1925-05-18

Hon. T. A. LOW (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I lay on the table of the
House correspondence in connection with the application of the Bridge River Power Company, dated October 5, 1920, for the right to export power for a term of twenty-five years.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):	As promised on
Friday last, I lay on the table of the House certain documents in connection with Carillon dam, copy of lease of 1908, of lease of 1911, and of lease of December, 1921, with renewals thereof and applications for renewals.



CANADA-FINLAND TREATY OF COMMERCE

Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) :: On Thursday last I promised the
leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) to lay on the table certain correspondence regarding the trade treaty with Finland and also a statement of imports from the Netherlands to Canada. I now do so.



DEATH OF MR. T. H. THOMPSON, M.P.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: It is only a fortnight
since mention was made in this House of the death at Ottawa of one of its hon. members from the province of Quebec. To-day it is our sad duty to record the loss of another hon. member, Mr. Thomas Henry Thompson, member for East Hastings in the province of Ontario.
Mr. Thompson's death occurred with tragic suddenness. Though not in the best of health, he was to all appearances hale and hearty when the House adjourned over the week end on Friday last. On Saturday morning, due, it is thought, to over-exertion, he suffered a heart strain from which he rallied' for a brief time, but within twenty-four hours he had passed away.
Mr. Thompson was in his fifty-ninth year. He was first elected a member of parliament in 1917, at which time he was returned as the Conservative member for the constituency of East Hastings. He was reelected in the general elections of 1921. Prior to his entry into federal politics he had1 taken an active part in the municipal affairs of his native township and county. He was reeve of Madoc village on more than one occasion, and for five years was member of the Hastings county council. In 1913 he was chosen warden of the county.
His business and commercial interests, especially as a manufacturer and buyer of cheese, gave Mr. Thompson a special knowledge of many branches of agriculture. For ten years he was a director of the Eastern Ontario Dairymen's Association and for three years he was president of the Madoc Agricultural Society. The knowledge thus acquired he turned to the advantage of all concerned, as occasion arose for the consideration of agricultural problems in this House. Mr. Thompson did not take much part in debate. Like the hon. member for Compton who predeceased him, he was one of those members who make their presence felt by the faithfulness of their attendance in the House but whose influence is not less great because so largely silent and unobtrusive.
Hon. members on this side will join with me in extending to my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) and those who sit about him, our sympathy in the loss of one who was a highly respected member of the Conservative party. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, that irrespective of party, you will convey to Mrs. Thompson and her daughters, on our behalf, expression of the sympathy felt for them in their great bereavement by all hon. members of this House.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: It was a distressing shock to myself to hear yesterday morning by telephone of the death of one of our colleagues in this group in the House, all the more so because I had personally no intimation that Mr. Thompson suffered from any disability. His closer companions amongst us were aware that for some time he had been afflicted, as was thought in a minor way, with weakness of the heart, but unaccompanied, so far as anyone knew, with any serious apprehensions as to his life. The suddenness of it all was the greater because within a few hours before, he had mingled with his fellow-members here, apparently in the best of spirits and of health.
The Prime Minister has reviewed Mr. Thompson's association with this parliament and, as well, has made mention of those things in which he had engaged prior to his entry here. Any office of civic honour that he did not fill was not within the reach of the man. He appeared to have freely gained and very long sustained the unbounded confidence of his fellow-citizens; and if a knowledge of the affairs of a constituency, an intimate acquaintance with all its activities, close, indeed familiar, information as to each and all of those whom he represented, constitute the best attributes and qualifications for a member of parliament, Mr. Thompson would in-

Questions

deed be hard to excel. There was nothing of value to the people of his riding that he did not understand as well or better than they, and he seemed to consider it his one duty here to reflect the mind of his people on all questions of public import. Nor was there anything that his industry did not apply itself to that he felt would be of value to those whom it was his privilege to serve. He enjoyed, as well, and of us still more emphatically, the affection of his fellow-members of parliament. Modest in demeanour, as modest as his career was creditable to himself, unobtrusive on the floor of the House, but ever at hand to serve, he gained the esteem of and finally became beloved by all.
It is with very, very deep feeling indeed, that I ask that we all do join in the message which you have been kindly deputed to send to his widow and daughters.


Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members who sit in this part of the House, may I add a few words to what has been said? The death of Mr. Thompson came with startling suddenness; he had1 done his day's work and has been called home-a striking reminder to all of us of the uncertainty of human life. As has been said, Mr. Thompson was a man who took an active interest in public life and had rendered great service to his community before he came to this House. I was not intimately acquainted with him, but judging from what I saw and what I know, I think that to know him was to love him. I am sure he was held in the highest esteem and respect by those who were intimately associated with him. Undoubtedly he was respected by all the members of this House. I hope, Sir, that you will convey to his wife and daughters our sincere sympathy in the great loss which they have sustained. May his memory be to them a comfort and a joy, that he was a good father, a good husband, and a good public servant.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: As requested,
I shall immediately transmit to the bereaved widow and daughters the expressions of sympathy which have been extended to them by the hon. gentlemen who have expressed their tributes of esteem and respect for the deceased.



QUESTIONS

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

*Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	During the years 1922, 1923 and 1924, what did the Soldier Settlement Board pay in annual protection
[Mr. Meighen.1	, j ; jJ J
with regard to insurance in Alberta on (a) buildings on lands under contract to settlers; (b) on buildings situated on lands which have reverted to the board?
2.	What was the percentage of repayments by settlers during the years above mentioned, where the insurance has been paid by the board?


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. gentleman has been in communication with his friends who desired this information, with a view to having the question modified. Perhaps he would be prepared to drop this question, and place a modified form of it on the order paper.


George Newcombe Gordon: Dropped.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT-SADDLE LAKE
Mr. KELLNER:: 1.	Did the Soldier Settlement Board pay to the Department of Indian Affairs the sum of some $43,000 as an initial payment on the purchase of some 18,000 acres of land comprising a portion of the Saddle Lake
reserve ?
2.	If so, by what authority was this done?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Section 7, 10, Soldier Settlement Act, Chapter 71, 9-10 George V.


KEEFER PROPERTY, PORT ARTHUR
Mr. CARRUTHERS:: 1.	Was a building or buildings in Port Arthur the property of Mr. Francis H. Keefer, M.L.A., of that city, used by the government for any purpose during or after^the 'late war?
2.	If so, on what terms did the government enjoy the use of such ?
3.	What disbursements were made by the government in this connection, either by way of rentals, improvements, taxes, or other charges?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	Yes. It was used for convalescent hospital from March, 1916, until 31st May, 1920.
2.	Rent free. Insurance premiums paid by the government $590.68.
3.	Alteration to heating plant, electric services, plumbing, fuel, light, lumber and kitchen appliances, $1,386.72.


CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS-MONTREAL DISTRICT
Mr. MERCIER:: 1.	Is the government aware that the examinations of the Civil Service Commission for the Montreal district are held exclusively at McGill University, in the city of Montreal?
2.	Is the government aware that the candidates who present themselves at each of the said examinations are in a proportion of eighty-five per cent French Canadians?
3.	Would it not be advisable, under such circumstances, that said examination be equally held at the Montreal University, or at least alternately at McGill University and at the Montreal University?

Questions


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	The Civil Service examinations have been held at McGill University, Montreal, for the last sixteen years, with joint presiding examiners, French and English. Arrangements have been made recently to hold examinations for French speaking candidates at the University of Montreal.
2.	No specific information.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE-THE SENATE
Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	Does the government intend to recommend to the coming provincial conference to be called to consider changes in the British North America Act an amendment curtailing the powers of the Canadian Senate in the manner stated to the House of Commons by the Prime Minister on the 19th of July, 1924?
2.	What other amendments, if any, does the government propose to submit to this coming conference?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the government has not yet considered the agenda of the proposed conference with the provinces, but will do so in due course.


Arthur Meighen: Will the House be given an opportunity of discussing any features of the agenda that hon. members might desire to discuss, that opportunity necessarily being based on the announcement of what the government's proposals are?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To be quite
frank with my right hon. friend, I doubt if between now and the close of the session the government will have time to give that careful consideration which should be given to any such agenda. We have a good deal of business ahead of us, and I think we will have to wait until the session is over before we will be able to devote the necessary time to the drawing up of this agenda.


Arthur Meighen: In that relation, may I
suggest that it would be wise to postpone the conference? I would not think the gov-overnment would contemplate placing this country, as represented by the government, on record as requesting amendments to the constitution without the opportunity of previous discussion of those amendments in this House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I assume, of
course, that the government will not in any way commit this parliament at that conference, but will see that whatever recommendations are made by the conference will be subject to further consideration by the House.
210*


R. H. GALE
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	Did R. H. Gale of Vancouver interview the Right Honourable the Prime Minister suggesting that item for $2,000,000 for construction of a new grain elevator at Vancouver, be struck out of the proposed budget of expenditure for the Vancouver Board of Harbour Commissioners ?
2.	Did R. H. Gale of Vancouver interview the Minister of Public Works, Honourable Dr. King, suggesting that item for $2,000,000 for construction of a new grain elevator at Vancouver, be struck out of the proposed budget of expenditure for the Vancouver Board of Harbour Commissioners?
3.	Dir R. H. Gale of Vancouver interview the Minister of Marine, Honourable P. J. Cardin, suggesting that item for $2,000,000 for construction of a new grain elevator at Vancouver be struck out of the proposed budget of expenditure for the Vancouver Board of Harbour Commissioners?
4.	Did the Prime Minister, or Minister of Marine, or any other member of the government, invite the said R. H. Gale to assist in answering questions submitted in the House of Commons by Mr. Geo. Black, M.P., of the Yukon?
5.	Is the government aware that sworn testimony was given in the Supreme Court in Vancouver stating that said R. H. Gale had advised the Prime Minister, Minister of Public Works and Minister of Marine to strike said $2,000,000 item from Vancouver Harbour Board estimates?
6.	If said statement is not in accordance with the facts, will the government cause necessary inquiries to be made, and public retraction made if said statements are false?
7.	If said statements are correct, what is the explanation of the government for accepting advice of said R. H. Gale?
8.	Did the said R. H. Gale secure a very valuable foreshore lease from the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners at a very low rental, and sell the same to a grain company?
9.	Is the government aware that at the said trial, it
is alleged said R. H. Gale received 30 per cent of a two million dollar company for the assigning of the said lease?	.
10.	Did the granting of the said lease to the said R. H. Gale receive the approval of the Minister of Marine, or was it approved of by order in council? If so on what date?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1, 2 and 3. There is no public record of any interview but the recollection of the ministers referred to is that Mr. R. H. Gale discussed with them, a proposal whereby additional elevator accommodation could be provided at the port of Vancouver by private capital, provided the Vancouver Harbour Commission would not insist on the construction and operation of all the elevator accommodation that would become necessary at that port. The government was at that time and is now of the opinion that if private capital should become available for the construction and operation of elevators, the public interest would not suffer by abstention by the Vancouver Harbour Commission from the construction of further elevator accommodation, at least until such time as it becomes evident that
Questions

necessity therefor has arisen. Negotiations carried on by Mr. It. H. Gale resulted in the construction by private capital of an elevator at Vancouver of a capacity of approximately 2,000,000 bushels and to that extent the government has been spared the necessity of providing elevator accommodation at that port out of public funds.
4.	No.
5.	No.
6.	Answered by No. 5.
7.	Answered by No. 5.
8.	No.
9.	No.
10.	Answered by No. 8.


