resolution was mentioned in the House last week-when owing to the absence of the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) it was not proceeded with-I had two telephone calls from New York with respect to the purchase of the loan. I explained the situation and asked them how the money market was. They replied that money for short-date periods was fairly cheap, but that there was not now the same spread between the rates for short- and long-term money as there was last year. I am sorry I cannot give my hon. friend the exact spread; it varies from day to day.


Robert James Manion: Could the minister give a
comparison of the long-term rates this year with those of last year?


James Alexander Robb: No, I have not got them.


George Gibson Coote: Will this $164,000,000 cover
all the new borrowings of the government this year as well as the renewals?


James Alexander Robb: The government have so
managed the financing that they will not require any new money for government business proper. Indeed, before the end of the session I think I shall be able to advise the House that the balance is better than that announced in the budget, or even than that mentioned by the Prime Minister in his speech on the budget.


George Gibson Coote: I understood the bonds for
the Quebec Harbour Commission would have to be floated.


James Alexander Robb: The Quebec Harbour Commission will probably look after their own bonds, just as the Montreal Harbour Commission sometimes look after theirs. Of course, anything the government guarantees is not initialed until the minister is satisfied that the security has been sold at a proper rate.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Chairman,
the hon. gentleman (Mr. Coote) need not have any fear of the government's power of issuing money. The government have lots of statutory powers for this purpose; for example, they have the old statutory powers in connection with the railway system. While last year we had a heavy increase in the Canadian National debt of $118,000,000, admitted by the government, there is nothing like that shown in connection with actual loans either made or guaranteed by them. The reason, of course, is perfectly obvious- there are certain specific statutes which have to do with the raising of money for certain specific objects. Take as an illustration the money to be raised for the Quebec harbour board. As the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) says, he is not bothering about power to issue those debentures; if the resolution carries the money will be raised all right, but not under this bill nor under any general bill. In connection with our railway situation we are going on raising money under the special powers granted the Canadian National Railways to issue their obligations directly. So we are going on piling up our obligations, but because we have not got them put in the one account, as the question by the hon. member (Mr. Coote) would indicate, they are not looked upon as having anything to do with the debt of the country.
I think, Mr. Chairman, the hon. minister (Mr. Robb) is doing all he can do in connection with this bill. I might point out to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) the position of a minister of finance. On other occasions he has been kind

Proposed Loan
enough to point to the rates of interest that have been paid on our obligations from time to time, and I want to assure him that when the Acting Minister of Finance to-day says he cannot make economies in the present rates of interest as he could last year, that is not his fault. The price of money is no more under his control than i3 the price of wheat under the control of his government.
I only point it out again because the right hon. gentleman has more recently voiced his criticism of those figures, but this absolute apparent truth has been pointed out time and again in this House.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: The hon.
gentleman stated a moment ago that the price of money was not under the control of the Minister of Finance, and I agree with him. But would he inform the House under whose control it is?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend there is getting into a very wide field.


James Alexander Robb: Under whose control is the
price of wheat?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think it is
a field that the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) likes to travel in, for he is absolutely free and untrammelled in that tremendous area of "supply and demand" which he likes to tell us about so often.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is not fair. I am not asking him to make a joke out of what is a very serious question. I am intensely anxious to find out just where the control of the price of money lies. I have been trying to find out myself and if the exMinister of Finance can help me, I shall be very grateful to him.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend
is right. It is a serious question, and I was more serious than joking in my answer. Some people think we have what might be called a unified money control; that we have a condition in connection with finance very much akin to that which prevails under any state monopoly. But I think they are wrong, because we still have very important financial centres which are in direct active competition with each other. We still have New York and the interests represented by it, and even in New York itself there is the fiercest kind of competition between different financial institutions and monied interests for investments. Hon. members who have not been down there and had some experience in connection with loans and investments would be
surprised at the number of interests, not curb brokers or anything like that, who are in a position to place very large loans, and the way in which by careful trading one can take off one-eighth, one-quarter, one-half or even three-quarters, of one per cent of cost. The Minister of Finance has to make the best deal he can, having regard to the conditions of the market at the time. There is only one basis of fair criticism-and I do not mean criticism which is for political purposes; I do not mean such criticism as the Prime Minister makes when he compares a war rate of interest on the one hand with the rate of interest last year when money was a drug on the market-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend dispute the accuracy of the facts I gave the committee?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I absolutely
dispute the inference my right hon. friend seeks to draw from the statement. I dispute absolutely every deduction he sought to make from it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not the facts.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Everybody knows that it is not fair to make a comparison between high rates of interest during the war period and rates of interest prevailing when there is no demand for money. That kind of argument ought to be beneath my right hon. friend.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Since my hon. friend says that interest rates were higher immediately after the war, why did he make his contracts for such long periods? Why did he run them for thirty years instead of five or ten?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend has quite enough renewals, I imagine, to look after; they are coming in with more or less regularity. His remark just now has just about as much point as his other arguments. No; the only fair thing to do is to compare the results of loans made in a given year with others made in the same year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Can my hon. friend give us any parallel case where loans at this high rate, seven per cent, were taken for thirty years?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My right hon.
friend will get all he wants by the time I am finished. Let me come back to the main point; I am not going to be put off by interruptions. The fair thing to do is to make the comparison between current loans, not between loans made in different years. It is
Proposed Loan

just as unfair to compare loans made in one year with those made in another as it would be to say that this government was responsible for the great drop in the price of wheat two years ago. Now, my right hon. friend says something about dates of issues. I would like him to compare our issues with -the British issues, on any basis he likes. It has to be remembered that when conditions are very bad you have to make longer-term loans if you are going to do business. My right hon. friend's criticism would apply to the financing of Great Britain herself-and she is supposed to understand the market pretty well. The Minister of Finance understands something about this business; he has not the great advantage of the Prime Minister-he understands something about it. When this question was up in the House two years ago I threw out the challenge that as respects these loans which have since been discussed we got our money in the market cheaper and upon more favourable terms than any other country did, and that our credit stood higher. That challenge was not and could not have been taken up. At that time we were talking about the loan which was put on by my right hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), his first large New York loan, and I applied to that the same principle that I am willing to have applied in connection with any of my own activities as Minister of Finance. I Showed at that time that, while we were getting money at a lower rate than during the war, we were paying more than was being paid for other issues on the New York market that very week, even that very day. I showed this from the press reports. And nothing further was said, nothing further was done, until the Prime Minister makes the wonderful discovery that there is a difference between the rate of interest during the war and that of other years. But, Mr. Chairman, the Acting Minister of Finance will have to take just exactly what this market will give him. He says he will not be able to show the same economies that he made before in connection with the other issues. Honestly, I do not think he will, and I do not blame him because he will not be able to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Robb thereupon moved fcr leave to introduce Bill No. 170, to auth-ize the raising, by way of loan, of certain sums of money for the public service.
_ Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.	[DOT]



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT AMENDMENT ,

[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 148, to amend the Dominion Elections Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 16, to amend the Supreme Court Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Dates of sessions of Supreme Court.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the idea?


Ernest Lapointe: Under the law the
Supreme court sits for its first session on the first Tuesday in February, the second on the first Tuesday in May, and the third on the second Tuesday in October, of each year. This change was made a few years ago, and the members of the court think the sessions should begin on the first Tuesday in October as well as the first Tuesday in February and May.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Ernest Lapointe: I beg to move to add
Idle following as sections 2 and 3.
2. Section thirty-six of the said act, as enacted by chapter thirty-two of the statutes of 1920, is amended by striking out paragraph (b) thereof, and substituting therefor the following:
"(b) a judgment granting a motion for a non-suit or directing a new trial."
3. Section forty-one of the said act, as enacted by chapter thirty-two of the statutes of 1920, is amended by striking out the last four lines of the section, and substituting the following:
"If special leave to appeal has been refused by the highest court of final resort in the province the Supreme Court may nevertheless grant such leave during the period fixed by section sixty-nine or within thirty days thereafter, or within such further extended period as the court or a judge may upon cause shown in the particular case, either before or after the expiry of the said thirty days, fix or allow."
There are three amendments which are suggested by the judges of the Supreme court themselves and accepted by the department and myself. I think it is better for me first to refer to section 36. The new section 36 of the act was enacted in 1920, and it gives the right of appeal to the Supreme court from any judgment of the highest court of final resort in any province of Canada where such judgment is (a) a final judgment, or (b) a-

Supreme Court Act
judgment upon a motion for a non-suit or directing a new trial. It is proposed to strike out the word "upon" in (b) and substitute therefor the word "granting", because the judges find that a judgment which does not grant the motion fcr non-suit is not a final judgment by any means. That was overlooked two years ago when the words "upon a new trial" were changed to "directing a new trial." They feel that the words "upon a motion for a non-suit" should be changed into "a judgment granting a motion for a nonsuit," and I think that is perfectly right.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have not seen the amendment, but its effect, as I understand it, is that upon a motion refusing a non-suit there will be no appeal.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, because it is not a final judgment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But that upon a motic-n
granting a non-suit there will be an appeal, as you have finality.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Mr. MARTELL:: Does that seem quite
fair, that upon a motion granting a non-suit there shall be an appeal, but that upon a motion refusing a non-suit there shall be no appeal? It seems to me there is a great difference being made between the two parties, and I do not see the equity in this distinction.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I think it is in the interest of suitors that an appeal should be possible, but they should be limited to such cases as are absolutely necessary. I think it is wise that there should be a final determination of a case in the provincial courts before there is an appeal. I believe all members of the profession will join with me in saying that the litigant should not be subjected to repeated and vexatious appeals during different stages of the case, but that a finality ought to be reached first and an appeal entered afterwards. If the motion for non-suit is refused then the case comes to some determination, probably in favour of the other party, and an opportunity for appeal is not taken away; but it is taken away at what I might call a merely interlocutory stage. Therefore, I rather think the amendment is wise.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3:
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
change in the law there?


Ernest Lapointe: Under section 39 it is stated that no appeal shall lie to the Supreme court from a judgment rendered in any provincial court unless the amount in controversy in the appeal exceeds the sum of $2,000 or special leave to appeal is obtained " as hereinafter provided ". That special leave to appeal is provided under section 41, and section 41 says that special appeal may be granted in any case within section 36-that is, special leave to appeal having been refused by the highest court of final resort having jurisdiction in the province in which the judicial proceeding is instituted-and then the section proceeds:
Provided that in any case whatever where the matter in controversy on the appeal will involve-
(a)	the validity of an act of the Parliament of Canada or of the legislature of any province of Canada or of an ordinance or act of the council or legislative body of any territory of Canada; or,
(b)	any fee of office, duty, rent or revenue, or any sum of money payable to His Majesty; or,
(c)	the taking of any annual rent, customary or other fee, or other matters by which rights in future of the parties may be affected; or,
(d)	the title to real estate or some interest therein; or,
(e)	the validity of a patent; and,
(f)	in cases which originated in a court of which the judges are appointed by the Governor General and in which the amount or value of the matter in controversy in the appeal will exceed the sum of one thousand dollars.
In all these cases, if special leave to appeal has been refused by the highest court of final resort in the province, the Supreme court may nevertheless grant such leave during the period fixed by section 69, within thirty days thereafter. Section 69 fixes a period of sixty days within which to ask leave to appeal from the court of highest resort in the province. It is proposed to change the last part and substitute the following:
If special leave to appeal has been refused by the highest court of final resort in the province, the Supreme court may nevertheless grant such leave during the period fixed by section 69, or within thirty days thereafter, or within such further extended period as the court or a judge may upon cause shown in the particular case, either before or after the expiry of the said thirty days, fix or allow.
The reason for this suggested amendment is given to me by the judges of the Supreme court as follows:
The first amendment of the two enclosed provides for the case in which the Supreme court may not be in session between the date when special leave to appeal has been refused by the Court of Appeal of a province and the expiry of the additional thirty days within which the Supreme court is empowered to grant leave. There is no power in the court to extend any time fixed by the statute. A case occurred during the recent term in which the Court of Appeal had so long delayed dealing with the application for special leave that it was apparent that, should it be refused, there could be no recourse to the Supreme court within the time prescribed by section 41 as it now stands and a case of serious injustice might thus have arisen. The purpose of the amendment is to permit the court, or a
Supreme Court Act

judge, on application and cause shown, to extend the time within which special leave may be granted.
The purpose of the second amendment is to enable an intending appellant to restrict his appeal to a particular part of the judgment appealed from so that he may not have to incur unnecessary costs. It will also enable the court, where an appeal has not been limited as it should have been, to deal satisfactorily with the extra costs occasioned by such failure to limit it.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I am in accord with the
amendment but I have not had the opportunity of looking at the precise language. Perhaps the minister can tell me whether this amendment will apply to any appeal, or whether it only applies to the somewhat limited class of appeals where the Supreme court might act itself. If the broader interpretation is the correct one I think it is very "salutary legislation. As the act stands to-day there is a certain class of cases involving a limited number of rights where, even though the highest court in the provinces refuses a right of appeal, yet the Supreme Court of Canada may grant it. There is another class lying outside of that where, if the court of last resort in the province refuses the litigant the right to appeal, the litigant's right is gone forever. If I caught the language correctly I think this amendment is intended to allow the Supreme court to act in those cases as well.


Ernest Lapointe: I am afraid not.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Well, it ought to. While
I do not expect that the minister wants to revise again the whole question of appellate procedure, in my judgment the provisions for appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada stand upon an absolutely false basis-they are regulated by the number of dollars involved. That should never be the test of a man's right to appeal, the importance of the legal point at issue ought to be the determining factor; and it will be very much better if, instead of this clumsy practice that we have had for a great many years, the right to appeal was made to depend on leave given by the highest court of last resort in the province with a right, if that failed, to lay the matter before a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada who on a short statement of facts, would be able to say whether the question in litigation was or was not of sufficient importance to warrant an appeal. The amount in controversy, I think, is $2,000 now. I do not want to refer to personal experiences, but not long since in New Brunswick I had a matter that involved little more than half that amount. The Supreme Court of New Brunswick was not of my opinion 
with regard to the case; they did, however, grant leave to appeal. It raised a very important question. It raised a question that is yet open for decision, and one as to which no exact parallel can be found to-day in the reports. Had the Supreme Court of New Brunswick refused leave to appeal it would have had a jurisprudence for that province which, in the common law of provinces where they are absolutely bound by precedent, could not possibly have been gotten rid of until some case should arise involving precisely the same circumstances and the same amount of money. That is not right. We do not want a decision on dollars, but we do want a decision on principles; and if the amendment is not going in the direction I thought it was, I would ask the minister to kindly see that it is changed so that the Supreme Court of Canada may in any case intervene and grant leave if it thinks the lower court has erred in not permitting an appeal. An error is quite possible. Judges try to be fair, but unconsciously errors are committed. An appellant court may consist of three or five members, and if they are unanimous they may think too little of the legal point at issue, and may say, "We will not grant you leave to appeal, we are absolutely right; it is a pity to have this matter litigated further." They may, however, be absolutely wrong in the opinion of a higher court, and they have to-day the power of preventing the litigant getting to a higher court to obtain the expression of opinion of another judicial tribunal. I do not think it makes for the best system.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not wish to discuss the point suggested by my hon. friend, but I may say it would be much more of a radical nature than the amendment which is now proposed. This amendment does not change at all the principle, or basis or methods or jurisdiction-


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I do not ask to do
that,


Ernest Lapointe: -it affects only the delay. It gives to the litigant in a certain limited class of cases the right to ask leave to appeal to the Supreme court, if leave to appeal has been refused by the highest court of the province. In ordinary cases the decision of the highest court of the province refusing leave to appeal prevents the litigant going to the Supreme court; but in view of the class of cases enumerated in section 41 of the act-that is the section providing for an appeal to the Supreme court in matters con-

Supreme Court Act
cerning assessment of property and so on- when the highest courts of the province refuse the leave to appeal there is jurisdiction in the Supreme court to . grant that leave of appeal within a certain time. The amendment is merely to permit a court or a judge to extend; the time in certain cases.