SASKATCHEWAN-CUSTOMS PORTS OF ENTRY
Mr. KNOX:: 1.	How many ports of entry are in the province of
Saskatchewan ?
2.	Where are these ports located?
3.	What was the amount of customs duty collected by each during each of the last five fiscal years?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1. 32.
2 and 3.
-	1920-21	1921-22	1922-23	1923-24	1924-25$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.Moose Jaw	314,575 30	148,637 28	154,726 17	158,332 02	181,100 22Big Muddy	4,887 45	1,861 61	1,294 38	1,810 56	1,550 49Gull Lake	3,358 50	2,387 87	2,628 61	3,052 53	2,631 04Maple Creek	15,787 59	1,567 99	2,072 02	972 24	1,413 87Shaunavon	Nil	Nil	Nil	4,275 54	8,387 28Swift Current	67,495 32	16,803 42	17,363 46	19,354 46	22,184 50West Poplar River	3,520 05	2,135 93	1,092 91	1,956 97	2,233 19Weybum	55,410 04	46,027 10	22,542 15	19,798 32	15,079 57Willow Creek	3,505 51	436 83	' 394 57	2,148 63	2,120 24East Poplar River	1,062 15	847 26	2,155 84	4,061 81	3,622 39Total	496,601 91	220,705 29	204,270 11	215,763 08	240,322 79North Portal	15,391 42	8,412 98	18,588 73	10,776 18	13,154 13Estevan	55,172 72	27,258 50	13,209 71	19,313 08	9,852 27Marienthal	1,585 44	1,447 81	1,693 94	1,632 43	1,803 44Total	72,149 58	37,119 29	33,492 38	31,721 69	24,809 84Prince Albert	28,878 17	21,374 22	29,213 42	29,933 33	26,042 79Humboldt	9,080 23	5,249 04	6,650 31	3,732 55	4,287 60Melfort	10,402 80	5,322 10	4,933 27	5,928 39	4,444 78Rosthern	1,154 07	972 15	647 30	1,016 19	1,324 92Total	49,515 27	32,917 51	41,444 30	40,610 46	36,100 09Regina	1,485,919 11	846,255 50	684,225 92	741,483 72	558,258 65Moosomin	25,971 61	2,246 83	5,027 40	1,729 40	1,157 56Northgate	7,422 06	17,035 32	3,533 34	3,282 55	6,369 14Yorkton	663,988 33	82,830 34	24,150 42	47,378 23	14,309 52Areola	80 62	60 89	151 45	196 32	183 62Broadview	69 23	66 98	36 45	53 55	51 07Elmore	2,879 50	1,517 11	1 40	652 76	1,587 71Fort Qu'Appelle	214 47	249 28	308 19	308 47	338 88Grenfell	79 52	48 89	97 75	79 26	68 77Indian Head	173 82	191 09	179 78	320 45	295 70Qu'Appelle	126 46	110 64	95 35	110 21	102 56Wapella	38 96	80 28	46 12	39 80	33 58Woiseley	36 11	50 51	126 98	111 54	105 41Total	2,186,999 80	950,743 66	717,980 55	795,746 26	582,862 17Saskatoon	661,115 18	335,916 10	349,949 10	412,932 48	353,725 02North Battleford	39,454 61	16,365 76	14,233 50	14,931 01	11,786 14Total	700,569 79	352,281 86	364,182 60	427,863 49	365,511 16

Questions


BRITISH PREFERENCE ON SUGAR
Mr. McTAGGART:: On what date and under what authority was the British preference on sugar withdrawn?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: British preference on sugar has not been withdrawn.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-SALARIES $10,000 AND OVER
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	How many officials of the Canadian National Railways receive as remuneration $10,000 or more per year?
2.	What is the total amount paid by the Canadian National Railways, in salaries or other remunerations which amounted in each case to $10,000 or more per year?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend (Mr. Doucet) can hardly be serious in pressing this same question again. Already this session several questions along the same lines have been asked, and in the interests of the Canadian National Railway Board, and on their advice, I have declined to answer them.
On February 23 my hon. friend himself asked these questions:
1.	How many officials of the Canadian National Railways are in receipt of a salary of $10,000 and over per annum ?
2.	What are their names?
I replied:
This is a question similar to others asked and which, in the interest of the Canadian National Railway Board, it would not be in the interest of the railway to make public.
I like to give all the information asked for, but this is a matter of business in which the people of Canada, through the Canadian National Railway Board, are endeavouring to carry on a commercial enterprise under great difficulties. The question refers absolutely to operation, and I think we have pretty well established the principle that matters affecting operation only should be very carefully handled when information is asked for. True, perhaps I fell from grace in this connection when the other day the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) asked about salaries over $15,000. Now, to show the House that I had in mind on that occasion the idea of guarding against the appearance of just such a question as this, perhaps I may be permitted to read what I said. The question was:
1.	How many officials or officers of the Canadian National system receive salaries or remuneration amounting to $15,000 per year or over?
2.	What was the total amount paid by the Canadian National system for salaries or other remuneration amounting in each case to $15,000 per year or more in the year 1924?
This is the answer I gave:
Mr. Speaker, this is a peculiar question in that it seeks to have the Canadian National Railways give to the public information which no other railway company gives. It really is asking the railway owned by the government to do something that no other railway company in Canada is asked to do, or does, or, possibly, would do. I may say this, however. The management of the Canadian National Railways are very much averse to giving this information, for the reasons I have suggested. I have urged them to give it in this case, particularly as it relates only to the higher paid officials and does not include the employees in general. With that understanding-that it is not opening the door to a series of questions that will be handing the entire information as to salaries over to the public for use by other companies, information which if given would also give rise to endless jealousies in the staff itself-I am prepared to answer the question. The answer being confined within the limits I have stated, I do not think it will do any appreciable harm.
So I think the answer to the question asked to-day, Mr. Speaker, will have to be that the Canadian National Railway Board are fully convinced that it would be detrimental to the interests of the operation of the great national railway undertaking to give out such information as this, which, of course, would only lead to other questions of a similar character; and I agree with the management in that view.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Before my hon. friend finally disposes of the matter, I would ask him to be kind enough to read the evidence of Sir Henry Thornton on this point before the special committee of the House the other day. He was asked what would be the disadvantage of giving such information as this, and the gist of his reply-I am not giving the exact words, but I think my hon. friend will find that I am right in stating the gist of it-was that it would not be nice for employees to have their salaries talked about; it would not be nice to have it known that they were working so cheaply.


George Newcombe Gordon: I would draw
the attention of the hon. member to the fact that this matter is not debatable.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not debating it. Of course I bow to your ruling at once, but I would point out that considerable latitude has been allowed to the minister in making an argument.


George Newcombe Gordon: No; he was giving certain reasons why the question should not be answrered.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Usually a statement of reasons constitutes an argument; at least I should think so. Now, all I am asking is that the matter should not be finally de-
Questions

cided by the minister's answer to-day, and I am giving reasons why. However, if it is your view, Sir, that I may not do it, I will stop.


George Newcombe Gordon: That is my
view.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would simply draw attention to the fact that reasons were allowed to be given in the one case whereas in the present case we are not allowed to give them.


George Newcombe Gordon: The question
is answered.


CANADIAN ENVOY TO THE UNITED STATES
Mr. JACOBS:: 1.	In what year was the office of Canadian envoy to the United States created?
2.	Since the creation of such office, what sum or sums have been included in the estimates for the upkeep of the same?
3.	Has the British government been consulted with regard to the creation of such office? If so, has it agreed to the same?
4.	Is it the government's intention to fill the office? If so, when?
5.	Is it in the interest of Canada that the office of envoy to the United States should be established?
6.	If so, why has the appointment been delayed?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Had the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) been in his seat, I would have asked him to bring these questions up when the estimates for the Department of External Affairs are under consideration. I think that would be a more appropriate time to deal with them.


George Newcombe Gordon: Stand, then?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I would
like to have the question dropped, and if my hon. friend does not approve of that method he can reinsert it in the order paper at some other time.


George Newcombe Gordon: Dropped.


GRAIN SCREENINGS
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	What was the yearly average price of screenings as
quoted on the Winnipeg Grain Exchange for the grain years 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924?	'
2.	Has a standard been fixed by the Board of Grain Commissioners for screenings. If so what is the date of said order and title of the same?


Thomas Andrew Low: Per
ton
Crop year 1920-21	 $3 50
Crop year 1921-22	 96
Crop year 1922-23	 3 06
Crop year 1923-24	 2 50
f8ir Henry Drayton.]
2.
Fort William, Ont.,
October 20th, 1924.
File 93:
To all Public Terminal and Private Elevators:
Please be advised that the board has received from its inspection department, a report showing the result of the separation of samples of screenings taken from public terminal elevators during the month of September, 1924, and, on the recommendation of the Inspection department, the board has decided that, until further advised, when shut-out or other * documents are surrendered for the delivery of screenings, such screenings should contain not less than 30 per cent of standard ic-cleaned screenings and 5 per cent of mill oats.
Will you please be governed accordingly?
(Sgd.) F. J. Rathbone, Secretary.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	How much federal money has been expended by the National or Quebec Battlefields Commission in monuments and historic sites in Quebec?
2.	How much federal money has been expended for like purposes in the Maritime provinces?
3.	What monuments have been erected in the Maritime provinces, and what was their respective costs?
4.	Were the character, design and inscriptions of these monuments ever submitted to any government, historical authority, or historical society, previous to erection and, if so, did they meet their commendation?


UNDELIVERED DUTIABLE PARCELS
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	During the years 1923 and 1924, what was the total number and estimated value of parcels passing between Great Britain and Canada, and subject to customs duties, that failed to reach the destination to which they were addressed?
2.	What are the reasons therefor?
UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS KOOTENAY FLATS RECLAMATION Mr. HUMPHREY:
For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda, orders in council, and other documents in the possession of or under the control of the government of Canada or any department thereof, of date subsequent to May 17, 1924, relating to the proposed reclamation of the area in the province of British Columbia and the state of Idaho, known as the Kootenay Flats.



STORAGE OF ALCOHOL-REGINA

Mr. McQUARRIE:: For a copy of all correspondence, papers, telegrams and other documents passing to and from the Department of Customs and Excise, relating to the storage of alcohol in bonded warehouses at Regina since 1st January, 1923.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE-FURTHER LEGISLATION RAILWAY FREIGHT RATES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: 
Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William and Rainy River):: In view of the remark just
made by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) that the House hopes to prorogue by the fifteenth of June-which I rather hope, too-may I ask the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) whether a report published the other day to the effect that Mr. Ross, who is en route to Australia, will not arrive there until about the fifteenth of June, is correct, .and if so, does the government not hope to deal with the Australian treaty before prorogation?


James Alexander Robb: When a man embarks on a sea
voyage he never knows when he will arrive at his destination; but Mr. Ross has left for Australia.


Arthur Meighen: Has he embarked yet?


James Alexander Robb: I think so.


Robert James Manion: When, in the ordinary
course of events, should he arrive in Australia?


James Alexander Robb: I have not before me the time table of the ship, but I will get the information for my hon. friend.
ST. JOHN RIVER POWER On the Orders of the Day:


Hon. J. B. M. BAXTER (St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert):: I
notice in the press that a very interesting discussion is taking place in Montreal regarding an application from .the New Brunswick
Hydfo-EIectric Commission for certain rights in connection with the St. John river as an international waterway. One feature of it struck me as very important from the point of view of the possible policy of this government. I notice that both the United States and the state of Maine are suggesting very strongly to the commission that no export tax should be imposed upon the power.
I would ask the Prime Minister whether his government proposes to be heard or represented before the International Joint Commission, and what action they propose to take with regard to this demand from the United States and Maine.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government will be
careful to see that there is proper representation before the commission. I have not in my mind at the moment the particular matter to which my hon. friend refers, but I can assure him that so far as the country's interest is concerned, it will be safeguarded.


Arthur Meighen: Would the Prime Minister, when he has time to review what the hon. member has called attention to, tell *the House to-morrow what he considers in relation to this matter the country's interest to be?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have pleasure in promising my right hon. friend that we will give the matter consideration.



FLOOD IN THE YUKON

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: I should like to ask if the government have been officially advised of a very serious and disastrous flood at Dawson in the Yukon occurring within the past few days, and whether the government has received from its agent there an application for relief or other assistance, and if so, what action it is proposed to take.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: Yes, we are -being kept fully
informed of the disaster by the Commissioner. I am not sure that Mr. Lowe has not wired, but our information is coming direct from the acting commissioner. We have instructed him to take any necessary action, and as a matter of fact, he is doing so.


Arthur Meighen: What action?


Charles A. Stewart: Any action
that would protect life and property that is in danger at the moment, so far as it is humanly possible to do so. I may say that the flood is receding. We have notice
Canada Grain Act

to-day that it is down four feet from yesterday.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might add that I received a telegram from Mr. Lowe, the Speaker of the Yukon Council this morning, and I have just at this moment sent a copy of it, together with a copy of my reply, to my hon. friend. The telegram from Mr. Lowe asked that my hon. friend be favoured with a copy of his message, but I had not opportunity until this minute to send it to him.



IMMIGRATION AND COLONIZATION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved the third reading of Bill No. 112,, to amend the Department of Immigration and Colonization Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the . third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. LOW (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill No. 113, an act respecting Grain.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not speaking to the motion, Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to ask the minister a question. I understand it is the intention of the minister to refer this bill to the committee on Agriculture.


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes, that is the intention.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the minister before the House passes the second reading give to the House in outline some of the major amendments which are contained in this bill? It is an enormous bill, and I do not expect the minister to go through it exhaustively, but perhaps he would give some of the major principles that have been followed in the amendments.


Thomas Andrew Low: I do not think I can add anything to what I have already said when the resolution was up. I outlined then the major changes in the act. The hon. member has the bill before him, and I have no doubt that he has noted the changes that are proposed. Some of the old clauses have been dropped, and some new ones have been inserted, and these new ones are all marked as new. It is my intention, after the 'bill receives its srcond reading, to move that it be referred to the committee on Agriculture.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time and referred to the committee on Agriculture and Colonization.



NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
National Defence-salaries, $675,798; contingencies, $50,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Would the minister kindly tell us what the expenditure was last year?


Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence):: The situation in regard to the number of employees and expenditure is this: For the year 1924-25 the number of employees was 448, and the expenditure $694,555. The estimate for the present year is 432 employees, and the expenditure $675,798, being a net decrease of 16 employees and of $18,757 in expenditure. The gross decrease for the year amounts to $34,604, but from this figure the sum of $15,847 has to be deducted for statutory increases for 233 employees, leaving a net decrease of $18,757 over last year. In the outside service, which is covered by other votes, the number of employees in the department on December 31, 1923, wTas 67, and the expenditure amounted to $75,511. At the end of 1924, that number had been decreased to 54, and the expenditure to $59,927, or a decrease in number of 13 and in amount of $15,584. Outside of Ottawa the number of employees-this comes under other votes-at the end of December 31, 1923, was 808, and the expenditure $S29,856. At the end of 1924, the number had been decreased to 778 employees, and the expenditure to $775,511, a decrease in number of 30, and in amount of $54,345. The total reduction in number during the year was 59, and in amount $88,686. The following reductions have taken place during the last four years.
Jan. 1, 1922, Permanent employees .. Jan. 1, 1922, Temporary employees .. Jan. 1, 1923, Permanent employees .. Jan. 1, 1923, Temporary employees .. Jan. 1, 1924, Permanent employees .. Jan, 1, 1924, Temporary employees .. Jan, 1, 1925, Permanent employees .. Jan. 1, 1925, Temporary employees ..
No.	Salaries
648	$ 962.472
1,750	1,645,992
595	920,196
943	907,548
558	883,248
746	694,548
599	925,392
643	555,479
There was thus a decrease of 49 permanent employees and 1,107 temporary employees The total number was reduced from 2,398 to 1,242, a reduction of 1,156.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I did not ask as to the provision that was made-we can get that by looking at the figures here; what I asked for was the amount actually paid last year in the way of salaries.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The total
amount paid for salaries last year was $648,773.

Supply-Defence


Mr. HANSON:: The minister says there
has been a total reduction in the permanent staff in four years of 49; but I do not understand that- there has been any corresponding reduction in the amount of the salaries paid. Will the minister kindly inform me what the reduction, if any, has been in the total cost of the inside and outside service in the same period of time?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The amount is $37,080.


Mr. CRERAR:: According to the figures
given by the minister a moment ago the total number of employees on the payroll on January 1, 1924, was 558, and on January 1, 1925, 599. Will the minister explain how this happens?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The explanation is, that in accordance with the usual practice in all the departments, under the regulations of the Civil Service Commission, a number of temporary employees have been made permanent.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Since the work of the department has been reduced to an almost negligible quantity, is it the intention of the minister to cut down the staff still further? I am informed by militia officers that the vote passed by parliament is so small-and I think the minister will agree with the statement- that very little useful work can be done among the militia units in the Dominion. If that be the case is it not possible to reduce the cost of the overhead of this department? Personally I have a good deal of sympathy with the department, and I should like to see it placed in a position to carry on its work properly; but inasmuch as parliament in its wisdom has not seen fit to grant the minister the necessary money to do that, I think the overhead should be cut down. What are the views of the minister on the subject?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is in the interest of the country that the department should be maintained in such a position that if the necessity arose we could adequately perform our duty to the nation. With regard to the question of expenditures for these various services, (he permanent force has been decreased to a certain extent in numbers, but we are preserving it in a fairly good position. As to votes for militia services outside, these have been cut down to a very great degree. However, it has been represented to me, particularly by those who are interested in the maintenance of the artillery service throughout the country, that as a result of the economies which the department has put
into effect that force has become paralysed practically, owing to its inability to obtain that training with the guns which is essential to maintain it in proper order. I have received letters from a great number of members of parliament in regard to that subject, and I would be very glad to know what the sense of the House is on that question. I am sure the House will agree that it is the duty of Canada, like every other country, to maintain its military and naval establishments in such a condition that if it became necessary for the defence of our own interests those establishments could be expanded. Just now when taxation is being imposed upon the country to a greater degree than ever before in Canadian history I am one of those who think that, while we should maintain our organization, it is not proper to ask for large amounts of money from this House or to impose further burdens upon the people. At the same time I am not one of those who think that sweet peace is likely to be permanent. My visit to Europe last year and to the League of Nations impressed me most forcibly with the fact that at any time a condition may arise in Europe which will bring about another conflagration, which, while it might probably not be as great as the unfortunate war which broke out in 1914, would nevertheless involve a great many nations. For that reason I think we should maintain our organzation.


Mr. CLARK:: In view of the minister's
statement that there is always a possibility of further conflagrations, not only in Europe but the world over, why is proper provision not made for the units in this- country to carry on at the present time? I think there are something over 250 units which receive for their annual training and administration sums not in excess of $2,000, and are required to find out of their own pockets anywhere from $6,000 to $10,000 a year to enable them to carry on.


Mr. GARDINER:: I rise to a point of
order. I believe we are discussing civil government estimates, and the remarks of my hon. friend would not come under the head of civil government.