Henry Lumley Drayton: As I understand it, at the present time in the first instance we have a delay of sixty days.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And after that
there seems to be another thirty 'day's delay.


Ernest Lapointe: Not now. The thirty
days is within the sixty days.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In the future we will have a delay of sixty days or thirty days.


Ernest Lapointe: Or longer.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, if the
judge orders it. I understand the order can be made before or after the time for appeal has lapsed. Does the minister think that is a good provision? I do not see anything to prevent a judge giving leave to appeal at the end of a year, which would be entirely wrong. I think what the minister wants is this. That the time for appeal can be continued so as to enable an application to be properly heard at the next regular 5 p.m. sitting of the court; or if the application has been made after the regular sitting of the court, it can be adjourned to another sitting. I speak subject to correction, because I have not had a chance of looking at anything, simply having heard the section read, but does my hon. frind think it would be wise to put through an amendment which would enable either a court or a single judge to resuscitate a case a year old and grant leave to appeal? Under the amendment as the minister read it, the time within which a judge can grant leave to appeal is not limited in the slightest.


Ernest Lapointe: There must be a strong
case made out, and we must assume that the judge will exercise reasonable discretion.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is "a
reasonable discretion"? It depends on the length of this man's foot or the other man's leg.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh no.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When once we
get into the matter of "reasonable discretion," what my hon. friend would think was most highly reasonable, an opponent in any case he happened to be in would think was wholly
unreasonable. That is the reason why we usually have some definite provision as to time. Why have any rules whatever in connection with time for court procedure? Why not leave all the matters in the hands of the judges, trusting that they will do the reasonable thing. In such an event we should never conduct public business at all. I am perfectly in accord with my hon. friend, that no case should be left in such a position that, owing to the absence of the sittings of a court, leave could not be given; but on the other hand I am equally sure that it is not in the best interests of the court itself, or of the litigant, or of anybody else, that the whole matter should be left wide open. And I do not think the court would desire such a provision. I think the court wished to cover a case like the extreme one which my hon. friend quoted.


Ernest Lapointe: The amendment has
been drafted by the judges of the court, and really I think my hon. friend would be right with regard to the provincial courts, but so far as the Supreme Court of Canada is concerned, I think there is no danger in giving discretion to the judges in such cases, and it would rather meet the objection of my hon. friend from St. John and Albert (Mr. Baxter)-


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is another point.


Ernest Lapointe: -that we should give a larger and greater latitude to litigants to carry their cases to appeal.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I cannot agree with my
hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton) for this reason. I think all the common law provinces have adopted what we call the Judicature Act, and it is a provision of the judicature rule, and is acted on so habitually that it does not excite any comment that the time for doing an act may be extended, even though the time has expired before the application was made. Really no harm comes from it. I should like to illustrate the need of this just by showing the procedure in my own province. In the first place the Supreme Court Act gives the court jurisdiction to permit an appeal to the highest court of the province. In New Brunswick that highest court, which we call the Supreme court, sits five times a year. In some other provinces, I think the highest court does not sit quite so frequently. With us the judgment in the cases is delivered generally towards the very end of the session, sometimes the very last day the court sits. A litigant is in a very awkward position in regard to getting per-
Supreme Court Act

mission to appeal. The permission must be obtained, I think, from the whole court, and I do not think a single judge can exercise the power in a provincial court, and with us there is great danger of getting out of court altogether. This will enable the Supreme Court of Canada to remedy just such an instance as that, but the remedy will apply only if the case falls within one of five classes; one of those relates to any constitutional point, the construction of a statute; another has reference to rent or service due to His Majesty; a third deals with titles to real estate, and the other two turn on appeals from commissions. But these cases do not cover the whole field of litigation and it will be easily possible for a litigant to be remedyless merely because of the effluxion of time, while the Supreme court under this legislation will be powerless to help him. I do not urge the minister to go the whole length of what I advocate and put appeals on an entirely different basis; I should like to see that done but I am not urging it just now; I do not ask the minister to mix this legislation with that. But I do ask him to consider adding another provision to the first part of the section, providing a power similar to the one he is giving in the second part, so that the Supreme court or a judge may intervene and permit an appeal where it has been refused by the highest court of last resort in the province concerned. I am sure that such a power would rarely be exercised, because the Supreme court quite properly does not encourage appeals. It has had an enormous mass of business, and it is most vital to the proper work of the court that the number of appeals should be kept down. But there ought always to be somebody else to whom you can go who shall decide whether you have the right to appeal or not, besides the man who has pronounced decision against you. I ask the minister to consider this suggestion carefully. I suggest further that it might not be a bad thing if bills of this kind, which cannot involve any political difference in the world, could be considered by a committee consisting practically of members of the profession in this House. That would bring every legal mind to bear on the subject and there would be no contention but only a desire to produce the most workable act possible.


Lewis Herbert Martell: The object of the proposed bill is to give the right to appeal within ninety days after judgment.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Or longer, if the judge decides to extend the time.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Yes, in the discretion of the judge. I can quite understand the objection taken by the hon. member that such a provision might tend to too long a delay. As the hon. member says, it might go a year or two; after such a lapse of time a litigant might go to the court and ask the judge in his discretion to grant an appeal.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: He would probably refuse it.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Not if good grounds were shown. Why not give ninety days in which to appeal?'-and if the court meets before the expiry of that period the application could be made. In any case however, it seems to me, a litigant should have the right to make his application at the next sitting of the Supreme court immediately following the giving of judgment. In the province of Nova Scotia a decision might be given, say, in the month of March, and the Supreme court not meeting until October, the applicant should have the right to make application.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: After March, when does
the court next convene?


Lewis Herbert Martell: Not until October.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: And how do you get leave to appeal in any case within the statutory time?


Lewis Herbert Martell: We are practically shut out.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I believe the province is, under existing legislation; and this does not help it, because the present legislation applies only to a limited number of cases.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I think a litigant should have the right to make application at the next session of the Supreme court, even though it might be four months later. But if application can be made before the ninety days have expired I do not think there should be any right to make it afterwards, because that would only prolong litigation.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: The amendment will extend the time only in five classes of cases and will not help the majority of litigants, because most cases fall outside of those classes. I believe there is a real danger both in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick of an appeal failing because the court may not be sitting in time to allow the application to be made. And under the law as it stands, the Supreme Court of Canada is helpless however desirous it may be to assist. I am arguing that, some provision be made to enable the Supreme court to provide some remedy.

Supreme Court Act


Ernest Lapointe: The suggestion of my
hon. friend (Mr. Baxter) as to the advisability of having bills that involve legal matters submitted to a committee of the House composed of legal members is certainly a good one and I hope that such a committee will be possible in the future.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If matters affecting legal gentlemen are to be referred to a committee composed entirely of legal members, would the same principle be carried out in regard to matters affecting farmers and labour men? Would such matters be referred to committees composed entirely of farmers and labour men respectively?


Ernest Lapointe: We are all labour men; my hon. friend will never get me to admit that I am not a labour man as well as himself.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The minister would not admit that I am a legal man.


Ernest Lapointe: I should be glad if my hon. friend were a legal man but he seems to have queer ideas about the British North America Act.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The minister must see the doubtful value of having all matters affecting certain phases of legal activity referred to committees on which the general public, as represented in this House, has no say.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I do not think that the
suggestion contemplates anything of the kind. What the minister and the hon. member (Mr. Baxter) have in mind is the question of procedure in the courts, which no one but lawyers would understand.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member (Mr. Woodsworth), I am sure, would be welcome to witness the proceedings of such a committee. However, the committee is not yet organized; so far we have only a suggestion- one which is certainly worth considering. As regards the suggestion to enlarge the right of appeal, this also is something that is worthy of consideration and I have no doubt it will secure it. But the hon. member will understand that I cannot go further than I am going under this bill. As a matter of fact, we are giving more facilities by this amendment than the litigant has had before. It is true that the provision applies only to five classes of cases mentioned in section 41; but that is the law and we are improving it, though not to the extent that my hon. friend would like. I assure him that I will make it a duty not only to consider the suggestion but to discuss it with others interested in this matter, with a view to having something practical done.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: This procedure has not
been the law very long; it has been in practice only about five years.


Ernest Lapointe: Since 1920.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Yes, and we have not yet run into all the difficulties that may be encountered. The minister suggests that we shall discuss the matter in another quarter, which I presume means a consultation with the judges of the Supreme court. If they look over the remarks that are reported in Hansard on this subject I am inclined to think they will favour some greater means of attaining justice.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Ernest Lapointe: I move the following:
4. Section sixty-nine of the said act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(2) the appellant may appeal from the whole or any part of any judgment, or order, and at the time of bringing the appeal he shall, if he intend to limit the appeal, give notice stating that part only of such judgment or order is complained of, and shall in the notice specify such part."


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Is not that what we have
to-day? At least I know we have it provincially.


Ernest Lapointe: Not in the Supreme
Court Act. Section sixty-nine merely provides that every appeal shall be brought within sixty days of the signing cr entry or pronouncement of the judgment appealed from. The purpose of this amendment which has also been suggested by the courL is to enable an intending appellant to restrict his appeal to the particular part of the judgment appealed from, sc he may not have to incur unnecessary costs. As a matter of fact, this is done very frequently now, but by consent on the part of both parties. In other words, it is to make the law conform with what has really been the practice^ for a long * time, and so to enable the court, in disposing of costs, to deal with the extra costs occasioned by the failure of the party appellant to limit his appeal as he should have done.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is seme time since I have been in practice, but I thought we used to be allowed to do that. The reason for the present suggestion, I suppose, is that if the parties do not agree to print only that part of the evidence which has to do with the particular point in dispute, the court will have the right to make the necessary order.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Hewitt Bostock: When shall said bill be
read a third time?
Interim Supply Bill


Henry Lumley Drayton: We had better have it printed first, Mr. Speaker.


Hewitt Bostock: Next sitting of the House.

The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Civil Government-Justice-salaries, $226,355; contingencies. including $2,000 for the Solicitor General's office, $32,500.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the minister give particulars?


Ernest Lapointe: (Minister of Justice):	Mr. Chairman, I have not any
particular's with me. I merely want to get into committee of Supply with these estimates so that I may take them cn Thursdays or Fridays. If any explanations are required I would suggest that the item be allowed to stand.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister had better move to report progress.
Item stands.



INTERIM SUPPLY

James Alexander Robb: Mr. Chairman, by unanimous consent I desire to present the usual interim supply bill. We are now in the month of June, and payday comes in the next couple of weeks. I move:
That a sum not exceeding $31,409,846.82, being one-sixth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted as set forth in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1926, as laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account for the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1926.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Chairman,
it is a resolution that ought to be concurred in by any official opposition which proceeds upon proper decent business instincts, and as we always do, we concur readily. We only hope that in the very near future, when my hon. friends opposite will be sitting on this side of the gangway, their habits will be improved and that they will give the same ready consent to a resolution of this kind which it has always received from us.


Lewis Herbert Martell: The hon. gentleman
should remember that Goldsmith says, "Premature consolation is the remembrancer of sorrow."


Henry Lumley Drayton: I hope that in
the near future my hon. friend will find ease and comfort in his poetical reflections. But, as I say, this is a resolution which ought to be passed as a matter of course, and my hon. friend I he Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) is entitled to it because he is in funds

now only down to the 15th of this month, and .we ought to see that the business of the country runs along, even although it does not run along as well as we would like to see it.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time and concurred in.
Mr. ROBB moved that cne-sixfh of each of the resolutions reported from committee of Supply be now concurred in.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I rise to point out, Mr. Speaker, that cur consent is upon the ordinary well-understood basis-the House is not bound by any single item; it can always object to it or move that it be struck out on any ground.


James Alexander Robb: That is conceded.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee of Ways and Means.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
James Alexander Robb: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1926, the sum of $31,409,846.82 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in. Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 171, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the .public service for .the fiscal year ending March 31, 1926.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Public Works) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the minister may on behalf of His Majesty the King enter into an agreement with the corporation of the city of Ottawa extending for a period of five years from the first day of July, 1925, the provisions of the agreement between His Majesty and the corporation dated the thirtieth day of March, 1920, set out in the schedule to chapter fifteen of the statutes of 1920, which last mentioned agreement was extended for a period of one year from the first day of July, 1924, under the authority of chapter fifty-nine of the statutes of 1924.

Agreement ivith City of Ottawa
Provided nevertheless that the minister may agree on behalf of His Majesty to pay to the corporation annually the sum of one hundred thousand dollars during the said period of five years from the first day of July, 1925, instead of the annual sum of seventy-five thousand dollars as provided for in the said agreement.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Explain.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: The resolution is
self explanatory. It is proposed to amend the agreement entered into between His Majesty and the corporation of the city of Ottawa in March 1920 providing for a cash subsidy of $75,000 per year. Last year we had a consultation with the city officials, and as we could not agree upon a further increase of subsidy, we asked for a renewal of the old agreement for one year. The corporation have again approached the government this year for an increase, and after several consultations it has been decided to increase the subsidy from $75,000 to $100,000 extending over a period of five years. That is all that is involved in the amendment.


Mr. LUCAS:: For what is this subsidy
paid?