George Newcombe Gordon: I draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that civil government items deal with everything relating to the policy of the department. It is the one vote that is most general in its character and under that vote practically everything relating to the department or to the policy of the department may be dealt with. It is the one item that may be called really general.
Supply-Defence


John Arthur Clark: I am not discussing at this
moment the general policy. I am asking the minister, in view of his own statement of the possible dangers that confront the country, why does not the country make proper provision for the training of the units which it has authorized and which are organized in the country? Why does the country ask those commanding officers to contribute their own funds? Why will members of parliament support a policy which makes it necessary for individuals to contribute out of their own pockets four times the amount this country contributes for their training?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am well
aware of the great sacrifices which are being made from year to year by the officers of the militia forces. They carry on .these organizations at great expense to themselves with very.great unselfishness and patriotism. That is a matter which is not fully realized throughout the country generally. Anyone who has had to do with the administration of this * department, or who knows anything about dealing with these questions, knows that my hon. friend is right in his statement as to the unselfish conduct of the militia officers. As to how much they spend in comparison with the amount of this vote I am unable to say exactly; but I know they have been very generous in helping to maintain the militia. So far as the infantry is concerned, we are able to maintain that organization, and to give a number of days' training under the vote which we have in the estimates, but I confess that I think the situation with reference to the artillery service requires consideration. That service developed tremendously during the late war, and the officers con-
4 p.m. nected with the service throughout the country generally are splendid men, who took a very great interest in the extremely technical work that is necessary to be mastered in order to become efficient military officers; and the representations which have been made to me with reference to the position of that force are to the effect that, in consequence of the limited amount of money that we have been able to devote to the maintenance of the artillery, there is danger that these corps in certain portions of the country will have to disband. I am considering the question of placing in the supplementary estimates an amount to deal with this matter. However, every minister who is responsible for the administration of affairs to-day experiences great difficulty when requests come in from various portions of the country with regard to what seem to be very necessary- and important matters, inasmuch as [The Chairman, [
we necessarily hesitate when we come to consider the fact that all this money must be obtained1 by taxation; for the burden of taxation upon the people of the country to-day is very great, and every proposition must be approached with a full regard for the responsibility involved in the expenditure of every dollar of public money. That is the way I feel in regard to administering this department, although I would be anxious, if it were possible, to spend further sums.


Mr. MacLAREN:: I think there are many governmental departments where economies can be carried out and less expenditure made at the present time; but I make one exception, and that is the Department of National Defence. I do not think we can reduce expenditure in this department and still maintain a reasonable efficiency. On the contrary, I think that this department has reached the stage where less money is being spent upon it than is really in the public interest. The defence of the country is just as necessary, or perhaps more necessary, than any other feature of governmental work. The minister has asked for an expression of opinion regarding the training of the artillery. We are aware that men all over the country have been urging that sufficient opportunity be given for artillerymen to receive their training. It is not a training that can be acquired in a short period; it is a skilled department of the militia which requires to be kept up by regular practice and in sufficient numbers. I believe that if an adequate vote is not provided for the artillery in the end the country will suffer. So far from being an excessive expenditure, if the vote is not passed it will be a serious loss, because we will lose those men who have had training and those men who may now receive the training in the future, which will leave us in an inferior position. I believe the minister will receive generous support if he sees his way clear to increasing the allowance for the artillery. While I speak in this way in reference to artillery, I am speaking also generally. While care and economy should be practised in all departments, I do not see how we can reduce the number of men receiving annual training at the present time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I desire to add a word
to what has been stated by the hon. member for St. John and Albert (Mr. MacLaren). In the province of New Brunswick during the last few months the artillery officers are very keen about the service and nearly every one of them was a returned war veteran; they are all desirous of seeing that branch of the service kept up to the proper level. If I

Supply-Defence
recollect aright, they passed a resolution, the effect of which was that unless there was some further appropriation for the service it would be impossible for them to carry on, and I was among those to whom this resolution was sent. I had the honour of forwarding it to the Minister of National Defence. I believe it was received sympathetically by the minister, and I hope he will be able to place something in the supplementary estimates, as he has indicated, in order to do something for the artillery. I think this branch of the service should not be lost sight of. It is just as important-perhaps more so, especially along the coast-as the infantry branch of the service, and I think that in following the course indicated by the hon. memlber (Mr. MacLaren) the minister will have the support of the best sentiment of the people.


John Arthur Clark: I shall say just a few words
in support of what the minister has stated as to the need of the artillery. If the artillery does not get support we might as well dispense with it; and in making these remarks I want to appeal to hon. members, especially those who believe that we should be prepared at all times to defend our country and that if the time ever comes, misfortune though it might be, for us to fight again, we shall have the courage to do just as we did before. I appeal to these hon. members because the defence forces of Canada are in a pitiable condition. The minister has stated that there is need to give further support to the artillery, and I agree with him; if you do not supply the artillery with the ammunition with which to practise then it is hopeless to expect to train an efficient force in that branch. The minister also stated that there was provision for the infantry. Well, I know of my personal knowledge that there is not provision for the infantry; there is provision for the training of one hundred men in each unit in the infantry, but that is not sufficient. Such provision is just sufficient to discourage officers and non-commissioned officers whn are capable of training men; it will only serve to diminish the interest they take in the defence forces, to dampen their ardour, and to make them feel like quitting.
It was the infantry I had in mind particularly when I said that the officers of the units in Canada had to go down into their own pockets, or to depend upon public support, to get the money that is necessary for their training. I have somewhere among my papers, and I shall be glad to give it to the minister, a detailed statement showing the annual expenditures, absolutely cut to the bone after
various consultations, in a militia unit in the city of Vancouver. In that particular unit, the sum required annually amounts to $8,000. And they receive $2,000 from the country with which to carry on. That sort of thing is hopeless. The training of one hundred men is not sufficient. I am not personally identified with any unit in Canada, being now on the reserve; so that I have no axe to grind for any particular organization. But I know the condition that exists; I have gone into it carefully.
Let us reflect for one moment on the advantage it would be to us to have a thoroughly trained body of men if the defence forces of Canada were ever called upon again to go to war. In the Great war, while the Canadian forces were given credit for having done almost impossible things-and they did do almost impossible things-it was not until late in 1916, over two years after the outbreak of war, that the Canadians were able to put a complete corps in the field and fight as a unit from Canada. If we had not been dependent on the Mother Country and the Allies, what sort of war would Canada have fought? We should have been crushed before we started. Now, as a result of training, casualties can be avoided; on the other hand, owing to lack of proper preparation, every force that went into the field not thoroughly trained suffered casualties untold. A comparison might well be made between the Canadians, after they were able to fight as a unit, and the Americans who came into the field, much as we entered in the early stages, inexperienced and untrained. If hon. members will make the comparison between the accomplishments of the two forces under such conditions they will find that the achievements of the Canadians in the last hundred days of the war were almost as great as those of the Americans, despite the fact that the latter had, I suppose, ten times our force. And this was due to the experience which the Canadians had gained through training and discipline.
With a backbone in Canada to-day of officers and non-commissioned officers of experience, the foundation can be laid for a defence force which, with very little training, could take the field in case of emergency. But if we allow the force to go to pieces, as it is unquestionably doing to-day, then should another war occur Canada would enter it much in the same condition as she entered the last ,war. And, proud as we may be of the showing which this country made in that war- and undoubtedly individual battalions and individual divisions did admirably-it is
Supply-Defence

nevertheless lamentable that as a unit Canada was unable to make a showing within a period of two years. The only way therefore that Canada can prepare herself for any similar emergency is to give proper and decent support to her defence forces.
Furthermore, the cost will not be much. To-day the vote for annual training is something like $1,000,000, and if that were increased to $3,000,000 or $4,000,000 a great deal could Ibe done towards the efficient training of the forces. It has been said that taxation is severe. I agree; and I think that we could find innumerable places where the expenditures could be cut down or perhaps done away with altogether. We are voting money for grain elevators and railways in connection with which, iwith careful consideration, we might save many millions. But when it- comes to something for our own defence then we are apathetic, we are not very enthusiastic about our duty. The first duty of every man is to his country; and this is the opportunity to do something to show that our hearts are right.


Mr. SPENCER:: Where would the hon.
member suggest cutting down grain elevators?


John Arthur Clark: I have not suggested any
place in particular nor have I specially looked into that matter. I am not discussing the question of any particular grain elevator, although my own city is vitally interested in grain elevators. I mentioned this as something which I should probably advocate for my own city. But I do not care whether it be grain elevators or railways or anything else; if you look over the estimates you will find from beginning to end innumerable places where you might reduce them by millions. And I say that this is one direction in which neither Canada nor any other country can afford to be niggardly. At a recent dinner a Canadian officer was deploring the very condition which I am now deprecating; he referred to "O Canada!" and he said something like this-"O Canada! We stand on guard for thee-at a lower capital cost than that of any other country in the world except Bolivia." That is the record of Canada, and it is something that is most lamentable if we are really patriotic and desire to see our young men trained so that in case of emergency they may be able to defend their country.


Mr. GOOD:: Mr. Chairman, you have just
stated that this is the opportunity we should take to discuss the general policy of Canada with regard1 to military affairs. I do not think there is any difference of opinion in this 
House as to the desirability of defence, but there may be all the difference in the world in our opinion as to what is the best means of defence. I would suggest to hon. members that before we get too far into the subject we should1 give very serious consideration to the basic question-as to whether or not after all, we are better defended by being defenceless in the ordinary acceptation of that term. Even if we admit-which I do not-that the best method of defence is by naval or military preparations, there are all kinds of such preparations that might be considered defensive. Reading a pamphlet issued by the Navy League some little time ago I noticed a statement to this effect:
From the point of view of Canada, we may as well put the idea of invasion out of our heads. It does not enter into the question. But the protection of trade should indeed receive most careful and studied consideration by both people and parliament.
I cite that merely to show that even this league, which stands for active defence by physical means or armaments, argues that Canada does not need to consider the danger of invasion. If that is admitted, it makes a great deal of difference in our discussion of what would be the best method of defence.


John Arthur Clark: Just what difference does it
make ?


William Charles Good: I do not know that I am
called upon to answer that question, but it certainly would make a great deal of difference. For instance, if there were no danger of invasion we would not need to have, as I take it, a large army.


John Arthur Clark: Does my hon. friend suggest that we have a large army?