John Warwick King: The government
of Canada have been paying a certain sum of money to the city of Ottawa for certain services rendered by the city. The government under the British North America Act does not accept liability for taxation on real estate owned in the city of Ottawa or elsewhere, but it has been considered proper at various times to enter into an agreement with the city for the making of an annual cash grant. The first agreement, I think, was in 1883. It was amended in 1885, and again in 1910 and 1920. In addition to this grant there is paid to the Ottawa Improvement Commission $150,000 per year. I might say to the committee that the demands of the city were much greater than the government could concede at this time. Their representatives say that they should receive an increase of $2501)00 this year, claiming that the services rendered had increased in cost to the city; for instance, the fire service maintained by the city, and which is at the disposal of the government, the sewerage service, police protection, and other services. The government have considered that a fair arrangement, I would not say a generous arrangement, but a fair arrangement for these services under the financial conditions that exist to-day.


Mr. LEADER:: I understand that this
subsidy is paid by the government in lieu
of taxes; in other words, that their property in Ottawa is exempt from taxation, and the government takes this method of recouping the city for these services. Am I right in that contention?


John Warwick King: The government
does not admit the liability to taxation.
Mr! LEADER:	But they are paying this
subsidy for the services rendered by the city in regard to the government property. Does the government not think the same principle should apply to lands held under the crown? For instance, to municipalities where there are abandoned soldier settlement lands that are exempt from taxation; should not the same .principle apply there?


John Warwick King: I think not.


Harry Leader: If you are not willing to
have these lands taxed, should not the government pay a subsidy to the municipality?


John Warwick King: No.


Harry Leader: Does the minister say no?


John Warwick King: No. I think
Ottawa as the national capital should be considered, and always has been considered, on a different 'basis. You will find that that applies to the various capitals of the world. But there are certain services rendered by the city for which the government, while they do not admit the liability to taxation, do give cash grants.


Harry Leader: I understand that perfectly well, but other municipalities also render certain services, such as building roads and keeping open schools in the district where these abandoned lands are, and I wanted to know if the policy of the government was to allow these services to slip by without compensation. It is not the policy of the government to give them any subsidy?


John Warwick King: No.


Mr. SPENCER:: Ottawa is the only exception?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I asked my hon. friend to explain and he said that the resolution explained itself. I did not want an explanation of the print, but an explanation of his action. I thought he understood that, but I will try to be more explicit. There is an increase here of 33i per cent. I wanted an explanation of the increase. I suppose the minister has it but he did not give it. He does not give it when he says that the
Agreement with City of Ottawa

claims by the municipality are much higher than last year. While the minister is giving the explanation, perhaps he might say how we get along with local improvements. I forget what we had to pay for Wellington street. What is the total of our payments to the city? The figure indicated here, plus the $150,000 for the Improvement Commission, is not by any means the total of our payments to the city. I am not saying the amount is not right or anything else; I am simply asking for information.


John Warwick King: I dwelt at length
with the cash subsidy, which we are increasing from $75,000 to $100,000.
Among other expenditures which have been assumed by the government from time to time, there are the following: Cartier square; that dates back to the time when the government assumed the maintenance and upkeep of Cartier square for $9,510 a year. Then there is Major Hill park, which the government took over some years ago, and have maintained at an annual cost of $19,512.14; Wellington street and Plaza, which is maintained and repaired by the government at a cost of $12,710 per year; Laurier avenue bridge, which crosses the canal, and for which the government pays $1,002 per year for maintenance, lighting and repairs; Chaudiere slide bridge, which the government maintains at an annual cost of $1,951; that is a very old item. Then there is the maintenance of Union bridge at a cost of $500; Pretoria avenue bridge maintenance, $4,278. Bronson avenue bridge $955; Bank street bridge, towards which a subsidy of SSO.OOO was paid on which we pay interest at 5 per cent per annum, amounting to $4,000; the Interprovincial bridge, towards which a subsidy of $212,500 was granted at 5 per cent interest, amounting to $10,625 annually; St. Patrick street from Sussex to bridge, maintenance $4,285 Then there are certain amounts for lighting generally, in addition, making a total expenditure for all the items I have given of S70.0GC odd.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What do we
pay for lighting?


John Warwick King: We pay as follows:
Lighting Generally (additional)-
Roads and bridges	
$675	00Rideau gate	
36	00Whiteway Hunter building	
95	00167 Queen street	
63	36Egan building, Sparks street	
35	36Mines building, Sussex street	
31	92Daly building	
74	76
In addition to that we pay for water, so much per thousand gallons.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is our
water bill?


John Warwick King: About $42,000 per year. Then there is $150,000 per year for the Ottawa Improvement Commission. Those are the principal items.
Sir	HENRY	DRAYTON:	What is	the
total of all these items?


John Warwick King: The water service could hardly be included. That is a real service and is supplied practically at cost by the city. I have not totalled the figures, but offhand I would say they would amount to about $365,000.
Sir	HENRY	DRAYTON:	Without	the
water?
Mr.	KING	(Kootenay):	Counting	the
water in. I have not checked up the total, but I will in a moment.


Henry Lumley Drayton: As I take it,
what we are .paying for is fire and police protection, because we pay for our local improvements, we pay for our water and sewerage. You are paying your locals and for most of your other needs. The work of the commission, I suppose, is going on just as it did before.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Has the government ever
considered dealing with Ottawa as the federal government of the United States deals with Washington, turning it into a federal district and taking charge of it? It seems to me that would be the proper thing to do with the city. Is that under consideration by the government?
'Mr. MACKENZIE KING:	That is a
matter I agree with my hon. friend that ought to be very carefully considered. It has been considered at different times, and I imagine it is just a matter of time before the suggestion he has made will be acted upon.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The minister deferred
to the cost of upkeep of several bridges. Why is the federal government debited with the upkeep of these various bridges around Ottawa?


John Warwick King: The Laurier
avenue bridge, for instance, which crosses the canal, is owned by the government of Canada. The government of Canada also maintains the bridge across the Chaudiere slide.

1,011 40

Canada Evidence Act
In the old days, just after confederation, the government built the Interprovineial bridge across the Ottawa river under an agreement with the two provinces, each province and the Dominion bearing one-third. There is maintenance to be looked after there. In the case of the Bank street bridge a straight subsidy was given to the city of Ottawa some years ago. We do not maintain that structure; the city maintains it. A subsidy was also paid in the case of the Interprovineial bridge, and the city maintains this structure also.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. King (Kootenay) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 172, to authorize an agreement between His Majesty the King and the Corporation of the City of Ottawa.
Motion agreed to and bill, read the first time.


CANADA EVIDENCE ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 27, to amend the Canada Evidence Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in the chair.
On section 1-answers to incriminating questions.
Ernest Lapointe: The bill seeks to amend sub-section 2 of section 5 of the Canada Evidence Act. This sub-section is the one that deals with the witness who objects to answering a question because he fears that his answer might incriminate him. As it now stands the law compels him to answer, but the answer so given is not to ibe used or be receivable in evidence against him in any criminal trial other than a prosecution for perjury in the giving of such evidence. The bill proposes to strike out the words "in the giving of such evidence." I may say that this is asked for and strongly urged by the law officers of the government of Saskatchewan. Prior to the Canada Evidence Act being enacted, as my hon. friends know, the system was that a witness could refuse to answer altogether on the grounds that the answer might be incriminating. That privilege was taken away from him but with this restriction -that his answer could not be used against him except on a prosecution for perjury in the giving of such evidence. The way the law works out has been illustrated recently in a case in the province of Saskatchewan, which is really a typical one. A man named Joe Kruchkowski was heard at a coroner's in-240
quiry into the death of two men who had been murdered and there he swore that at a fight, after a dance, near a farm on the sixteenth day of June, 1924, he had in his possession a stick or post and with it struck one of the victims named Mike Kazima. Subsequently at the preliminary trial of the man who had been charged with the murder of these two men he still swore that he had a stick or post in his possession at that time, and that he had struck said Mike Kazima. He was subsequently prosecuted himself, and was acquitted on account of no evidence being available against him, and he himself was not heard. Subsequently another man was prosecuted for manslaughter, the same resulting from the deaths of these two men, and there the same Kruchkowski stated under oath that he did not have in his possession such a stick or post, and never struck the said Kazima. He admitted in that trial, however, that he had perjured himself at the preliminary investigation and at the Coroner's inquiry. He was prosecuted for perjury committed at the preliminary investigation and inquiry and his evidence given at the trial of the other man, at the third trial, was brought against him and he was convicted. But the Appeal court of Saskatchewan ruled, and I think properly so, that this evidence should not have been used against him because he had claimed his privilege and he could be subjected to prosecution only in giving of the evidence there and not in the giving of the evidence at the.;preliminary trial. It is felt that it is not fair to give such a protection to men who want to deceive justice; that they should be protected against any prosecution as a result of their evidence, but not if they deceive justice in giving evidence. I think the elimination of these words, as suggested by the Attorney General of Saskatchewan is advisable. I have read the Hansard reporting the debates when the Canada Evidence Act was amended and nothing was said at the time which could foresee such a situation as this.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think my hon. friend is quite right in proposing this amendment, although he might have gone a little further than he has. In the case in question the man swore at the third trial that he had no stick. It might well be that this was a true statement and that my corroborative evidence it could be shown that he had no weapon in his hands at the time. On the other hand his former sworn evidence cannot be produced in evidence against against him because the perjury charge is based on the perjury alleged to have been committed at



Meat and Canned Foods Act
the third trial when he swore that he had no stick.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 25 consideration in committee of Bill No. 73, to amend the Meat and Canned Foods Act.-Hon. Mr. Motherwell.-Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in the chair.
On section 1-Definitions, canned foods.
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: The House will
remember that when this measure was under consideration a week ago I was asked whether it applied to fish or not. Section 30 of the act indicates that provisions in regard to fi^h are not administered by the Department of Agriculture. This act is administered by the Minister of Agriculture in regard to everything except fish; the Minister of Marine and Fisheries administers the fish end of it. Here is the authority for it:
The administration of any part of this act may be assigned by the Governor in Council to any minister other than the Minister of Agriculture, and in such case the minister to whom such assignment is made shall have the same powers with respect to the part of this act to him assigned as the Minister of Agriculture now has.
I have before me the order in council which provides that all parts of this act that have to do with fish and shell fish are to be administered by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I thought it was a separate act, but both are included in the act. All matters outside of fish are administered by the Department of Agriculture, and all matters that relate to fish are administered by the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend from Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) raised that question and the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) referred to it, but I do not think they were so much interested in whether the salmon were to be herded by my hon. friend or his colleague. They were more interested in the question whether fish as fish were to be considered as coming within the spirit of that resolution. Now I understand they are so to come. I have no doubt my hon. friends will be glad to hear that, because both were objecting to it. As it is six o'clock and neither of these gentlemen are present, I think the matter might be postponed till eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


George Newcombe Gordon: When the committee
rose at six o'clock Bill No. 73, to amend The Meat and Canned Foods Act, was under consideration.
On section 1-Definitions.


William Richard Motherwell: The feeling of the committee, as evidenced by the questions asked by hon. members from both coasts who are interested in fishing matters, seems to be that this bill should not apply to fish. That being the case, and to make it clear that I do not wish the bill to cover that commodity, I' move that section 1 be amended by inserting after the word " foods " in line 11 the words " except fish and shell-fish ", The provision will than read:
"Canned foods" includes foods except fish and shellfish that have been pre-heated, cooked, and so on.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 2-Canned fruit or vegetables or food to be offered for sale in prescribed containers only.
Mr. NEILL:: Will not the same amendment be necessary in this section?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. I move that this section be amended by inserting after the word' " products " in line 20 the words " except fish and shell-fish ". The section will then read:
All canned fruit or vegetables or products thereof, or any food or food products except fish and shell-fish which may be named by the Governor in Council.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from May 28, consideration in committee of Bill No. 109, to amend The Dairy Industry Act, 1914-Hon. Mr. Motherwell-Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 5-Sale of cheese.
William Richard Motherwell: There are I believe one or two sections to be disposed of. In connection with section 5 the committee will remember that exception was taken to the elimination of the word " knowingly " in line 9. I move that the section be amended by inserting that word before the word " sell " in the ninth line, so as to make it read:

Dairy Industry Act
-knowingly sell, offer, expose or have in possession for sale.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 8-Penalty for obstructing persons enforcing act.
William Richard Motherwell: This section is
objected to on the ground that it is too comprehensive altogether, and I think it is right to have some reasonable limitation. The following is suggested in substitution, beginning at line 35:
"13. Any person (a) who obstructs an inspector, or (b) being the owner or his representative or employee in charge of any produce to be inspected by an inspector under this act, refuses to give any such officer all reasonable assistance in his power or to furnish him with any information he may reasonably require, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding $500, and not less than $50 together with the costs of prosecution, and in default of payment of such penalty and costs to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding six months, unless such penalty and costs with costs of enforcement are sooner paid, or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding six months, or to both fine and imprisonment."
I move that this be substituted cor section eight.


William Alves Boys: I should like to express my
appreciation of the excellent legal knowledge the minister has displayed in assenting to the proposition to leave the word "knowingly" there. I have not the bi'H before me, but we had passed section four, and I raised the question myself. Is the minister doing anything to put that right? Because I think the necessity of section 5 being amended applies with equal force to section four.


William Richard Motherwell: I thought that
was passed.


William Alves Boys: I have the bill before mie now. Section five is tihe section I recall in connection with which I raised the point and suggested that the minister should either insert the word "knowingly" or add a proviso which we then discussed and which I need net now repeat. But we had passed section four, and it seemed to me that the same objection would apply to that. If the minister will look at the right hand page where the explanatory note appears he will find the following:
No person shall either by himself or through the agency of any other person manufacture, or shall knowingly buy,-
These concluding words are left out, but it seems to me it is just as essential that you should let the words, "or shall knowingly buy," remain in that section as it is to restore the word "knowingly" to section five. It comes back to the same proposition we were discuss-240i
ing, that if you do not insert that word you may under the act convict an innocent man- something' which the minister said he did not want to do, and I am sure no other hon. member wishes to either.


William Richard Motherwell: Section four refers
to manufacture or import, while section five refers to sale. A man might innocently sell goods that were prohibited, but certainly not manufacture them without knowledge.


William Alves Boys: The minister misunderstands
what I am saying and the force of the section to which I am referring. The word "knowingly" does not apply to manufacture in section four as it appears on the right hand page, which is explanatory. It reads:
No person shall either by himself or through the agency of any other person manufacture,-
There is no qualification there at all. Then follow these words:
-or shall knowingly buy,-
Those are left out in the substituted section.


William Richard Motherwell: This applies to
adulteration by the use of cottonseed oil or cocoanut oil, and the latter is giving the most offence.


William Alves Boys: The minister agrees that it is
proper to insert the word "knowingly" before the word "sell' in the fifth section; that has been done to-night. Is it not equally important to insert the word "knowingly" before the word "sell" in the fourth section? I do not wish to add it in connection with manufacture because then the offender knows what he is doing, and if he has contravened the provisions of the act he certainly should be punished. Probably "knowingly" should be added before the words "import into Canada," but that is also dealing with the matter in a larger way, and perhaps people should be more careful; but when it comes to "sell, offer, or having possession for sale, any cheese," and so on, the person might do it innocently, and that is where I think the word "knowingly" should be inserted. I cannot see why it is proper to insert it in connection with section five and improper to do so in connection with section four when both sections deal with selling.