William Charles Good: I do not suggest that we have or that we ought to have. I simply rose, Mr. Chairman, to draw the attention of the House to the propriety of deciding in our own minds as to what after all is the best kind of defence. Later on in the debate I ,may have something to say on that question, but now I merely submit that it is a basic question, and before we make assumptions it seems to me we ought to be certain that those assumptions are at all events tenable and to some extent justifiable.
There is another subject, Mr. Chairman, which I should like to see discussed, but I am not sure whether this is the proper time to bring it to the attention of the House.
I have recently received a very interesting, indeed a startling pamphlet, written by John S. Ewart, entitled "Canada and the Next War." It contains statements as to the present position of Canada and her obligations which I think are of paramount importance.

Supply-Dejence
329;
Perhaps this is the proper time to discuss it, but I will leave the subject for the moment.


John Arthur Clark: May I ask the hon. gentleman whether he agrees with the expressions of opinion in that pamphlet?


William Charles Good: I am not discussing the contents of the pamphlet for the moment, Mr. Chairman.


Murray MacLaren: Could the minister give us information as to the number of men who are to receive annual training this year; the number who were trained in 1913, the year before the war; and similar figures for an intermediate year, say, 1920?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It would be more advantageous if my hon. friend would wait till we come to the item particularly relating to the militia. My officers tell me they have not the information going back that far, but I will get it for my hon. friend.


Murray MacLaren: I want it merely for
purposes of comparison.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


Robert Forke: Mr. Chairman, the military
men have had their innings in discussing this question. It seems to me that perhaps the military mind does not always view it just exactly the same as the civilian mind does. Sixty thousand Canadians laid down their lives in "a war to end war." I want that phrase to sink into the minds of hon. members to my right, who have been talking about the "next war"-sixty thousand Canadians laid down their lives in a war that was to end war; now we are busily talking about how we are going to raise another big army to go to war again. Just as long as we have discussions of this kind in every country under the sun we will have war. If we spend our time on the problems of peace, spreading the gospel of peace and showing how peace can be brought about, we will accomplish a great deal more in preserving peace than we can ever expect to by talking about preparing for war. Whom are we going to go to war against I want to know? Who are our enemies? Where is the hostile force that is hovering on the borders of this Dominion ready to attack us if we have not a large army to defend ourselves?


John Arthur Clark: May I ask a question?


Robert Forke: A dozen, if you please.


John Arthur Clark: Did my hon. friend or any
other human being in the world know whom we were going to war with in 1914?


Robert Forke: We had a pretty good idea.
From what we read in the newspapers for years preceding 1914 we knew that military preparations were being made on a large scale, that in fact Europe was an armed camp, and that war was bound to come.


John Arthur Clark: Does my hon. friend recall
the Prime Minister of Great Britain announcing in the Imperial House of Commons not more than a week before war broke out that there was no danger of war?


Robert Forke: Did you ever see a small
boy with a toy who did not want to use it? Military men are just grown up boys, and they want to see how their "toys" will work, they want to use them. Those in control of huge armies want to try them out. Canada is the most happily situated of any country in the world to teach the uselessness of war.
Mr, CLARK: Did the British Empire want to try its army out?


Robert Forke: I do not wish to carry on a dialogue with my hon. friend.


John Arthur Clark: You invited me to ask a
dozen questions. Having asked only three,
I have another nine still coming.


Robert Forke: I believe it is quite right
to have a skeleton army of the smallest possible size to take care of any internal disorders that may break out, and to do its share if the country is ever attacked, which I think is a very remote contingency. I believe that if we attend to our own business and keep the banner of peace unfurled there is very little danger for a long time to come of this Dominion being invaded. I have every respect for hon. members to my right who were engaged in the late war and realize the dangers resulting from national unpreparedness, I have also considerable sympathy for their trend of thought. But, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely believe that if we talk peace, prepare for peace, and look for peace, we will get peace; and I am convinced that if we talk war, prepare for war, and look for war, we will get war. I would cut this vote down to the lowest possible minimum, just continuing our present forces without enlarging them to any extent whatever. It seems to me that if we had twice as much money to spend just exactly the same arguments might be brought forward by hon. gentlemen to my right in favour of a still larger expenditure. What is " adequate protection "?-to use a phrase familiar in tariff matters. One member might answer, a force of a hundred thousand men, while another would be con-
Supply-Defence

tent with fifty thousand men, and so on. There never will be any concrete idea of what actually constitutes adequate protection in a military sense. We cannot compete with the great military nations, neither could we defend ourselves against them. Personally, I have sufficient faith in human nature to believe that if we attend to our own business and, as I said before, look for peace, we will get peace. I would not be in favour of augmenting this vote by one single dollar.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member for
Brandon has entirely misapprehended the argument advanced by members of this group. No one suggests that Canada should maintain a large standing army. Such a thought was not expressed here this afternoon or at any other time, and it is not fair to suggest that that was the argument we put forward. What we have suggested is this: Canada is spending less per capita to-day upon national defence than any other civilized country, and the minister's own remarks bear out the statement that has been made throughout the country that the vote is so small that it is not possible to maintain even the skeleton service that is required in the case of the artillery. Artillery officers who have put their hands in their pockets year after year to provide funds since this vote was reduced to such slender proportions are getting tired of this sort of thing. I wonder if the hon. member himself is satisfied that militia officers, men of high standing in his own province and in other provinces, should be obliged to contribute from their own private funds in order to ensure the existence of a skeleton force. Artillery officers in my own province tell me they are going to abandon the whole thing if they do not get enough money to enable them to train at least once in two years a sufficient force of men to keep the skeleton organization going. We have not even got that, and that is all anybody is asking for. I do not think the hon. member is doing himself justice or that the patriotic people of Manitoba will back him up if they understand exactly what the situation is and what hon. gentlemen in this comer of the House are asking for.


Mr. LADNER:: Has the minister considered a proposal originating from the Air Force Club of British 'Columbia with regard to the establishment of a reserve air arm by way of supplementing the existing Royal Canadian Air Force? The proposal is contained in a resolution adopted by the club and forwarded by Major Bell Irving, its president, to members of the House and to the minister. 
The gentlemen making this suggestion are competent by experience and by training to express an opinion of value on the question, and I would be interested if the minister could tell the committee whether the proposal is considered to be a practicable one and whether it will be gone ahead with.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The suggestion that came from Vancouver through Major Irving has been submitted to the officers of my department having to do with the air force. I shall be glad to bring down, when we come to the vote for air services, the memorandum which was submitted to me in that connection.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I do not wish to plead for any waste of money, but I want to make a suggestion to help the minister to prevent the waste of money. If you go below a certain point in the training of artillery it would be better, I think, to abandon it altogether, because what you do is nothing but a waste of time and money. As my hon. friend (Mr. Hanson) has said, artillery officers in his province have contributed pretty largely of their private means in connection with the work of the artillery unit. They do that for certain purposes in connection with training, but they cannot do it to the extent of providing shells, and an artillery unit that is trained without actual experience in firing at a target is not worth keeping up. This material must be supplied, otherwise the whole scheme is abortive. The artillery officers are saying that it would be far better to drop the whole thing than to give them so little that they cannot produce any effective results. I would like to quote from a letter I received on this subject from a very enthusiastic artillery officer who took part in the South African war and in the Great war as well. He says:
The portion of the national defence vote allotted to the training of the entire artillery forces of Canada for 1924 was approximately $57,000, and a similar meagre expenditure is proposed for the coming year. An amount of $400,000 was voted in 1924 to cadet corps work.
I am not criticizing the vote for the cadet corps, but if we are to have any talk about militarism and the old cry of " Shall I train my boy to be a soldier," it would be far better to direct such comments to the activities of the cadet corps than to the artillery, which must be a necessary part of Canada's protective force if we are to have any force at all as a part of the force which must be called upon for immediate duty if anything happens. My friend says further:

Supply-Defence
Though the militia officers appreciate the value of such training, it does appear as a most disproportionate amount in view of that expended on artillery. The training for last season, which is proposed for the coming season, is, in the unanimous opinion of all commanding and senior officers, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, absolutely inadequate to maintain the esprit de corps and efficiency of the Canadian artillery. It is the serious belief of such officers, and the unanimous opinion of the Canadian Artillery Association that should such training not be improved upon, it would be better to cease training altogether, until such time as sufficient training grant can be obtained.
Then he points out that the Canadian Artillery Association, at its annual meeting on the 26th of February last, embodied these views in a resolution, which, I have no doubt, has been communicated to the minister. He is of the opinion that an additional sum of not less than $200,000 is required to train the batteries as they were trained in 1923. A large part of the money is not only for material but for transportation charges, and those transportation charges largely go to the Canadian National Railways. I have no doubt that the minister has had this matter brought before him repeatedly from many quarters and that the representations put forward have met with his personal sympathy. I think his real difficulty is to convince the representatives of the people that it is worth while to do something for this particular branch of the service.
I want to ask the attention of the committee to a matter very far removed from the one I have been discussing, and one which is much more pertinent to a discussion of the civil list in connection with national defence. It is a matter I have already taken up with the minister, from whom I received a careful and sympathetic hearing. I am not speaking to-day to criticize the minister, but I am going to criticize some of the men-and I do not know what particular men they are,-for whom we are voting a part of this civil list. As I have said, I believe it is worth while to keep up national defence in Canada.
I can hold that view and at the same time I can reprobate what so often occurs-that a man because he is dressed in a uniform thinks he is justified in being an absolute autocrat in his attitude toward his fellow creatures. The man in the ranks has as good a right before this parliament as the officer at his desk, and I want to call the attention of this House, because there seems no other remedy for it, to a case of flagrant and prolonged injustice which has resulted in a young man being debarred from honest employment which ought to be open to him if he is telling the truth, and if he could get justice. It will not take very long-because I have made a memorandum of the case which I have already presented to the minister-to lay the facts before the House, and in that way before the country. I can get no other remedy but that of publicity, but this young man shall at least have that. His name is John Joseph Quilty, born on the west side of the harbour of St. John, New Brunswick. He was a railway employee with the Canadian Pacific Railway. At the time of conscription he was exempted on the ground of railway service. His serial number was 678783 E.C. The certificate stated that he was exempted until he ceased to be employed as a railway clerk. Now mistakes are not uncommon in any line of business, and Quilty in that certificate should not have been called a railway clerk. He never was one; he was a railway fireman. Nothing perhaps turns on this mistake except that it shows the possibility of innocent mistake, and unfortunately other mistakes occurred with regard to Quilty which he has never been able to get rectified. I have personally seen a document issued by local tribunal No. 35 in which Mr. Quilty is described by serial 678783 and consecutive number 528. It exempted him while in the railway employ. It is dated 21st December, 1917, and is signed by J. F. Owens and C. B. Lockhard. Both of these men and their signatures are well known to me, and there is no doubt of the genuineness of this document. Now up to that point Quilty was exempt.
Mr. Quilty tells me that a statement was posted in the Canadian Pacific railway yards Bayshore, West St. John, that these exemptions would continue, as there were limitations of time, I think, in nearly all the railway certificates which were issued'. He alone of all the men received a notification that he must appear and report for service. He did so, as he says, on 7th May, 1918, but the military record shows his enlistment on 6th May, 1918. He tells me that at that time no medical sheet had been received by the depot battalion. It appears from the records, that on the 15th May, 1918, the medical sheet was produced, showing that he had! been examined on 3rd October, 1917, and it also appears from the records, that he was examined by a medical board on May 6th, 1918. The earlier examination, of bourse, would be in connection with liability to service. His statement is that about four days after reporting he was told to sign some paper, which was probably an attestation sheet and that he was assigned to "A" Company. He claims that he was never issued any uniform and that while he occasionally reported, no
Supply-Defence