William Richard Motherwell: What is covered
by section five is a comparatively trivial offence and not very frequently committed, and the insertion of the word "knowingly" there is a concession to those who thought we were going too far. When this does occur, the party can sell the goods on the market by giving proper notice, but we want to dis-
Dairy Industry Act

courage the practice. Adulteration is a very grave offence, and if you have to prove that the offenders are knowingly doing it, it will be very difficult to convict them.


William Alves Boys: I am not urging for a moment
that "knowingly" should be inserted in connection with manufacture; but surely it is just as essential to have the word there in connection with selling. The only answer the minister gives is that there will not be very many of these offences. Well, when an innocent man is charged, it is just as important to him as if ten people were concerned. I do think the minister should add "knowingly" before the words, "sell, offer, or have in possession."


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, the minister
says his reason for refusing to insert the word "knowingly" in this case is that one offence is very much more serious than the other. But when he comes to the penalties he makes them the same in each case. Under section ten a first offender is liable to a fine not exceeding $400 and not less than $200, and if he offends a second time he is liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000 and not less than $500. So evidently the minister regards both offences as being equally reprehensible. As to the penalties these are very heavy. I can hardly recall any other section of the Criminal Code or of acts of this character where the first offence carries a minimum penalty of $200, fifty dollars is generally the outside for a minimum penalty. And it is particularly heavy when applied to some poor storekeeper who does not know and cannot know the cheese is adulterated.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I quite agree with the
observations made by the hon. member (Mr Boys). It seems to me the tendency is to go too far towards putting the burden of proof upon the defendant. The merchant may import goods. He is a bona fide purchaser for value, and he has no knowledge that he is importing adulterated goods. He is not an analyst. He offers these goods for sale in a bona fide manner, and I submit it should be incumbent on the presecution to prove that he knowingly committed the offence. Of course a person manufacturing goods in contravention of the act knows that he is doing it; in fairness he should be made to take the consequences of the acts of his employer or servants. But to say that a person who innocently imports goods which are found to be adulterated is to be fined is absolutely unfair and opposed to every principle of justice. The word "knowingly" is used be-

cause it puts the burden on the prosecutor to prove that the accused knowingly committed the offence. If he is found in possession of adulterated1 goods, or offering them for sale, there would be prima facie evidence that, as they were adulterated goods, he did it intentionally. But the proof of the mens rea, or guilty mind-that is to say, the proof of the scienter, should be on the prosecution. The Minister of Agriculture and many of his officials are not lawyers, but men who have had experience in the courts know that it is essential to put the least possible amount of restriction upon industry or legitimate business, and I believe that is the policy of the minister. So I submit you are hurting nobody by putting in the word "knowingly"; you are giving the defendant, who probably would be an innocent man, a chance for his life. Before the crown or the prosecution should be enabled to extract fines of $300 or $400 from the people they should show at least a guilty mind on the part of the person complained of. If my hon. friend (Mr. Boys) will move that the word "knowingly" be inserted after the word "manufacture" in paragraph 7 of section 4, I shall be glad to second it.


William Alves Boys: I would move it most willingly, but I feel this is a suggestion the minister should willingly accept, and I cannot belp thinking he will accept it. It goes to the very root of criminal procedure. The hon. member (Mr. Martell) has referred to scienter and a few more things, but if there is one thing we should have in mind it is the animus furandi that must permeate our whole criminal law. To find a man guilty of any serious crime without knowledge is repugnant to one's idea of justice. I again impress upon the minister the desirability of having this word inserted here, as well as in section 5. He will be consistent; he will be fair to his department; he will be above all things fair to any persons who are charged under this section.


William Richard Motherwell: It is a question
whether if you put it in here you will have it done again in a little more pronounced fashion, and so on, until every offence in the calendar is preceded by the word "knowingly." However, I would not like to stick on this, but I hope it will not be extended all along the line. We have to prove these cases, as I mentioned on a former occasion, right up to the hilt before we can get a conviction before the average court; naturally there is sympathy for the accused when the government is prosecuting. This will make it more difficult, but if my hon. friend will move to have the word inserted, I will second it. But I hope it will stop there, because you will

Dairy Industry Act
make these acts of very little value if we start that in everything.


William Alves Boys: Is the minister prepared to
go the distance of inserting it after the word "manufacture," or does he object to that, and would he prefer to have it after the words "import into Canada?"


William Richard Motherwell: Do not apply it
to the manufacture.


William Alves Boys: I say, after the word "manufacture." There are three propositions; the first is manufacture-


William Richard Motherwell: Put it before the
word "sell."


William Alves Boys: All right. I will move, then,
that the words "or shall knowingly" be inserted after the word "Canada" in the first line of 7, section 4.


William Richard Motherwell: That will be all
right.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the amendment
carry? Carried. Section 13.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Just a moment-


George Newcombe Gordon: Now we are back on
section 4, and that has been passed in committee.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Well, I wished to make a
suggestion in regard to the amendment that has been introduced, but if I am not to be allowed to proceed then I cannot make it.


George Newcombe Gordon: It has been debated
several times. We have no right to go back into it. Section 13; an amendment has been moved to cover the whole section. Shall the amendment carry? Carried.
Bill reported.
Amendments read the first time.
Mr. Motherwell moved the second reading of the amendments.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: (St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert):	Mr. Speaker, I wish to take the opportunity now to do what seemed objectionable in committee. I wanted to make a suggestion there, but it seemed so important to rush the bill out of committee that I did not have an opportunity to express myself. I am not at all anxious to take up the time of the House, neither do I care very much what becomes of a bill of this character. The suggestion I have to make is certainly not for political benefit; it is purely directed to the people who may have to live under such a set of
regulations. I came into the chamber a little late, and I thought section 4, making a new section 7, was being discussed, and I am still under that impression. I want to point out that the amendment that is proposed by inserting the word "knowingly" after the word "Canada" may not carry out the view that I heard expressed as soon as I had come into the chamber. A perfectly innocent importer may be imposed upon by the fraud of the people who are sending the goods to him, and I think "knowingly" should apply to his case just as it does to that of any other. I also have considerable doubt whether the interposition of the word "knowingly" before the word "sell" will carry any further than the word "sell" itself. I think the intention is to make it applicable to selling, offering or having in possession for sale any cheese which contains any fat or oil other than that of milk or cream.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. Might I call the
attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact that under rule 17a the present motion is not debatable, but if he will wait a moment until I put the moticn for the third reading, he can then propose any amendment or make any statement he desires.
Amendments read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Motheirwell moved the third reading of the bill.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: The discussion that took place in committee raises the whole question of guilty knowledge, and I entirely agree with the minister that it is difficult to prove offences against this and many other acts. The easiest thing is to adopt legislation, and when you carry it to its extreme, you get legislation which allows an official of a department to be complainant, judge and executioner. That sort of law is popular with some sorts of people; it is not popular with me, and I do net think it is popular with the people of Canada generally. You can go so far on the road; that is the ultimate goal of all that character of legislation.
There are certain acts that everyone recognizes are morally wrong, and there is no trouble about putting a penalty against them. An Act may be of such a character that the commcnsense of the community says, "that shall not be committed." We do not use the word "knowingly" before the word "steal" because English law implies the knowledge of a man's guilt when he commits a distinctly
Dairy Industry Act

immoral offence such as that. But there is a large class of acts that are neither right nor wrong in themselves according to the moral sense of mankind, and if the legislature thinks they ought to be prohibited it has the power to dc- so, and the regulation may be useful; but with regard to those classes, almost invariably the word "knowingly" is inserted except when it is found that there is a very common practice of evasion, such as has occurred under the licensing laws in meet countries, and then the legislature has deemed it wise as an extreme matter to make a prohibition whidh carries with it a penalty regardless of the knowledge of the person against whom the penalty is levelled. Now that applies to a class of cases where a man, for instance, under the old liquor laws was the keeper of a tavern and was made responsible for the acts of his employees, not that he would necessarily know what they were doing, but just because men in his situation were very likely to avoid having any knowledge, and the legislature determined there should be the responsibility. But the legislature never acted, I think, without having some clear moral justification. They legislated in that way because they knew they were dealing with a man or a class of men who wc-uld try to dodge the provisions of the law. Here, however, a perfectly reputable man may import into Canada cheese believing it to be bona fide good cheese, and he may be warranted in believing that; there may be all sorts of certificates come with it, and he believes it to be good. But the way this legislation is drawn, if the cheese contains a fat or oil other than the fat of milk or cream, that man becomes a quasi-criminal and is liable to a penalty. Now should the importer be deprived of all opportunity of manifesting his innocence? Is it to be an offence irrespective of knowledge? I think the word "knowingly" should apply to that as much as to anything else.
I see other provisions, in section 5, by which no person can
-sell, offer, expose or have in possession for sale, any cheese in which has been incorporated during the process of manufacture any inferior curd or cheese, unless due notice has been given of such incorporation.
Just what the meaning of that bit of nonsense is I cannot make out. Just why it is worth while for this parliament to take time to legislate in language of this character passes my comprehension. " Unless due notice has been given of such incorporation " -given to whom? It does not say to any officer of the department; it does not say to the public. I do not know what the notice is, nor to what person it is to be given, nor

can I see why if he gave notice to the whole world it should be any justification or excuse to a man for putting some inferior ingredient in the thing he proposes to sell as cheese. I have no sympathy whatever with a man who knowingly does it, and I have less sympathy with the class of legislation that carelessly allows some man to get by. But under this legislation, if the man sells, offers, exposes. or has it in his possession for sale, even though he has not been connected with the process of manufacture and knows nothing about it, is it fair to hold him criminally responsible and impose a fine upon him?
The minister has gone even further in revelling in this class of legislation. When we look at the penalty section we find, as one hon. member characterized them, extraordinary provisions. Now where the penalty has no minimum, where the fine is "not exceeding " a certain amount, very little harm is likely to be done. Magistrates commonly, but not without exception, exercise good com-monsense, and if they find that a man is technically guilty of an offence without being morally guilty of it, they may impose a nominal penalty or impose no penalty at all. But here is an act which when you get within its meshes allows no man to escape however innocent he may be with a fine of less than S200. That is the least that a magistrate can do if he convicts.
This bill is only one of a number of similar character that I have seen during the last few sessions of this House. They are the product of officialdom. They are called for by men in many cases who have not brains enough to prepare a decent prosecution, who have not grit enough or nerve enough to go out and get the evidence, and who just wish to take the man before a magistrate and say: Here he is, now convict him. I will not help that kind of legislation. We are revising the statutes at the present time, I understand, and amendments such as this will be incorporated in the book we will look to as the law for the next fifteen, twenty or twenty-five years. Do not let us adorn it with such examples as this. It is silly, to use the lightest epithet; it is abominably unfair when you begin to use language that somewhat describes the offence, and the offence is not committed by the innocent man, for 'there are innocent men and there will be innocent men in the world dealing in cheese, but the real offence .comes from the minister who has reached out for the moon and tries to give us green cheese as legislation.

Live Stock Act


William Alves Boys: Just to keep consistent in the matter, I think it only right for me to say this -perhaps I made the remarks before when the hon. member for St. John and Albert' was not present. I agree with what he says regarding the words " import into Canada," and so expressed myself to the minister in committee and thought half a loaf was better than no bread. The minister seemed willing to insert the word "knowingly" after the words "import into Canada" and I certainly felt that was much better than nothing at all, and would probably go a long way to remedy what I considered was a wrong.


William Richard Motherwell: We made a friendly compromise.


William Alves Boys: Yes, we made a friendly compromise. At the same time I feel it my duty on the motion for third reading to say to the minister that while friendly, it is neither complete nor strictly legal; and it might be, perhaps, worth while attempting once more to be a little more friendly, to make a little further compromise, and put the word "knowingly" in where it should be namely, before the words "import into Canada." I also feel like saying that I cannot agree with the hon. member for St. John and Albert (Mr. Baxter) who suggests-perhaps not too positively but nevertheless suggests-that the words inserted by the amendment might only apply to the word "sell. I really cannot see why he should draw that inference. You have only to read the words after "import into Canada" or shall knowingly sell, offer, or have in possession for sale-and so on. It seems to me from reading the provision as amended that the "shall knowingly" would apply to all the words immediately following as they are intended to do in section 5 where we also inserted the word "knowingly." But having said that, I again press upon the minister to make the wording right so that it may be consistent throughout, because there is no question it would be just as unfair to an importer who acted innocently as it would to a retailer who sold innocently, and to make the section right you certainly should have the word "knowingly" inserted before the words "import into Canada."


William Richard Motherwell: We made a friendly compromise a moment ago. We have been three-quarters of an hour on this bill, let us pass it and try it in this form. I do not think anything serious will happen; I am sure this is fair.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I do not understand
"friendly compromise" in a matter of justice.
I can understand people taking what they have got to take; I can understand the arbitrary imposition of one will against another; but I do not understand "friendly compromise."


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member may
only speak once on a motion of this kind. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


George Gibson Coote: I should
like to express my opinion very briefly. I think the hon. member for St. John and Albert (Mr. Baxter) is quite right. For my part I do not think you can compromise between right and wrong. I think it is only right that the word "knowingly" should have been inserted in the section before the word "import." I can only say to the minister that I regret that he is not consistent, and that he does not try to protect those who are innocent so far as their knowledge goes. I fail to see what line of action the minister is really trying to follow in this matter.


Mr. T. G. McBRIDE (Cariboo):: I do not see why we should give so much consideration to those who import butter and cheese into this country. We do not want these products imported; we can produce all we require here. I would like to see the penalty increased instead of being reduced in the case of anybody who tries to bring butter or cheese into Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time.


LIVE STOCK AND LIVE STOCK
[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. Ill, to amend the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act, 1923.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Removal from stock-yards.
William Richard Motherwell: This section is
exactly the same as in the old act with the exception that the word "such" is omitted; it was inserted by mistake.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: What is the. meaning of
the reference to section 16?


William Richard Motherwell: That relates to the by-laws and regulations of the stock-yards exchange.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Live Stock Act
[Stage Direction]
On section 2-Provisions to be included in by-laws.
William Richard Motherwell: The committee on Agriculture changed the bill a bit, I was not present at the time.


George Newcombe Gordon: The committee amended this section by adding after the word "thereof" in the thirty-first line the following words "and all moneys received to effect purchase of live stock shall be deposited. in a shippers' trust account in a chartered bank."


William Richard Motherwell: I explained to the
hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Cootel that after we discussed this matter when we were considering the resolution I again discussed it with some of my officers. Apparently they had been looking the question up in the meantime and found there was not really any law with respect to the administration of trust accounts. So we decided to try the new term "trust account" with the addition that was put in by the committee on Agriculture which seems to me to dove-tail in well and to present itself as the best method that we could devise. So I think the amended section will be all right.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 3-Licenses for commission merchants.


George Newcombe Gordon: This section has been
amended by striking out after the words "egg breaking plant" in the tenth line the following words "or to operate as an egg buyer or dealer in eggs." These are the words that have been struck out by the agricultural committee.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: The section I take it
originally dealt with the licensing of persons connected with the stock-yards, that is operating on a stock-yard as commission merchants or dealers. Now, persons are brought in here who apparently had no connection with the stock-yards-people who operate as exporters of live stock, meat, poultry, eggs and wool. It seems to me that the exporters of these commodities scarcely require to be regulated. I would like to hear some reasonable explanation for mixing them up with the stock-yard business, or for having an official of the department fall on them and require a license, and above all take a fee. Surely people can go into this business without having to be regulated down to the nines? We are having altogether too much paternalism on the part of the government


William Richard Motherwell: This has been
amended so as to omit the need for a license for anyone except those engaged in the export trade! All these egg circles, and such, have been eliminated by the amendment. Now the only ones that will be licensed will be those that are exporting eggs to any country. I may say that we have information from the Imperial Marketing committee indicating that all products of Canadian origin that desire to have a preference over foreign products on the British market will have to be distinctly marked "of Canadian origin." If the exporters refuse to do this we should have the power to license them or to refuse to grant a license. Just as in the case of cheese we are endeavouring to build up the quality of our products especially on the British and other markets. Now, Canada has already done a lot to commend the quality of its products to the Old Country consumer. I expect, judging from our correspondence overseas, that it will only be a short time when that provision will be part of the conditions on which they wall obtain access to the British market. We have been following this practice and this is simply in conformity with/ our practice. If tve are going to have the necessary care exercised by exporters, we must have some way of obliging them to put their products in proper shape, just as we have done in the case of cheese, which we discussed the other day in the House. If a man persists in doing that which will destroy our trade in dairy products with another country, we must have some way of preventing him doing it; otherwise he will repeat the offence. We did take authority in regard to cheese the other day, after a great deal of discussion, and this measure is along the same lines. We may not have to exercise the right of demanding a license, but the very fact that we have the power to demand a license from any exporter of these commodities will act as a great deterrent of wrongdoing. This provision does not apply to the country merchant or the retailer. That matter was dealt with by the committee on Agriculture. This provision applies only to those engaged in the export trade. I am sure the hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie) is aware of the facts in regard to this matter because he is in touch with it; and my deputy reports to me, after his recent trip to the Old Country, that Canadian storage eggs are the highest class of eggs found on the British market. That has not happened by accident. A number of hon. members knows that it takes a

Live Stock Act
good deal of work at the point of origin to see that the quality is preserved, not only when starting out, but all along. Having won this reputation, we should see that it is maintained, and the price of course will be maintained accordingly. This may look extraordinary to the hon. member for St. John and Albert (Mr. Baxter). I admit that it looks to be exacting legislation. If we produced a low grade of eggs of course we would not want legislation of this character. People would gather eggs to-day or to-morrow or next week, and bring them in any old time and send them away any old time. If we did not care how they arrived at their destination, we would not require any law at all. But the moment the market demands a high product, and we find our competitors are producing a high product, we require restrictions which may look ridiculous to a layman or to one not closely associated with the trade. I think my hon. friend from his standpoint may look upon it as quite nonsensical, but I assure him that if he were a dealer in eggs he could find that the quality of eggs obtained at the present time at home or anywhere else is infinitely better
9	p.m. than it was years ago. This is proven by the fact that the average consumption of eggs in Canada is ten dozen per capita more than it was five years ago. Now men do not eat ten dozen more eggs because they are of a worse quality than formerly, but they eat them because they are better. Consequently we have raised the standard, not only for home consumption but for the foreign market, and I think we should try to still further improve the quality of eggs.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I do not refer to eggs
alone; but in the case of the country merchant in the province of New Brunswick who buys up a lot of poultry at seasonable times, for instance at Christmas, if he sends a few hundred pounds by express to some dealer in Boston he is an exporter of eggs. Where is that man to go in order to get a license to 9ell a few hundred pounds of poultry? The minister has become obsessed with the idea of the British market. That may be all right for certain purposes, but it is not every man who sends products to the British market on a high scale. There may be small exporters, but the moment a man goes into the exporting class he has to get a license and pay a fee, even if he only sends a few hundred pounds of poultry to Boston in a year. That is infernal nonsense, and all the argument in the world would not convince me to the contrary.


William Richard Motherwell: I have attended the annual meetings of the Poultry Dealers' Association in Montreal and in Toronto, and the exporters themselves have urged this legislation, in order to keep the derelicts out of the business-the men who are prejudicially affecting our trade. When you find the exporter asking to be licensed, it is not likely that that feature of it is going to worry him. The country merchant to whom my hon. friend refers, if not an exporter, will not be affected in any way.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: He will become an exporter the moment he sends out a few hundred pounds.


William Richard Motherwell: Five carloads of
turkeys from the west were sent down to Montreal last year, and because of bad preparation, the turkeys not being properly dressed or graded they were not acceptable at all on the Christmas market. Their grading was held up by the purchasing agent at Montreal, with the result that they were held on the track for .ome time, and they were sold for ten cents less per pound than should have been realized for them, on account of the improper dressing and the delay. They were not properly dressed poultry. Now it takes the dealers two or three years to live down the reputation they get from one consignment of bad poultry. Surely you do not want to take up time discussing the scallawag produce dealer who does not care what his reputation is so long as he is making a profit out of the business. I am trying to legislate for all classes, but particularly the mam who grows the turkey and the man who eats it. All well ordered society has middlemen ; I am anxious to see that they get a square deal as well, and when they come to me and ask that they be licensed in order to keep bums out of the trade I feel like complying with their request.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: The minister has not impressed me very much yet. He is taking care of the consumer, and is taking care of everybody else in the world, and reminds me, in his efforts, more of a brooding hen than anything else.


William Richard Motherwell: If that remark is
intended to be clever, I will accept it as such.
Mr, BAXTER:	The man who only sends
away a few hundred pounds becomes an exporter, and I think the minister has let the cat out of the bag. This is a device to drive the small man out of the business, and to com-
Live Stock Act

pel him to hand over whatever he has to sell to some big man who will have a license from the department and be prepared to do business. The big ones want the little ones suppressed because they will give a bad name to Canada, the minister says. That is nonsense. If a man exports anything which is unfit for fcod, be will get a bad name himself, and if he is a small man he has to take the risk. If the government intends that mo man shall be able to export a few hundred pounds of poultry or anything of that kind, and that he is going to be driven into the hands of the big exporter and must sell to him, then the only man who can do business is the one who can afford to come to Ottawa and obtain a license. If that is the sort of legislation the minister is proposing we should know it.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Are ther; not a lot of
other regulations outside of this provision? I thought anyone wanting to o -11 had to have a grading of his eggs in some way or ether.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, it comes under the By-products Act. In this bill we are not dealing with the retail trade. This deals entirely with the export of eggs and these other commodities.


George Gibson Coote: What regulations will be put into force in connection with the export of live stock, particularly cattle?


William Richard Motherwell: Before stock can
be shipped from the yards in Winnipeg to the United States there must have been obtained from the veterinarian in the district of origin a certificate of health. But sometimes it happens that men will try to take cattle over the border without this certificate. If some man can make it worth while for the fellow in charge on the opposite side to look the other way he may be able to get through a whole consignment without the certificate, and some of those cattle might be mangy or might be infected with some contagious disease that would prejudice the reputation of our cattle all along the line. Such a man ought to be refused a license.


George Gibson Coote: I have heard the suggestion that the department was going to put into force certain regulations governing the class of cattle that might be exported, particularly to England. Is the government contemplating such regulations at present or in the near future?	[DOT]


William Richard Motherwell: I can assure the
hon. member that the British government has all the regulations that are necessary.


George Gibson Coote: 
William Richard Motherwell: No.


Neil Haman McTaggart: How much will these
licenses cost?


William Richard Motherwell: If a man is conducting a business to which we can take no exception we do not demand any license at all. We are merely taking authority to issue licenses, and if offences become at all prevalent that provision will be put into practice. The fee is usually a dollar; I do not suppose it would be worth while making it fifty cents, because it would cost the other fifty cents to hunt up the necessary change.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Would it be compulsory
for anyone engaged in any of the businesses enumerated here to obtain a license? The provision merely says that the minister may grant licenses.


William Richard Motherwell: We have on the
statutes a provision for licensing the operators of egg-breaking plants, of which there are several in Canada. These are plants where eggs are cracked and broken into bulk and frozen for shipment. My information is that although the law in this regard has been standing now for two years the industry has been conducted so properly that we have not yet had occasion to issue licenses. I hope the committee is not thinking that we are trying to make work for ourselves; it is necessary for us to have the power under the act to issue these licenses if conditions justify this. The mere fact that such a provision is on the statute books is a deterrent, although we have not yet exercised it.


George Gibson Coote: Can an exporter continue
to ship cattle from Alberta to the United States at the present time without coming to the department for a lioense?


William Richard Motherwell: Undoubtedly; but
if abuses creep in we may find it necessary to notify all exporters that, in the interests of those who are doing a legitimate business, we shall eompel everybody to obtain a license. In that event we should be obliged to eliminate the culls-not the cull cattle but the cull dealer.


Alan Webster Neill: What will be the use of this section if there is no penalty attached to the person who ignores it? The minister says that he will not issue licenses unless he is obliged to; but there is no provision in the bill which inflicts any punishment on the man who

Live Stock Act
ignores the law. A man may say, "Go ahead and issue licenses if you will; I am not bound to get one, the act does not requires me to." Where, either in this bill or in the original act, is there any penalty for exporting without a license?


William Richard Motherwell: I should think it
would be penalty enough if a man could not export.


Alan Webster Neill: But what is to prevent him
from exporting if he is not obliged to get a license? This provision says that the minister may be authorized to issue licenses; but what happens the man who continues to export without a license?


William Richard Motherwell: There is a general
provision in the act dealing with the question of penalties. Some hon. gentlemen thought we had too many penalties in the last act, but I think that there is sufficient provision now to meet such a case as is suggested. Just as exporters in the other case would not be able to get access to a boat to ship cheese without a certificate, so in this case the license will be necessary once we begin to issue them. In other words, when the licenses are issued they will be exacted from everybody. The very fact that this may be done will I think tend to make them all conform to the law.


William Alves Boys: The minister is probably right when lie says that there is a general provision in the act to punish any contravention of it. But how can there be a contravention of the act if the act does not declare that it shall be essential to get a license? All that the section does is to provide that the Governor in Council may authorize the minister to issue special licenses. Let us assume that the minister issues fifty, and that fifty other people are carrying on their business without the license. Where is there in the act anything -that says it shall be unlawful for anyone to conduct a business without the license?


William Richard Motherwell: If we find that the offences warrant it, we will make regulations in keeping with the act, making it obligatory upon everyone to obtain a license.


William Alves Boys: Where is the authority for that?


William Richard Motherwell: In the bill.


William Alves Boys: If the minister can point to
anything in this section which gives that authority is settles the question. But all that it says is that the minister may issue licenses and prescribe the terms and conditions upon which they shall be issued. In other words, he can say that the fee shall be so much, and he can pass other regulations. But where does
it say that the minister is to have authority to prevent anyone from carrying on a business unless he first obtains one of these licenses?


William Richard Motherwell: We have to take
this in conjunction with the main act, under section eleven of which it is provided that:
(1)	No person shall offer or accept for shipment or shall ship any live stock or live stock products subject to inspection or branding or marking under this act, unless the requirements regarding inspection, branding, or marking have been complied with and the certificates mentioned in this section have been issued; provided that production of such certificates shall be sufficient authority to any transportation company to accept for shipment the live stock or live stock products covered by such certificates.
(2)	Inspectors shall issue certificates for all live stock or live stock products inspected and approved or branded or marked by them. Such certificates shall be in such form as may be prescribed by regulation.
I think we will take chances on seeing that the law is observed, if you will give us the power asked for.


William Alves Boys: If there is a provision in the main act that meets the point raised, it ought to be very easy for the minister to give it to the committee.


William Richard Motherwell: I have read it.


William Alves Boys: It says that no person shall do so and so without first obtaining a special license. If this section contained similar wording the point would be met; but that is not what the section says. Unfortunately we have not before us the old act, and it may be that some provision there read in conjunction with this makes everything clear; but the minister has not given us the information to enable us to reach that conclusion.


William Richard Motherwell: We do not say " you shall," but we say " so long as you are conducting a proper business we will not -exact a license; if you do not conduct it properly we will require you to take out a license, and if you have not a license after that you will not be able to export."