employment was given him, and one day when the men were formed up for inspection, or as he terms it "lined up for exempted men" he was told, by a Sergeant McIntyre, to "step out with the farmers." He says that his name was never called at any roll call. Later -he was unable to fix the date-he says Sergeant McIntyre told him he could stay at home until he was sent for. In connection with his exemption there is a possibility of some confusion. He had a brother Charles, who was a clerk in the employment of the same railway company. This brother was conscripted, went to the front, and made the supreme sacrifice. I am not aware that J. J. Quilty's exemption was ever cancelled, though I am not in a position to speak positively on that point. He says he never received any notice of cancellation, but simply the notice to appear and report for service. Now if his exemption never was cancelled he was under no liability to service, but that is not the most important thing in his case by any means. It is quite clear from the military records, that on 15th May, 1918, Qui'lty signed a recruit's declaration, as a draftee under the Military Service Act. On the same day he signed a form of will.
On the 12th of August, 1918, a court of inquiiy was held at Camp Sussex, some forty-four miles from the place to which Quilty had repared for enlistment. The court found that Quilty had illegally absented himself, without leave, on 15th May, 1918, the very day that he made his declaration and signed his will. One of the witnesses says that his kit was reported deficient, as stated in the evidence of C.Q.M.S. Hardy on the 17th day of May, 1918. It seems very strange that Hardy's testimony states that any articles were missing. It is evident that Quilty's statement that he was never issued a uniform is true, as the court's finding declares there was no deficiency, -another blunder in this evidence, not serious perhaps, and I do not wonder at mistakes occurring with the tremendous rush there was at those camps, but I do not want a blunder to blast a man's life.
No steps were ever taken to apprehend Quilty or to compel him to serve. On June 7, 1920, some two years after this occurrence, the Pension department of the Canadian Pacific Railway sent to the Militia department for inspection what purported to be a discharge certificate held by Quilty No. 326278.
On 16th June of the same year the Director of Records wrote to the District Record Officer sending this discharge certificate, which he states is thought to be a forgery. He pointed out-and this is an exact quotation from the correspondence on the subject-(1) That it

does not bear the headquarter's stamp; (2) That the form is obsolete; (3) That from comparison of the handwriting, it would appear that Quilty made out his own discharge; (4) That there is no record of any discharge in orders; (5) That the signature of Quilty on his regimental documents appears to be identical with his signature on the discharge certificate ; and (6) that there i3 no record of such a number as 326278. The District Record Officer replied to the Director of Records at headquarters on 28th of June, 1920, saying that from all appearances the discharge certificate is a forgery, as there is no record of same having been issued in that district. He attached a specimen of Major H. H. Smith's signature, Major Smith being the officer by whom the certificate purported to be signed. There is a photographic copy of the discharge certificate attached to the return of the papers in this case. It is signed by Quilty, as it should be. All the filled-in part is in writing, except the case of discharge, which is typewritten and is in these words "being no longer physically fit for war service K.R. & 0. 392 XVII." It is suggested, of course, that Quilty, who is a man of no great education, knew enough to turn up the King's Regulations and Orders and find this paragraph and put it in there as the proper thing-* an utter absurdity to any one who knows the young man. The description of age, height, complexion, eyes and trade, with a description of identifying marks, are all typewritten. The identifying marks are entered "nil." Now nil is a word that Quilty would never think of using. I am satisfied he would not understand it and the description does not correspond with Quilty's medical sheet.
Knowing the man as I do, it is simply incredible that he can have assigned to himself a number, which by the way was neither his regimental number nor that of his Military Service Act record; that he can have filled in part of the form with a typewriter, which I know he cannot use; that he can have filled in the remainder of it in a handwriting entirely different from his own, nor that he can have signed it in another handwriting. His handwriting is of a character-I could show hon. members copies of it-it is the handwriting of a man who can write only one hand. The signature on the discharge certificate certainly clearly resembles that of Major Smith, the district officer. If it is a forgery, I would say it is a mighty good one, and it differs very materially from the portion of the certificate which is filled in in handwriting. No one would accuse the same person of having filled it in and signed it, unless that person was a very competent forger.

Supply-Defence
Now I ask you to add to these things the difficulties a man in Quilty's position would have to encounter, a man not employed in a regimental office, in the way o: getting hold of the parchment form, as well as perhaps the greater difficulty of getting at the necessary records from which to fill in the material portions of the document. It is true he might have been in collusion with some man that could do these things. That is a possibility, but I do not think it is fair to assume this possibility against this man. The brass hats have done so. I want a trial by a jury of his countrymen, and not by brass hats. This certificate is dated 2nd May, 1919, nearly a year after he had enlisted. In other words he had been at camp Sussex where the decision of a court martial had rendered him liable to imprisonment and he is supposed to have forged, or obtained the forgery of, a certificate a year afterwards, as if that would do him any good. Not one of the considerations I have pointed out appears to have been present in the minds of the officers asked to report on this subject. The Adjutant General wrote to the Canadian Pacific Railway Pension department on 16th July, 1920, saying that the case had been thoroughly investigated by the District Record Officer of No. 7 district. He stated that the discharge certificate was a forgery and that-I quote his note- "the handwriting on this certificate is similar to that of the soldier, marginally noted (Quilty) who was struck off strength as a deserter at St. John on 15th May, 1918." If he means the signature it is similar, of course the man put his own signature on; he was directed to sign. If, however, he means the body of the certificate he could not have looked at the document because it is absurd to say that the handwriting on the signature, with the exception of Quilty's own signature, is similar to Quilty's handwriting. The most casual or the most careful inspection would-demonstrate the difference. He was advised that the discharge certificate, being a forgery, would be retained by the directorate.
Now, the action of the department-the casual, careless action of the department- resulted in Quilty's dismissal by the Canadian Pacific on the ground of his having been illegally absent from service, and the man who before the war was working in the employ of this railway was dismissed. He was no deserter, according to his story at all events; he was no shirker. He was exempted, under the law made by this parliament, which provided that the railway services of the country should be carried on by men just such as he. He gave up his discharge certificate, or 211
what he thought was his discharge certificate, so that it might be investigated. He has never up to this hour been able to get that document back; the department have impounded it and he cannot get it. I have seen in a return to this House a photographic copy of the certificate, but the man himself cannot get hold of it. While he has not been directly charged with forgery, it would have been far better, far fairer, and far more manly to have charged him with forgery. Then he could have got a fair trial by somebody who would not have had, at least, the prejudice of a military caste against the man. He is treated, however, as one in possession of a forged document apparently concocted for his own advantage. He is blacklisted by the railway, and has never had an opportunity to explain his conduct, his possession of the certificate, or to justify himself in any way. He has lost the advantages which, as a young man, he had in connection with an important branch of employment.
I personally brought this matter to the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) when he was Minister of Militia and Defence. He kindly instructed his department to report upon the subject, and in consequence the General Office^ commanding military district No. 7 stated on 10th February, 1921, that there were a number of men by tb; nar'e of McIntyre on the strength if the depot b&Qalion, New Brunswick regiment, and thai, it was *.-1 possible to trace the one concerned, in order to^erify Quilty's statement at so late a date. On 12th April, 1921, the Adjutant General informed -e that on 15th May, 1918, Quilty had signed aid [DOT]'station papers, also medical sheet and form of will; also that the court of inquiry was held as aforesaid, that he had been pardoned as a deserter under the provisions of the general amnesty; and that he would be granted a discharge on misconduct, but that the discharge certificate previously mentioned would be retained and filed with his regimental documents, as no proof could be found of same having been issued by the military authorities. This man does not want a pardon; a pardon is only for a man who has been guilty of some offence. What he wants is an opportunity to vindicate his innocence.
I took the matter up again with the minister on 11th November, 1922, and on 5th April, 1923, received a letter from the minister in which he stated that he felt if the matter was fully explained to me I would appreciate that Quilty had no further cause for consideration by the department. The minister was of the opinion that it was logical to