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I have taken a few minutes to look up the main act of 1923, and it seems to me that this legislation is in about the same condition as some of the eggs that we are to be protected against-just a little bit addled. The act is only two years old. and already we are amending it. We got along without the act until 1923, although there was some legislation previously. Section fourteen provides that:
Any person violating any provision of this act, or of any regulation thereunder, shall be liable on sumary conviction to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both fine and imprisonment.
Live Stock Act

There is no provision in the act of 1923 for these licenses at all, and, as my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) says, the only provision is to be found in this section five which is to be added to the act. Section five originally was restricted to the issuing of special licenses:
To permit any person therein named to operate on a stockyard as a commission merchant or dealer, or to operate an egg breaking plant and may prescribe the terms and conditions upon which such licenses shall be issued, and the fees to be paid therefor.
There is therefore no violation of the act. Now what about the regulations? Section nine of the original act specifies what regulations the Governor in Council may make. They are regulations prescribing:
(a)	the manner in which stockyards are to be constructed, equipped, maintained and operated.
You do not get it there.
(b)	The manner in which complaints against the operation, maintenance or management of stockyards shall be made and investigated;
You get nothing there.
(c)	The manner in which live stock, meat intended for export, poultry, eggs and wool, shall be inspected, graded, branded or marked and the manner in which live stock, poultry, eggs and wool, graded in accordance with the regulations under this act, shall be sold, offered for sale or displayed for sale, and what shall be the size and kind of packages containing meats intended for export, poultry, eggs or wool, and how such packages shall be branded, marked or labelled, and the manner in which the purchaser of live stock, poultry, eggs and wool shall prepare for presentation to the seller the statements of account of purchases of live stock, poultry, eggs and wool graded in accordance with the provisions of this act and regulations made thereunder, and the manner in which the investigation of such statements shall be effected;
I have read that beautiful jumble of words, and there is nothing in it that reaches the point before us to-night. I do not know whether it would be possible after a close examination to find what it does mean, but it certainly does not touch the question before us to-night. Then we have:
(a) the manner in which meat, live stock, poultry and eggs imported into Canada shall be inspected, graded, branded, or marked, and sold, offered for sale, or displayed for sale; the manner in which certificates shall be prepared indicating that such live stock, meat, poultry and eggs have been inspected, graded, branded or marked;
That is imported; we need not bother with that.
(e)	The manner in which complaints against commission merchants, dealers or members of live stock exchanges shall be made and investigated;
(f)	The manner in which calves are to be subjected to ante mortem inspection, and the manner in which calves condemned by inspectors shall be disposed of;
We do not get much nearer it there.
(g)	the manner in which eggs found to be unfit for human consumption shall be valued and disposed of.-

They are amending that this year., and I need not read it all; it is much the same.
(h)	the manner in which business is to be conducted by members of a live stock exchange, or those using a stockyard operated under the provisions of this act;
(i)	that the by-laws or rules and regulations of a live stock exchange or the rules of and regulations of the lessee, owner, occupier, or operator of a stockyard, or any order issued by the minister in conformity with the provisions of this act, shall have the same force and effect as if embodied and enacted herein.
(j)	generally for carrying into effect the provisions of this act.
There is not a single regulation touching this matter. There is not a thing in the suit -there is no penalty; no man is required to have a license; the department does not care whether he gets one or not. This amendment is simply to hold this terrible threat over the head of the evil-doer so he will not be tempted to commit his favourite form of iniquity, unless the minister happens to call upon him to do what this amendment requires, to take out a license,-something which the minister has not a jot or tittle of authority to require him to do. And so the time of this House is taken up with trash like that


William Richard Motherwell: That is a terrible
castigation, Mr. Chairman. It shows what I am up against in attempting to explain an agricultural subject to an hon. member who has not had an opportunity to know much about it. This went through the agricultural committee without very much difficulty.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: It will go through anything.


William Richard Motherwell: I venture to suggest that the hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie) does not talk such balderdash. The hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys) has been exceedingly reasonable tonight, and I have been trying to meet his objections, but my hon. friend from St. John and Albert (Mr. Baxter) must have got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, because he is simply uttering one grouch aftei another. The last bill, "Oh, it was atrocious, and was going to crucify people," and all that kind of bunk! This is not even going to touch up anybody with a gad. My hon. friend complains bitterly at not being able to find anything at all applicable to this section. He carefully omitted to read section fourteen of the act, [DOT]which says:
Any perspn violating any provision of this act, or of any regulation thereunder, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $500, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both fine and imprisonment.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: That is the first thing I
read.

Fruit Act


William Richard Motherwell: There can now be
no more lamentations about no fine being provided for. I suppose the complaint will be that the penalty is too severe.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: You cannot apply it.


William Richard Motherwell: Why, Mr. Chairman?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Because you have not any
special provisions with respect to it.


William Richard Motherwell: Sometimes you have -special penalties, but in all the legislation I have had to do with there is invariably a general penalty that applies to anything.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Let the minister make a
jackass of it, but do not let him ask us to *concur with him.


George Newcombe Gordon: Order.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
knows I am not a lawyer, but I have been dealing with this legislation for some time, and I know he is trying to take a rise out of me. Well, he is *welcome to it, but I think he Las taken a rise out of himself, if I understand the situation.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that if the minister really wants to make this section effective, he should add the following words at the end of it:
-and may thereafter prohibit such exportation without such license.
That would meet the objection raised by the hon. member for St. John and Albert (Mr. Baxter). It would create a prohibition. You cannot fine a man $500 unless you create -a prohibition of something.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: The minister can. To do
that would be to admit that I am right.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member for St.
John and Albert (Mr. Baxter) is right in this matter. My amendment would bring the exporter under the general penalty section 14, which the minister quoted a moment ago, imposing a minimum fine of $500, an amount which I think is extremely unjust. Perhaps we had better let it go through as it is. When there is no offence there can be no fine and the section will be a dead letter.


William Richard Motherwell: I cannot please
both extremes. One thinks it is too big and the other thinks it is too small. I think it would be well to try it out the way it is.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I think he had better
let it go in its present form. It cannot do any harm this way. It will make a very good amendment for next year, anyway.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall section 3 carry?
Carried.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: On division.
On section 4-Paragraph (g) of section 9 repealed.


George Newcombe Gordon: The Agriculture committee struck out the following three lines of (g):
The manner in which eggs found to be unfit for human consumption shall be bought and sold and disposed of;
The committee submit in amendment, in lieu of these words, the following:
That eggs of a condition unfit for human consumption shall not be bought, sold, exposed or offered for sale.


William Richard Motherwell: Some of these eggs are used for tanning leather, but very few of them are sold; they bring only about a dollar a case. It is considered unwise to have any provision made for the disposal of them, because they are apt to get back into the trade and be mixed with good eggs. We propose to make a regulation to have them destroyed in an incinerator or otherwise, and not to allow them to be offered for sale. That is the purpose of the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
George Newcombe Gordon: Section 5 was amended in the committee to read as follows:
Paragraph (e) of section 9 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
(e) The manner in which complaints against live stock exchanges, commission merchants, dealers, or members of live stock exchanges, shall be made and investigated.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. MOTHERWELL moved the third reading of the bill.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.	.



FRUIT ACT AMENDMENT BILL

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of
Agriculture) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 117, to amend The Fruit Act.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Powers of minister.
. The CHAIRMAN: Shall this clause carry?
William Alves Boys: I do not know whether we
as members of parliament should be useful
Animal Diseases Act

or not, but if we are to consider the bill at all we must at least be given an opportunity of reading the section or of getting an explanation from the minister while at the same time we glance at it.


William Richard Motherwell: The object is to
eliminate certain combination grades of apples, pears and cranberries that have been put up in boxes in the past. It is found that there is no demand for them, and the fruit men have requested that these combination grades be abolished.


William Alves Boys: As I understand section 2, it
simply makes provision- for the establishment of grades for specified kinds of fruits such as apricots, peaches, plums and tomatoes, for which no grades are already established.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. We have no provision for these now. I had been dealing with clause 1. With regard to section 2, we -have no grades for box fruit now except for apples, pears and crab apples, and we are here taking power to prescribe new grades, instead of having to come back to the House and having another amendment made to the act. There is a growing demand from time to time for new grades to be prescribed, and we are here taking authority to make them as circumstances warrant.


Mr. ROBINSON:: Is the minister taking
power to make additional grades for all fruits?


William Richard Motherwell: No; just new fruit for which grades are not now prescribed. This does not apply to apples.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 150, to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Compensation to owners of animals slaughtered.
Mr. CALDWELL:: What are the changes
in this hill from last year?


William Richard Motherwell: There are no
changes in the compensation. This is only 
to make the act continuous in its effect, rather than terminable at a given period.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 151, to amend the Northwest Territories Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Issuing of licenses to scientists or explorers.
Charles A. Stewart: This amendment is to provide for the issuing of licenses and permits to scientists and explorers who wish to enter the Northwest Territories. We are having visits from representatives of various foreign countries who go into the northern sections of Canada, and in some cases they have voluntarily come to us and secured permits, and we have examined their outfits going in, as well as coming out. But this has not been done in every case by the explorers who are going into this territory, and we are asking for this amendment in order that we -may have authority to notify parties going into that country that they must obtain a permit of entry, thereby asserting our ownership over the whole northern archipelago.


Robert James Manion: Does this deal with the
case, for instance, of a man who is going in to bore for oil?


Charles A. Stewart: Oh yes, if
they come from some foreign country.


Robert James Manion: What is the rule at present as to people going into the Northwest Territories and boring for oil?


Charles A. Stewart: We have
exactly the same regulations as apply to any other part of Canada.


Robert James Manion: With respect to outsiders I mean.


Charles A. Stewart: We do not
prohibit the expenditure of foreign money. An American may come in and secure a license and bore for oil anywhere and spend his money.

Northwest Territories Act


Mr. CARDIN:: No amount.


Robert James Manion: This, I take it, will compel an American who is coming in here to bore for oil to go to the department and get a permit first, but at the present time that is not done?


Charles A. Stewart: Oh yes, if
he was going to bore for oil he would have to get a permit now. Here we are getting after men like MacMillan and Doctor Amundsen, men who are going in presumably for exploration purposes, but possibly there may arise a question as to the sovereignty over some land they may discover in the northern portion of Canada, and we claim all that portion.


Mr. BROWN:: We claim right up to the
North Pole.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, right
up to the North Pole.


William Alves Boys: I want to congratulate the
minister upon having done in this case the very thing we were urging in regard to the act dealing with cheese. I think it would be well for the Minister of Agriculture to note this for himself. I see that in this case power is taken not only to issue licenses, but on the last line penalties are provided for infractions of such conditions. It seems to me that is exactly what the Minister of Agriculture wanted in the other bill.


Robert James Manion: May I ask what is the
position of the whole Wrangel island question at the present time?


Charles A. Stewart: The returns were brought down, I think.


Robert James Manion: I have had no notice of
them.


Charles A. Stewart: Perhaps they were not. I think my hon. friend is right.


Robert James Manion: May I point out that I was not referring to Stefansson, or anything of that sort; I was referring to the whole question of Wrangel island.


Charles A. Stewart: We have
no interest in Wrangel island, and the British government have expressed themselves to the same effect. We will be very glad to bring down all the papers that we can on the subject.


Robert James Manion: I remember Hon. Mr. Fielding saying on one occasion " What we have we hold " but there has been a change of mind in that respect apparently.


George Newcombe Gordon: My hon. friend is
referring to a subject that does not come up under this item.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: At the last session of
parliament the minister introduced a bill proposing to levy a tax against certain dealers in the Northwest Territories. Now he is bringing in legislation to license dealers up there. I submit that this is as much a form of taxation as the other proposition was. Now, we abandoned many years ago the idea of taxation without representation, and I should like to point out that the Northwest Territories have no representation in this House. Therefore I submit the minister should not pass any legislation which means the imposition of taxation upon the inhabitants of that part of Canada.


Charles A. Stewart: There is
no intention under this legislation to collect any taxes; the amendments could not come in in this way even if that were intended. What we want to do is to assert our sovereignty. We want to make it clear that this is Canadian territory and that if foreigners want to go in there they must have permission in the form of a license.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CUSTOMS ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries), for the Minister of Customs and Excise, moved the second reading of Bill No. 145, to amend the Customs Act.
Motion agreed to, brill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon. Mr. Gordon in. the chair.
On section 1-Smuggling.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This bill is a very short one and its object is very simple. It provides for new penalties in order to try and stop the great evil of smuggling. We have received many complaints about smuggling, and many suggestions asking that the law be made more severe. The first section proposed to be amended is section 206 of the Customs Act. [DOT] This section remains practically the same as it was before. We only limit the application of the section to offences in regard to goods the value of which is under $200.


William Alves Boys: I appreciate that, and I was
just wondering why that limitation was inserted. What is to happen if the goods are above $200.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is another section
which deals with that.


Robert James Manion: Would the minister tell
us what amount of goods is allowed to be brought into Canada at the present time without the payment of duty, or is there any amount exempted from duty?
Customs Act


Robert James Manion: No matter if a man brings in only an article worth $5 he must pay duty?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Robert James Manion: Even if he is simply a
transient tourist and brings back with him some goods he has to pay duty?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Robert James Manion: There is a rule in the
United States-I think the minister is aware of it because we have had some correspondence on the matter-that permits the importation without duty of goods up to a value, I think, of $100.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes to the amount cf $100.


Robert James Manion: That is if the importation is not carried on as a business. For example a man or woman who comes over here as a tourist and takes back goods to the amount of $100?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Personal effects. No, we
have no such exemption in our law.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What is the present
penalty for offences of this kind, or is there any?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It runs from $50 to $200,
and this penalty will remain.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Under the cld act the penalty was the same no matter what the amount of the goods was?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The same.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Now there will be a
greater penalty for a greater value. Is that the only change?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is practically the only
change.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, there is another change in subsection 1 of section 206. rphe goods are seized and the seizure cannot be remitted. We take the goods and we exact a penalty too, which is a double penalty.


William Alves Boys: That was the law before.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, that was not the law before.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We are doing away with
the power of remission which formerly rested with the minister. According to the law as it stands at present a person can apply to the minister or to the Governor General in Council and obtain a remission.


Robert James Manion: You did it usually? It
worked out that the man usually got his remission?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, not very often. We
want to do awUy with this discretionary power on the part of the minister and the Governor General in Council as a deterrent.


William Alves Boys: It seems to me there is a
conflict between paragraph (a) and paragraph (c). The former reads:
Smuggles or clandestinely introduces into Canada any goods subject to duty under the value of two hundred dollars.
Paragraph (c) reads:
-in any way attempts to defraud the revenue by avoiding the payment of the duty or any part of the duty on any goods of whatever value.
Surely it can be argued that if a person smuggled, that person is attempting to defraud the revenue by avoiding the payment of duty. In the case of paragraph (a) there is a limitation under $200. In paragraph (c) it says "on any goods of whatever value."


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


William Alves Boys: I cannot see how these two
clauses can be consistent. It is true that the language is different. One says "smuggling" and the other says "avoiding payment;" but when you smuggle do you not endeavour to avoid payment ? In the one case there is a limitation of $200 and in the other no limitation whatever. To my mind there is an absolute conflict.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I cannot agree with my
hon. friend. Apparently to all appearances there may be seme kind of conflict, but in reality there is none. Paragraph (a) says:
Smuggles or clandestinely introduces into Canada any goods subject to duty under the value of two hundred dollars.
Paragraph (c) deals with general offences that are not covered by the first paragraph.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why not introduce the
word "other''?
M. BOYS: Does the minister suggest that smuggling is not attenmpting to defraud the revenue by avoiding payment?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This case is particularly
covered by subsection (a).


William Alves Boys: I am not saying it is not. I admit that a person who contravenes the provision of subsection (c) is also contravening the provision of subsection (a). The only difference is that in one case there is a limitation of $200 as the value and in the other case no limitation at all.


Robert James Manion: It seems to me there is a
difference in this way; that the first case is distinctly smuggling, the man who tries to

Customs Act
bring in goods without declaring value, but in the other case he declares a value which is too low. It may be a $100 article and he states it only cost $50. In the first case he does not declare the value at all.


John Livingstone Brown: Will the minister give us the clause he refers to where the value is above $200.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, section 3, page 2.
(3) Every one who smuggles or clandestinely introduces into Canada any goods subject to duty of the value of two hundred dollars or over is guilty of an indictable offence and liable in addition to any other penalty to which he is subject for any such offence to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years and not less than one year for a first offence, and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and not less than three years for a second and each subsequent offence, and such goods if found shall be seized and forfeited without power of remission, ot if not found but the value thereof has been ascertained the person so offending shall forfeit without power of remission the value thereof as ascertained.