Supply-Defence

suppose that Mr. Quilty knew he had not been properly discharged, otherwise there would be no reason for him to present a false discharge certificate. He stated that Mr. Quilty's case had been very carefully reviewed . -reviewed by the military at different times- and it had been decided that he might be issued with a discharge certificate showing him as having been discharged on 15th May, 1918-the date of the court martial. A certificate dated March 15, 1923, was granted and sent me which gave the date of discharge as 15th May, 1918, and assigned as the reason for discharge, that his services were no longer required. Now, this was meant in kindness. It was the honest attempt of the minister to palliate the injury that had been done and, I presume, because he could get no further with his subordinates and cocked hats. But it was not justice to Quilty; it did not restore him to his position with the railway company; they still regard him as a deserter and a forger. This is due to the position the military officials have taken; they are unwilling to earn the money that this parliament pays them by listening to a complaint of a man who says an injustice has been done him and investigating that complaint. I presume the members of the headquarters staff would rather play golf than look into poor Quilty's case.
Now, since what I have related, the Great War Veterans' Association have asked the Director of Records as to the genuineness of this latter certificate. Remember that Quilty had no title to*anything from the Great War Veterans' Association. If they' thought he was a shirker, a deserter, or a forger, these men would! not have lifted a finger in his behalf; but they wrote saying that this certificate had been secured in an endeavour to show the Canadian Pacific that he had been honourably discharged and should be re-instated in their employ. "However," says Mr. Machum, the Secretary-Treasurer of the St. John branch," it seems that in some way this latter certificate has not been given the necessary consideration by that company, and it is our desire to have it so considered, if it is correct, as we feel that perhaps an injustice is being done Mr. Quilty in continuing to bar him from his former employment."
Last year I laid this memorandum, practically as I have recited it to-day, fobfore the minister. I was assured of his sympathy, and I feel that I have it. I feel that he does not want any injustice done, but apparently he has not been able, as yet, to cut the official red tape. I am going to ask this House now to express its opinion that Mr. Quilty should be given his hearing before some civil tribunal,

so that if he is guilty of forgery he will stand convicted as a forger; but if he is not guilty the stain will be wiped from his character and he can re-enter the employ of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company honourably, as he claims he has a right to do.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The case to which my hon. friend has referred is typical of a great many other cases which arose in the department during the period of the war. One can well understand that during the years from 1914 to 1918, through the sudden responsibility that was thrown upon the officials of the department and the military officers of that time, a great many occurrences happened which, in the light of after events, appear to be injustices. There is not a week passes but there come to me from some part of the Dominion cases of men who claim that at various times they did not receive proper consideration from the officers having to do with them during the period in question. But the case my hon. friend has brought up is a unique one, and is out of line with the ordinary case of complaint which has been brought before me and before previous ministers. Certainly it would seem to be an anomaly that this young man should be in the position in which he is at present. I remember very well that my hon. friend called the matter to my attention some time ago, and it was rather difficult, even with the most sincere desire to meet his views, to indicate exactly what course could be taken by the department now in order to remedy the situation which arose as a result of previous actions which prevented him from being re-employed by the Canadian Pacific Railway. I say to my hon. friend that, realizing his evident sincerity in this matter, I shall be glad to take it up, and do anything in my power to relieve the situation in which Mr. Quilty is placed.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I suggest to the minister that he should get someone from the Department of Justice, or some competent legal man in St. John if he wishes, and give him authority under an order in council to investigate this matter. Let him see what information the department has, and let him hear the man himself. The point is that Quilty has never been before anybody yet to whom he could give an explanation of the circumstances. The district record officer from St. John would not send for Quilty, he looked over the document and gave five reasons why it was a forgery, and these reasons would not convince any man of legal

Supply-Defence
training, or any man in a jury box, that there was evidence of forgery on Quilty's part. He was condemned unheard. I know that I have the sympathy of the minister, and I know that I am offering him a practical solution of the difficulty.


Mr. HUGHES:: Men who have been connected with the militia service in this country would like to see a larger expenditure of money for that service, and no doubt we must admit that they are quite sincere. But they speak of the defence of Canada. Does anybody at the present moment really believe that within the next few years-I will not mention the number of years-there is any danger of any attack upon Canada from any quarter whatever? Why, the pamphlet issued by the Navy League a short time ago stated that we might as well dismiss that idea from our minds, and that Canada was in no danger of attack; therefore -whatever preparations are to be made would not be for our defence. I think the idea is-and it is not an improbable	one-that	a war
might break out in Europe in which it would be our duty to take part. If that is the idea, we might as well state the facts. It would be a serious thing, if we are to believe what we read in regard to what is going on in the world at the present time, if any great war broke out in Europe. The last war would be a pink tea
5 p.m. compared with the next one.
.	Many of the brightest minds in
the world at the present time are engaged in perfecting weapons of destruction of the human race. They are fabricating them in the forges of the world. Many of the brightest minds of the world are engaged at the present time in the laboratories devising poisonous gases, fumes and vapours that will be so destructive that if another war should break out cities like London, Berlin and Paris might be wiped out, or at least the greater portion of the population wiped out, in a few hours. It is said that if another war occurred, the greatest sufferers would be the non-combatants, the women, the children, the sick, the aged and the infirm, and that the destruction would be so great that we cannot realize what it would mean. If a great portion of the large cities should be wiped out by poisonous gases and fumes dropped on them from the clouds, the destruction would be so great that the living would not be able to bury or cremate the dead. It would be followed by pestilences and plagues that would probably wipe out the remaining portion of the people. Another war in Europe, if we are to believe 21 li
what we read, might mean the destruction of the human race in that part of the world. Is there any effort Canada could make that could change the course of events in such a. war? That point is well worthy of consideration. If there is anything Canada or the North American continent can do to preserve peace or promote peace, whether through the League of Nations, or a world court of justice, or in any way whatever, I believe every person in Canada would be glad by every means in his power to do it.
Is it just possible that Europe will destroy itself? Great empires and even civilizations have passed away, leaving scarcely a trace behind, and that part of the human race in Europe can destroy itself. Are they making preparations to do so? If these preparations go on, and if such a war should break out, could Great Britain save herself by withdrawing altogether from the continent? Could that part of the Caucasian race living in North America and South America save itself by withdrawing from Europe? There is no use in playing with matters of this kind. Any preparation that we could make within our power would hardly be a drop in the bucket compared with what would be necessary in order to take any appreciable part in any great war in Europe. I had a little experience myself when I was much younger than I am now. I was in the artillery service in a rural corps, and perhaps things are better now than they were then. I know the training we got in two weeks in the artillery, and I know the training the infantry got, and so far as the rural units are concerned, I have no hesitation in saying the whole thing was a farce, and the money was wasted. I would be prepared to admit that a city unit that could train in the drill halls in the winter season and keep up their training might get an education or a training that would be of service in case of an emergency; but I repeat again that unless things have changed very much, money expended in training rural units is money wasted, and I think we would be well advised to consider very carefully before voting large sums of money for any such purpose. These are the thoughts I wish to express, because the artillerymen for some reason or other- and it is not to their discredit-are nearly always anxious to make preparation for war. They think it is important; they think it will help to maintain peace. I believe they are mistaken; I believe it is the very means of bringing on war and of exciting peopie to the pitch of war. All the preparations that were made in Europe previous to the last war did not prevent war, and all the prepara-
Supply-Defence

tions they are making now for the next war will not obviate that one. A different mentality must be created if war is to be avoided and if that part of the Caucasian race that inhabits Europe is to continue to exist. The next war will mean the destruction of Europe and perhaps that part of the world will be peopled by the other races. It may be in the decrees of Providence that that part of the world shall be peopled by the Mongolian race, by the Asiatics. But if the part of the Caucasian race that now lives in Europe is to survive, war must be abolished, and they must decide of themselves that there shall be no more war.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I do not intend
to discuss this or that particular item of expenditure but rather to consider the general principles underlying the policy of preparedness. I want to challenge the theory which underlies the whole of armaments, whether military, naval or air; that is, that armaments are in any sense a guarantee of safety. That is the underlying postulate of this theory. Now, some of us are interested in preserving the country but we cannot see that armaments are the means by which this can be done. As a matter of fact it would seem as if the last war had demonstrated to the whole world the futility of preparedness as a means of safety. Yet, even within this short time after the close of the last war the world seems to be threatened with a recrudescence of militarism. In the British Empire itself we find a changed policy with regard to Singapore which may bring on strained relations with the oriental nations. The minister himself has this afternoon suggested that he has information that would show that war in Europe is by no means improbable.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I did not
indicate that I had information to that effect at all. What I did say was that having visited Europe last year and having had an opportunity of attending the League of Nations and judging the mentality of Europe I was not by any means satisfied that the danger of war was over but that on the contrary war might take place.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am glad to have the minister's statement in that regard. I think that, as undoubtedly anyone who has followed recent movements in Europe will admit, war in the near future is by no means improbable. We have Britain's own attitude towards Egypt and India, which is not at all reassuring to anyone who is outside the official circles. And we have recently had the Dawes

plan adopted. I am quite well aware that it was a Labour government that suggested the carrying out of a plan along this line. Nevertheless I believe that there is very real danger that the central part of Europe will be reduced to something resembling industrial serfdom. Undoubtedly the present political developments in both France and Germany would suggest that there is anything but the prospect of peace and security in central Europe to-day. Further than that, we have the anti-Japanese propaganda which is being carried forward in the United States and is being echoed in Canada.
Now, some hon. members may ask, what have we to do with Europe or Asia? Well, I venture to point out that we had a great deal to do with Europe when the last war came on, and there is no reason why we shall not have something to do with Europe again if other troubles arise.