John Livingstone Brown: It seems then that subsection (a) refers to the smuggling where the value is under $200 and the penalties provided, and subsection 3 refers to the smuggling of goods to the value of over $200, while subsection (e) refers to other methods of fraud which tare not- directly smuggling.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, and the penalty is provided in the act.


William Alves Boys: Does subsection (a) provide for cases under $200 and that alone?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


William Alves Boys: Subsection (b) is intended to provide for oases over $200.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, that is subsection 3 on page 2, at the top.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the bill not be
clearer if we inserted the word "other" after the word "any" in the first line of subsection <c)? Then I think the intent would be perfectly clear. It would then read, "or in any other way attempts to defraud". Of -course smuggling is an attempt to defraud.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not see any objection to that. I am ready to accept that amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the reason for doing away with the power of remission? I presume it is intended to make it a little more stringent, but I can suggest cases in which it might be out of proportion. Suppose it were a trifling article which might have a certain value of affection; to take away from the minister the power of remission might result in 241
hardship. I presume the object is to prevent the minister being harrassed to death by friends of the smugglers. After all, the minister can use a wise discretion in matters of this kind. I -think it is perhaps
10	p.im. going too far to provide that there shall be no power of remission. I think it is misplaced and I object to it on that ground.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I quite agree it is very
severe, but it has been prepared with a view to meet representations made by people interested in legitimate trade. Complaints coming from the trade are- very numerous, and they are very insistent in this matter. These amendments have been practically suggested by persons who have been in the trade, and we thought that doing away with the powers of remission would act as a sort of deterrent. If any person wishing to smuggle goods into Canada is under the impression that he can appeal to the minister or the Governor in Council he will be disposed to take a greater risk than he would if he knew there was no chance of remission by the minister or the Governor in Council. This is in order to make our legislation more severe. I quite admit that this provision is a very severe one but this illegitimate trade has become very prevalent and we must make an effort to try and reduce the smuggling which is being carried on.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let me suggest a concrete case which occurred in my own practice some few years ago, where such a provision would work a very great hardship. A very reputable firm of Canadian industrialists purchased a number of machines made in the United States, and- bought them duty paid delivered in Canada. The machines were brought into Canada under their own power. They were gasoline log haulers, very valuable machines, costing something over $30,000. They were purchased from a person in the United States who contracted to deliver them to the vendee, freight and duty paid, at a point along the Canadian border in Canada. They were entered at the Canadian customs house. The duty was paid on these machines on the entered values, and a large cheque passed upon the production of the customs receipt. It developed in the course of the next few days that the American vendor had undervalued the machines. He had got his cheque and passed out of the country and the machines were seized. They were released on the deposit of a large sum of money. I think the Commissioner of Customs demanded $30,-
000.	After a good deal of negotiation we got



Customs Act
that sum reduced to about $10,000, which was about double duty, if I recollect rightly. Under this clause the innocent purchaser might be held as the person who introduced these goods into Canada, although he did not do it clandestinely. Under this legislation, if I read it aright, it might be held that there was no power of remission. This is a case of which I have actual knowledge, in which the innocent purchaser might suffer a very great hardship. If there were no power of remission he would lose the whole value of the machines, including the duty paid. The rules of the department, the Customs Act, and the regulations under which they work are very rigorous at present, but this seems to me to be going the limit, and in the case I suggest it would create a great hardship.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think in the case indicated by my hon. friend his client would not come under subsection (a) because he was not the man who had smuggled the goods. The goods having been brought into Canada by an American firm he would come under section 2 of the bill, which provides the penalty for keeping or selling goods unlawfully imported. Such a man would be responsible for having in his possession goods which had been introduced illegally into the country. In the next section it is provided that if any person " knowingly " harbours, keeps, conceals, purchases, sells or exchanges any goods unlawfully imported into the country, whether such goods are dutiable or not, or whereon the duties lawfully payable have not been paid, such goods if found shall be seized and forfeited without power of remission. The burden is however on the crown to prove that he was knowingly in possession of goods that had been illegally introduced into Canada.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I am inclined to agree with the minister in his interpretation of the section. At the same time I want to urge him to strike out the words which deprive the minister of the power of remission. I do not think it is likely to happen that we shall have a minister of the crown who would use the power of remission unfairly. I know of course that it lays him open to a good deal of importunity; but a man has to pass through a good many hands before he reaches the ministerial department. The case is thoroughly sifted and the minister is not likely to grant the remission unless he is satisfied that it would be inhuman to impose the penalty, During the very short experience I had in the department which the minister is now administering I came across one or two cases

in which, without the slightest representation from the parties themselves, but merely on reading the evidence that accompanied the papers for formal signature to confirm the forfeitures, I felt that it was morally unjust to impose the whole penalty. In one case I felt it was unjust to impose the penalty at all while in the other I did not think it should be imposed to the full. I do not think it is wise for the minister to deprive himself of that power. The cases are rare in which he would wish to exercise it, but he should feel all the worse to think that he was deprived of that power. I think the act would be strong enough and that no guilty person could escape if the minister retained that power.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The idea of the section is not to save the minister any trouble but tc provide a new deterrent. When people know that there is no chance at all of any remission of the penalty and that they will not get back the goods they will be less inclined to smuggle.


Mr. FORKE:: Suppose the minister introduced hanging; would not that be a deterrent? These things can be overdone. I am inclined to agree with hon. gentlemen to my right; the penalty is being made too severe. There will always be some smuggling and while we should take every step to put a stop to it, we should not make the penalties too extreme. What class of goods are being smuggled into Canada to any large extent?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Silks.


Robert Forke: It struck me that it was goods of that description that were being chiefly brought into the country. I can see why the minister wants protection.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The minister might find himself in a position in which he would rather want to have the power of remission.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Possibly on sympathetic
grounds.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I do not think that the minister should deprive himself of that power. I would make a suggestion. Does not the minister think it would be better to remove the temptation by lowering the duties?


An hon. MEMBER:: On silks?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am not referring to silks particularly, although all luxuries should pay a luxury tax. But if the duties all round were lowered that would bring the cost of living down. Would that not be better than to punish the poor, frail mortal who yielded to the temptation to smuggle goods in?

Customs Act


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member has not
disclosed the true reason for his opposition to these severe penalties. Those of us who happen to represent constituencies along the border know how little respect is paid the revenue laws of the country on both sides of the line; and that might have something to do with our feeling in this matter. I think the law against smuggling ought to be strict, but we ought to stop somewhere, and the minister should consider more carefully the question of this power of remission. I will not say anything about the penalties, which should be severe. Did I understand the minister to say that this was inserted not so much as a deterrent but to assist him?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, it is only intended as a deterrent.
Subsection (1) agreed to.
Subsection (2) agreed to.
On subsection (3)-Offence.


Robert James Manion: What was the penalty
before?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: A fine of from $50 to $200 with the option of imprisonment for a term ranging from one month to one year.


Robert James Manion: Now the term of imprisonment is raised from one year as a minimum to a maximum of seven years. That is a rather severe penalty.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I am not going to criticize
anything that will help to enforce the revenue laws properly, but the minister will realise that the very severity of the punishment will cause juries to ignore their duty and to acquit in oases where conviction would otherwise be absolutely assured. That is always a bad spectacle in the community and it creates disregard for law. It is the strongest reason against penalties that are too severe. A fine of from $50 to $200 is inadequate for [DOT]the offence with which the minister has to contend; but to jump from that to an indictable offence carrying a penalty of imprisonment for a maximum term of seven years with a minimum of one year for the first offence will, I fear, cause a good many juries to act as they do in cases of infanticide and find people not guilty who undoubtedly are guilty. It would be well for the minister to reconsider this section.
Subsection (3) agreed to.
Subsection (4) agreed to.
Section 2. Subsection (1) agreed to.
Section 2, subsection (2) agreed to.
241i
On section 2, subsection (3)-When goods of the value of $200 or over.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does not the minister think there is a difference between the enormity of smuggling goods and their sale? Yet in the few minutes I have had to read this section it would1 appear that the penalty is the same in both cases.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes; but the man who is
found in possession of goods which have been smuggled1 is protected by the word " knowingly." The penalty is severe, it is true, but the innocent person is protected.


Mr. LEWIS:: Mr. Chairman, it seems to
me that these penalties are altogether too severe. A man can rob one of our banks of hundreds of thousands of dollars and probably escape punishment; but under this legislation if a person brings across the border two or three hundred dollars worth of goods, and another man sells them, the latter may be punished by a term of several years' imprisonment. I do not know what we are coming to in this country. The best thing we can do is to have free trade, and then there will be no necessity for such legislation.
Subsection (3) of section 2 agreed to.
On the title.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word or two about this legislation. The government is fully aware that these penalties are severe, but hon. members, I think know that during the last few years, since the enactment of prohibition in the various provinces, there has been a good deal of illicit traffic in liquor along the international boundary. Smuggling if it has not become a profession, has become a trade with large numbers of men and women, and a disreputable trade to be sure, but sufficient of an occupation to many for them to be engaged continuously in it. It has been found that the men engaged in smuggling liquor into the United States find it exceedingly profitable to bring back other commodities into Canada, and vice versa, and these smugglers where successful make such large profits that they do not hesitate to attempt bribery of our officials in their eagerness to evade the revenue laws. I regret to say, smuggling has reached a point where our customs officials find themselves quite incapable of coping with it effectively. Over and over again, representations have been made to and by the minister of the department that unless they were supplied with high powered motor cars, marine speed craft and other like equipment, they would have to throw up
377S
Customs Act

their hands in some localities in dealing effectively with smugglers. The international frontier is an extensive one, and sparsely settled in many parts in the business thoroughfares, the pressure being put on the customs officials all along the line to accept bribes continues to increase, with the increase in legislative enactments in certain directions, and unless the law is strengthened our customs service will speedily become greatly demoralized. A year or so ago, at the request of many of the largest wholesale and retail merchants of the Dominion, the government agreed, if they would form a voluntary association, to co-operate with its membership in their efforts to evolve a more effective means of counteracting this evil. The Commercial Protective Association is an outgrowth of this understanding. This legislation has been drafted after conference between the officials of the Department of Customs and the officers of this protective association.
Not only is the revenue of the country severely suffering from the extensive smuggling operations, but it is alleged some businesses are being undermined by the quantities of contraband goods that find their way across the border despite our present laws. It is contended that a mere imposition of a fine is not effective. With the business of smuggling conducted on a large and profitable scale many of the men enaged in it are prepared to pay out a certain amount of their profits by way *of fines, and take their chances on what they [DOT]can make .over and above this expenditure. It is believed that the only real deterrent is imprisonment. Again, the hope of recovering .smuggled goods opens the door to the exercise of a degree of pressure which is certainly not in the public interest, and to which those who are engaged in the administration of our customs laws should not be subjected.
The government in this legislation is seriously endeavouring to overcome a very grave evil that has developed on a vast scale within the last few years. We have endeavoured to cope with it by means of the staff now available in the Customs department, but ~we are frank to admit that unless the law is made more severe and unless we are able to appoint our own customs officials and take direct responsibility for the type of men we put into the service, it is not going to be possible to make the frontier as immune from smuggling as we would desire. It is, I suppose, impossible to give accurate figures of how much is being lost to the country in revenue, but some of those who believe themselves to be well-informed estimate that anywhere from $50,000,000 to $100,000,000 a year is being lost through smuggling operations.
IMr. Mackenzie King.]
These figures may be exaggerated, but at least the government is determined to fight the evil as effectively as it can, and it is for this reason that we have been prepared to accept the suggestions of those who are most interested in endeavouring to thwart the extensive smuggling operations that are carried on today. To a large extent we have acted on their recommendations in introducing this legislation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How do the penalties proposed compare with those now in force in the United States?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I regret I
cannot answer my hon. friend as to that.


Arthur John Lewis: Mr. Chairman, this bill makes no discrimination between the smuggling of liquor and the smuggling of other dutiable goods; therefore it covers both classes of people, whether they are smuggling whisky or merchandise. But what interested me most in the explanation given by the right hon. Prime Minister was that the men who smuggle merchandise from the United States are making enormous profits. This being so, what about the industries in this country that we protect? Those interested in them must be making even greater profits. But no penalties are meted out to them at all; on the contrary, they are permitted to rob Canadian citizens of millions and millions of dollars. On the other hand, the individual who goes over to the United States, purchases goods in a legitimate way, and fails to pay duty on bringing them into this country is liable to imprisonment.


Robert James Manion: What about goods that
are not produced in Canada at all?


Arthur John Lewis: Those goods should come
in free.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Chairman, I thought
the eloquent member for Swift Current (Mr. Lewis) was only approaching his point; I could not conceive that he thought he had finished it. I may say that I have a great deal of sympathy with this legislation, and I think I have a pretty logical title to that sympathy.


Arthur John Lewis: Logical frcm the protectionist standpoint.


Arthur Meighen: 
James Shaver Woodsworth: The other day in
discussing the duties on certain commodities we were told of one commodity which could be brought in without much opportunity of detecting it, namely, diamonds. The leader of the opposition has just told us that when any crime was difficult of apprehension the penalty should be made very severe. In that particular case I think the leader of the opposition joined with the minister not in advocating a severer penalty but in saying that in the case of diamonds the duty should be taken off altogether. I have wondered whether instead of increasing the penalties for bringing in these other commodities we should not adopt the principle of taking the duty off altogether. We are keeping up an army of officials and apparently developing a race of
Supply-Labour

criminals by these special restrictions. It would seem to me a great deal cheaper in the long run to take the duty off and allow those goods to come in.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.


Hewitt Bostock: By leave of the House,
I should like to place before hon. members a communication which has been sent to the right hon. Prime Minister and which I should have read at the opening of the House. It is is follows:
The Women's Canadian Club
Ottawa, May 28, 1925.
The Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Mr. King:
I am directed by the board of directors of the Ottawa Women's Canadian Club to extend to you personally and to the members of parliament with their wives, a most cordial invitation to attend a meeting to be held under the auspices of this organization in Keith's theatre at 10.30 a.m., on Wednesday June 3rd.
The speaker, Mrs. Tonkin, one of the South African delegates to the International Council of Women, is probably known to you, but I enclose some further notes dealing with her subject "The Beauties of South Africa''.
The directors of the club will be pleased to place boxes at your disposal for any members of the government who may wish to attend.
Cordially yours,
Ethel W. Thomas (Mrs. Herbert I.), Honorary Secretary.



WAR CHARITIES ACT, 1917 ORDER FOR DISCHARGE

[Stage Direction]
On the order being called for the House to go into committee on Bill No. 47, to repeal the War Charities Act, 1917:
Arthur Bliss Copp: Mr Speaker, I do not propose to go further with this bill, and I move, with the unanimous consent of the House, that it be discharged from the order paper.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the order being called for the House ,o go into committee on Bill No. 142, to amend the Railway Act, 1919:
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways):	Hon. gentlemen will remember
that after discussion in the House it was decided that the object of this bill could be more appropriately attained by an amendment to the Criminal Code, and the matter
IMr. Wood:;worth.]
has therefore been transferred to the Minister of Justice, who will present it as an amendment to that code. By unanimous leave of the House I therefore move that this order be discharged.
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: I mentioned
on Friday that the estimates we would take up to-day were those of the Minister of Justice. He is not in his seat at the moment, and I would therefore ask the House to give its consent to our taking up some other supply for half an hour, that of the Department of Labour, I would suggest, if it is agreeable.


Arthur Meighen: I thought the House had been in supply to-day already.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but we moved to go into it again later to-day.


Arthur Meighen: Was leave given?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: For half an hour.



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr Gordon in the chair.
Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, $35,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: How much of this was
spent last year, and are there any applications before the department at the present time?


Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: Last year $35,000 was spent. There are no applications for a 'board before the department just now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In view of the fact that
the act has been declared unconstitutional, and there being no applications for a board before the minister at the present time, and no likelihood of there being many under the new act, why does he ask for the same amount as last year, when he did not spend that amount?


James Murdock: We spent $35,000 last
year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, I thought you said
$25,000.	*


James Murdock: No, $35,000. My hon.
friend will appreciate that we have all been in some uncertainty as to the provisions of this act since the 21st day of January last, and both employers and employees and the

Supply-Labour
Department of Labour have not known just what they might be able to do under this act. It is possible that we may not use this amount during the fiscal year, but it seems advisable to have the appropriation ready for use in case it might be needed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is not the minister in a state of uncertainty also as to the effect of his new act? I would think he would be in a state of great uncertainty having regard to the constitutional phase of the matter.


James Murdock: I will not raise the uncertainties anyway. We are now in a position and ready to do business, but of course we shall be altogether satisfied if there is no business at all in the way of industrial disputes coming to our hands.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If there should
arise industrial disputes on the Welland canal, could an application be made for a board?


James Murdock: No. There are already what I think are generally regarded as satisfactory and equitable arrangements in effect for dealing with disputes on the Welland ship canal. Rightly or wrongly, there is a policy which has been in effect for more than twenty years by which disputes in respect to wages and hours on the Welland ship canal and other government undertakings are dealt with.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the minister say that arrangement is satisfactory?


James Murdock: I think I can very safely say that it is generally satisfactory, and the records of the department would so indicate. I know, of course, that certain associations from time to time express disagreement with the application of that fair wage policy, but we find just as pointed disagreement on the part of the contractors, and if my hon. friend cared to review the records of the department in respect to the Welland ship canal he would find, I think, just as marked objection at times on the one side as on the other. The department tries to follow the fair, even, middle course and to recognize the current wage in the district or a fair and reasonable wage, and the department would be in a position to show by comparative figures in regard to each individual wage classification that this course had been followed.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The minister has hardly answered my question, whether if this dissatisfaction grows, it would be possible to apply for a board under this act?


James Murdock: No, not as the law reads now, nor as it has ever read.


William Irvine: I would vote much more heartily for this item if under the law application could be made for a board in case of a dispute on government works. I have here a very strong protest from' the Labour Council of Toronto against what is said to be a cut in wages on the Welland canal. I will just read it to the minister and ask him if there is not ground for a dispute arising here:
The federal government came in for scathing denunciation at the District Labor Council last night for having sanctioned the reduction in the wage scale of ah classes of workers employed on the Welland canal. Premier King was held to be equally guilty with Hon. James Murdock Minister of Labor. A resolution was passed by unanimous vote protesting against the lower wage scale and the increase in the hours of labor. Copies of the resolution were ordered to be sent to Premier King and his colleagues; also, to the Labor members in the House of Commons. The matter was introduced by John Flett, Canadian organizer of the A. F. of L., who pointed out wages had been reduced all along the dine, varying from 10 to 20 cents per hour, according to the trade. Carpenters and plumbers alone were allowed the eight-hour day. All others had to work from 9 to 11 hours a day. In the case of laborers and unskilled workers, the rate of pay had been cut to 35 cents per hour for an 11-hour day, and no overtime was allowed or paid for.
I have here also a letter dealing with the same matter from Mr. James Watt, secretary, Labour Temple, Toronto, in which he says that he sent a copy of this letter to the Prime Minister and also to the Minister of Labour. He states:
Copies of the schedule of wages to be paid employees on the Welland canal construction work were submitted to the District Labor Council of Toronto at our last meeting held on the 16th, inst.
Delegates from organizations more or less affected freely criticized the action of the Department of Labor in authorizing the schedule and a resolution was adopted protesting against such action in references to both wages and hours.
The council are of the opinion that the cost of living at the present time warrants a much higher rate of wages, and that it is hardly creditable to the government of this country, in view of the conferences and agreements with representatives of other nations, that the eight hour day movement should be almost completely ignored in the awarding of contracts of this nature.
We are further of the opinion that the schedule as it stands, means an increase in the hours of labor per day and a lowering of wages in the district.
In protesting against the action of the Labor department we sincerely hope that a re-adjustment of the schedule may take place at an early date.
I am not in a position to vouch for the accuracy of these charges, but I presume the Minister of Labour might at least throw some light on the subject. However, I do say this: It is an unfortunate circumstance that a wage dispute, such as I have just indicated can develop on a government work and perhaps a very serious situation arise therefrom, and yet the men may have no recourse under the act in connection with which we are voting this money.
Supply-Labour


James Murdock: Very many references
contained in the first article that my hon. friend read are totally inaccurate; in fact they are entirely untrue. For example, it is stated' that the wages were reduced from ten to twenty cents an hour. That is not so; a number of the wage rates were not reduced at all. The labourers' rate was reduced by five cents an hour. We have figures with respect to the several classes of labour employed by different concerns through the Niagara peninsula, so that we will be able to show my hon. friend, if he cares to inspect the records, just what the various classes of labour are getting. I noticed the article in uestion when it came out, and observed the source whence it came. It is entirely misleading and generally speaking inaccurate, the carpenters' wages, for example, were not touched. The carpenters' hours were shortened from nine hours a day to eight hours a day. Why? Because in Niagara Falls, St. Catharines, and at one or two other points, by agreement between the carpenters' organization and the builders, an eight-hour day was in effect. Therefore the carpenters, a very important class of labour on the Welland ship canal, had t'heir condition improved, from a nine-hour day to an eight-hour day. May I add that the department has a very lengthy request from I think about 47 carpenters and 17 carpenter's helpers on the Welland ship canal making application to the minister to be permitted to work 10 hours a day and today there came to my office a report from the Department's Fair Wage Officer in respect to this matter. I have yet to render a decision on that application; but I am quite sure that neither my hon. friend from East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) nor my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) will recite to this House, either now or later claims 'by trades and labour councils to the same effect. There are so many angles connected with this question that it is not desirable at times to have in your hands the authority to determine what is the current wage, or what is a fair and reasonable wage, in any paritcular part of this country. For example, we have the same thing to do in Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver and at other places where government contracts are under way.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Before the minister passes from that point has he information showing how many carpenters there are working on the Welland ship canal?


James Murdock: I could not give my hon. friend the exact information but I could make a guess. I would say that on the various
[Mr. Murdock.}
contracts there would be probably from 150 to 300. Those that I referred to a few minutes ago are engaged by one particular contracting firm, but the number of carpenters would vary according to the condition of the work. There are by the way, when construction is under way and progressing satisfactorily, some two or three thousand men employed in various occupations on the Welland ship canal.
In regard to the clipping from the Mail and Empire, and the statement from the Labour Council at Toronto which my hon. friend read, we have had all these protests before us and have taken them under consideration. If a fair wage policy is right in principle-there may be some argument in my hon. friend's mind about that-and if a department when giving a contract insists upon the payment, in a given district, of wages as fair and reasonable as those that are being paid by other employers of labour, I believe my hon. friend will admit that we have been fair and reasonable and have recognized the current wage and the current hours and conditions of. employment on the Welland ship canal even in the last revision of wages that was made there. My hon. friend may not know that the application that came to me on January 17 last, suggesting in regard to the various contracts what the wages should be, quoted a twenty-five cent rate for labourers-I am speaking from memory now-a sixty-five cent rate for carpenters, and varying wages for all the other classes proportionately as low. After a careful and complete canvass of the entire territory the carpenter's eighty cent an hour rate was left there and his hours were reduced from nine to eight because that was the current condition in the Niagara peninsula. There is nobody in the form of an organization to speak for the labourer, but his wages were not fixed at twenty-five cents an hour because the current wage in the district was thirty-five cents an hour. There were many labourers being paid1 twenty-five cents; there were many being paid thirty cents. Our fair wages policy however, does not contemplate paying the minimum rate; it contemplates paying the current rate, and so we tried to make a decision based on the average of the various rates. Consequently a thirty-five cent rate was fixed which lowered the labourer's wage by five cents an hour.


William Irvine: I think I can see the difficulty that the Minister of Labour has to contend with in regard to this matter. Still I am loth to believe that the Trades and Labour Council of Toronto and the officials

Supply-Labour
of the A.F. of L. would make such statements as I have quoted if there were not some basis in fact for them. Does the minister know any real basis in fact for them at all or are they all fictitious?


James Murdock: If my good friend had been connected with a labour organization as long as I have been in the years gone by he would realize that you can get almost anything in the way of criticism of a public man through a labour body, and it does not particularly matter whether that public man is a Grit or a Tory. Criticism if it is proposed tvill be generally carried, and it does not matter whether it is justified or not. It sounds good, because it is criticizing someone in public life, whether rightly or wrongly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the minister suffer much on that score?


William Irvine: The minister's answer is not very illuminating and not very creditable to labour, but apart from that, I would like to press the question, is there any basis in fact for the changes in the correspondence I read.


James Murdock: Yes there is. I do not want my hon. friend to misunderstand me. The great body of labour is generally true and sound, but one misfortune is that it will sometimes endorse criticism as I pointed out a moment ago. There is in the minds of some labouring men possibly a criticism at any time when a wage rate is reduced. If my hon. friend has ever seen a condition of that kind that was not open to the criticism of organized labour, I never have, and therefore there is that justification on the part of the Trades and Labour Council of Toronto. Do not forget, they are many miles removed from the actual scene of operations on the *Welland ship canal, but there is that justification for criticism in some cases when wage rates are reduced. We have common labour at 35 cents an hour. Certain linemen were reduced 20 cents an hour. Why? Because we found the current wages for linemen had changed from 75 cents an hour to 55 cents an hour. That was a large change, but the facts indicated that , there was a substantial number of men in that calling who were working at regular employment at 55 cents an hour, or 20 cents an hour less than the rate paid theretofore. I can assure my hon. friend! that I still believe if he would go over all the voluminous documents and information which we secured in connection with the recent wage revision on the Welland ship canal, he would agree that we had stood up pretty straight in determining what was the current wage in the
district, and what was a fair and reasonable rate.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to ask the minister if he imagines that the amendment to the Industrial Disputes Act, which passed this House and the Senate, when put into force, will enable him to settle the dispute that we have had in Cape Breton?


James Murdock: I do not think that the particular dispute that has been in evidence for the past several months unfortunately can be accepted at the present time as a national emergency, and I do not think it would be consistent for the government to now go into the business of trying to conciliate.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is that a national emergency?


James Murdock: My hon. friend will
kindly not overlook these facts. The Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, rightly or wrongly, since 1907 has contemplated conciliating before a strike took place, and by conciliation and investigation preventing a strike taking place. It has not generally been the practice under the act to utilize its provisions where a strike was really in effect, where someone had violated the intent of the law in the public interest, either employer or employee, and had really entered into a strike or cessation of work, either by lockout or otherwise; therefore my hon. friend I am sure will agree that the underlying principle of the act is, by conciliation and investigation, to prevent a strike, and the act never contemplated and never intended to give authority to go in when there was an actual strike in effect, and to say, " This must be done ", or " The other thing must be done Therefore I would say that, generally speaking, not necessarily always, but generally speaking, it would be inadvisable to apply the terms and provisions of the act where there had been an actual suspension of work before the provisions of the act would in the ordinary course and according to the intent of the law be applied. Therefore, just briefly answering my hon. friend's question, I say, no, I do not think it would be consistent to make a pretence-because it could only be a pretence-of applying the provisions of this act to the dispute in question.


Mr.   W OODSTV DRTH@: If I remember
aright, the minister said several months ago. when the dispute first arose, that he did not very much blame the men in Nova Scotia for not appointing representatives on the board. Of what use is the act in such a case?
Loan Companies Act


James Murdock: Information of that kind can best be given to my hon. friend by looking at the results accomplished. Since 1907, 630 applications for boards have been received, and in only thirty-seven cases have strikes resulted. Therefore it looks as if something reasonably worth while had1 been accomplished. Last year there were nineteen applications for boards received and only nine boards formed. In ten cases, as a result of the applications, and the result of the efforts of the department, an agreed settlement was reached without even the necessity of forming a board, and in no one of those nineteen cases did a strike result. Now my hon. friend can consider the success of the act from the results which I have cited.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fair wages and inspection officers, $5,000.
Robert James Manion: I thought there was an
understanding we would only proceed for half an hour.


James Murdock: This is only a $5,000
item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: I presume there will be
no objection to taking up Bill No. 144, to amend the Loan Companies Act, 1914.


Robert James Manion: I am afraid my right hon. leader who has just gone out would have something to say about this bill. He went out a moment ago, but did not know anything else was coming up.


James Alexander Robb: I had a conference with the
right hon. leader of the opposition, and my hon. friend will recall that when this bill was up on the 25th May there was some delay and I suggested it should be referred to the committee on Banking and Commerce. The right hon. leader of the opposition consented to that.


Robert James Manion: He was in the House a
few minutes ago.


James Alexander Robb: He came over and spoke to
me.


Robert James Manion: If the hon. minister tells
me that, all right, I will take his word.


George Newcombe Gordon: Then the minister will move that the order of the day No. 32, "House again in committee on Bill No.

144, to amend the Loan Companies Act, 1914," be discharged.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Robb: I move that Bill No.
144, to amend the Loan Companies Act, 1914, be referred to the committee on Banking and Commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: With the consent of the
House I move that the name of Mr. J. B. M. Baxter be substituted for that of Mr. R. B. Hanson on the committee on Privileges and Elections.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King, the House adjourned at 11 p.m
Tuesday, June 2, 1925.