Mr. BROWN:: The hon. member referred to Britain's attitude in Egypt and India. In order to get his point of view, he might tell us whether he would advocate the withdrawal of Great Britain from Egypt and India.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not know that I am called upon to answer that question; I made a general reference to Egypt and India, and I think that anyone who has followed to any extent the British policy in India during the past few years, with some of the types of repression which we have witnessed there, and with the refusal to give any large measure- of self government to India, must view the situation with anything but equanimity. And as we all know, Egypt has been a sore place for many years. We Britishers told the world that w^ were going there for temporary occupation, and so far we have neither withdrawn nor shown any signs that we are about to withdraw. However, I do not intend to discuss the policy of Great Britain in either Egypt or India; I .merely referred to the matter in passing. It might very well however be the subject of discussion in this parliament. Indeed, I had rather hoped that after we had set up a committee on international relations, we might discuss some of these questions in this House; because if the League of Nations is to mean anything to us-and through the League of Nations we are committed to certain definite responsibilities-and if the British Empire is to mean anything to us, especially in view of the fact that we are involved in war when the empire is involved in war, then we should have a little more discussion than we have had in past years of the policies that are carried on

Supply-Defence
by the British Empire as well as by other members of the League of Nations.
There are those who are perhaps inclined to deny any of us the right to question the maintenance of armaments. For a good many years in Canada those who believe in military preparation have had their innings, and they have almost come to take it for granted that their policy is the correct policy and the one that must be maintained indefinitely in this country. In fact, during the war it became a crime for anybody to question the causes that led to hostilities; and the press and other agencies effectually silenced anyone who was opposed to that policy. It seems to me that now that we have had this Great war, which has practically led to the bankruptcy of the world; and when we are faced with the possibility of another war, which as Winston Churchill has said will be the potential destroyer of the human race, it is well that we should take time to consider the claims of the militarists before passing as a matter of form from year to year these military estimates.
Some hon. gentlemen may say that this is merely a personal matter with me. I have no hesitation in saying that I was opposed to the last war, and I hope I shall be opposed to the next one. But it is not merely a personal matter. I was elected on a platform one plank of which advocated national disarmament, and I should not be true to the people who sent me here unless I took this opportunity to advocate that policy. Some hon. gentlemen here may pooh-pooh the idea ; but the fact is that a sufficient number of electors were found in the fairly respectable city of Winnipeg to endorse a policy of this kind. I have the right to stand here and voice the viewpoint of my electors. It is a viewpoint that is growing very rapidly across the country. I have in my hand a pamphlet which was issued just recently by a committee of the Protestant Ministerial Association of Montreal, in which strong ground is taken with regard to war and in which it is suggested, for example, that the Christian churches and Christian individuals ought in the presence of war to set God above Caesar, conscience above the. authority of the state. This, it seems to me, gives the state fair warning that if another war is precipitated, at least a section of the churches will refuse absolutely to participate in that war. Further than that, we have resolutions from farmers' organizations throughout the entire west protesting against the continued war expenditure.
As to the labour organizations, I think I cannot do better than read a paragraph or two from the manifesto issued about a year ago by the International Federation of Trade
Unions. This organization, let me interject, is not the one affiliated with Moscow. So there is no reason for any hon. gentleman to jump up and shout, "Red Moscow!" I note that the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada has signed this manifesto through its president, Tom Moore. The manifesto states:
We are drawing near the tenth anniversary of the day which saw the outbreak of the world war-that fatal August day which let loose Armageddon upon the world, and opened the way to a slaughter and havoo which has been unexampled in the annals of the world.
For four long years the world suffered untold agonies: for four long years the peoples fought each other like wild beasts; for four long years the flower of the world's youth was sacrificed on the battlefields: for four long years civilisation was forgotten, and its most elementary lessons were thrown to the winds.
During these four terrible years, thousands of young men went forth to battle in the confident hope that they were fighting to end war, and to make the world safe for democracy.
They did not know that they were merely the dupes of the lies and insinuations of small groups of capitalists, who were seeking to strengthen and extend their domination of the world.
Then came the sham peace that shattered the illusion of so many, and destroyed the dream that this was the war to end war.
And now the countries of the world are again making ready for fresh war.
Science is busy seeking new and even more terrible methods of dealing death and destruction. We all know that the next war will bring with it wholesale slaughter to a degree undreamed of before. The very air will he laden with death and will bring pestilence and destruction to countless multitudes far remote from the actual centres of war. The next war will be the final triump of barbarism; it will sweep from the face of the earth the last traces of civilisation.
In the next war there will be no place for personal heroism. The days when man could show prowess on the battle-field are for ever gone by. Henceforth he will be killed by a system of mass destruction, which will work unerringly as the machinery he now uses for mass production. The sole use of the mechanical perfection to which he will have attained will be to doom millions to horrible and inevitable death.
The manifesto calls upon the trade unionists throughout the world to unite in an international anti-war day. In view of this growing sentiment, I would suggest that we might very well pause and ask ourselves whether we should longer continue this policy, or whether we should give due notice to the advocates of militarism that we propose to insure the defence of our country along other lines.
Before following that theme any further, might I call the attention of the government to several specific matters? First of all, I notice very frequently by the papers that military officers-and in this connection the name of General MacBrien occurs very often- are taking the opportunity of going about the country advocating preparedness; in other words, devoting themselves to war propaganda. I would respectfully question
Supply-Defence

the propriety of salaried officials of the people of Canada undertaking to throw themselves into the advocacy of certain political policies. We do not permit it in other departments and I cannot see why it should be permitted in the National Defence department.
Let me call attention to the fact that in the last few days we had a good deal in the newspapers about the danger of interruption of our friendly relations with the United States due to the government of that country probably finding it necessary to put an anti-rum-runndng fleet on the Great Lakes. The papers have definitely given publicity to the rumour that American vessels are to be armed to deal with rum-runners. All of us who know anything about the way in which rumrunning has been conducted for the last few years know that Canada has been used more or less as the base for these operations. I do not know how far our government has definitely undertaken to put down this illicit traffic. But if it has tried, it has not succeeded in doing so, with the result that to-day we find a good deal of friction oocur-ing between the two countries. Now, a great many of us have pointed rather proudly to the fact that from the days of the Rush-Bagot treaty in 1817 we have had no armed ships on the Great Lakes. Some hon. members have asked, what are we doing in the way of preparation. I would say that the surest preparation against any armed intervention by the United States is not for us also to put on armed (boats, but to see that the law in this country is maintained, and that wrongs are remedied. This is the surest way, and the only way, to prevent international trouble, and I would call upon the government to take more definite action along that line. This is one of the ways by which we may prevent war.
Another matter to which I should like to call attention has also come to our notice recently through the papers. In reply to certain questions put in the British House of Commons, we were fold that twenty-five members of the Canadian expeditionary force were executed during the war for military offences. No Australians were So executed. Considerable publicity has been given to the statement of Sir Arthur Currie with respect to this matter. Sir Arthur represents the view of officialism. I should like to give a statement that represents the idea of the ordinary Canadian. It is contained in an editorial in the Western Producer-and I might remind the House that the editor is

Mr. Horace Turner, who served and lost a good deal during the war.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: He lost his sight.


James Shaver Woodsworth: spirit that will never bring us peace, but will always lead to war.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I suggest.
Mr. Chairman, that the hon. gentleman is verging very nearly to a statement of disloyalty, which ought not to be permitted in this committee.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I await the Chairman's decision on that matter. I should like to repeat my statement-and I have no hesitation in doing so: that the spirit which leads us to assert that Britannia rules the waves is precisely the same spirit which led the Germans to assert that Germany should be over all.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is
slightly different.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: The same thing.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think it is the
same thing.


George Newcombe Gordon: I would suggest to the hon. member that it is a little difficult for me to see the application of his address in this debate in committee to the question of this vote that is before the Chair. I do think that he is getting somewhat away from this vote.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, we have had definitely placed before us to-day the urgency of the situation and the need for preparedness. I submit with all respect that those of us who do not agree with that policy have a right to state our disagreement and the grounds on which it is based. '
As I was saying, we have constantly the glorification of our own nation, and side by side we have the habit of decrying other nations. One of the commonest ways of doing so is to call them nicknames. We have the Hun, the Dago, the Jap, the Chink, the Turk, and so on. All these names are derogatory in character, so that there is hardly a nation to-day but that if occasion should, arise, could be designated by some term of opprobrium. Thus it is easy to arouse great antagonism on the part of our people.
The fact is that even peace has been very largely an armed truce or simply a defensive alliance. Let me point out at the same time that we have recently experienced some very remarkable world developments. To-day we have an economic interdependence that has brought all the nations into close relationship the one with the other; I do not think I need to elaborate that statement. No nation today is self-contained. Each nation is inevitably connected with all other nations. It is

absolutely impossible for us, as it were, to put a corral around our own particular piece of property and say we will have nothing to do with outsiders. The whole of modern industry, commerce and finance is international, inter-communal in character. Thus there is a growing sense of world community. We have seen this for a great many years in the scientific world. We recognize that advancement in any one nation along scientific lines means advancement in other nations. We have seen it more or less in the cultural spheres, literary, artistic and religious. We know that what happens in any one part of the world is of more or less concern to all the rest of the world. But let me point out that with this growing inter-dependence, world-wide in its character, we have group and class conflicts that are also world-wide. The financiers do not stop within the bounds of one nation, but stretch their operations over into other nations. The present highly concentrated system of finance is also international in its viewpoint, and we have also our international labour unions, our international socialist parties, just as we have our international groups of financiers and industrialists.
The trouble, Mr. Chairman, is, I submit, that there is a danger of the various groups and classes using the political machinery and national prejudices for their own ends. It is so easy for the one group that happens to be for the time being in control to use the political machinery to advance business interests, and that has been done again and again; in fact, that is more or less the settled policy of the British Empire itself. We look back at the past war for a moment, and I think no one is any longer deceived as to its causes. President Wilson said at St. Louis:
Is there in this audience any man, or any woman, nay-is there any child, who does not know that the seeds of war are sown in hot, successful commercial and industrial rivalry?
Marshal Foch made a similar statement just after the war was over. Joseph Chamberlain years ago said:
The Empire is commerce	It was created
by commerce, it is founded on commerce, and it could not exist a day without commerce. . . . For these reasons, among others, I would never lose the hold which we now have over our great Indian dependency-by far the greatest and most valuable of all the customers we have or ever shall have in this country. For the same reasons I approve of the continued occupation of Egypt. . . . and lastly it is for the same reasons that I hold that our Navy should be strengthened, until its supremacy is so assured that we cannot be shaken in any of the possessions which we hold, or may hold hereafter.
A frank recognition that commerce is behind the whole of our military preparations to-day! A few days before the outbreak

Supply-Defence
of the Great war, Sir Edward Grey defined in the House of Commons on July 10, 1914, what had been for years the practice of the Foreign Office. He said:
I regard it as our duty, wherever bona-fide British capital is forthcoming in any part of the world, and is applying for concessions to which there are no valid political objections, that we should give it the utmost support we can, and endeavour to convince the foreign government concerned that it is to its interest as well as our own to give the concessions for railways and so forth to British firms, who carry them out at reasonable prices and in the best possible way.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would submit to you that .this matter comes very close to us here in this House at the present time as we are considering these estimates. If we are inextricably involved with the British Empire and with the fate of the British Empire, and if it is definitely the policy of the British Empire to seek concessions in almost any part of the world, to develop certain markets in almost any part of the world, to extend its finance into almost any part of the world,-surely we are constantly in danger of being dragged into the various operations in which the British government is more or less concerned. Just before the last Great war Mr. H. N. Brailsford pictured in a very notable book, The War of Steel and Gold, the situation which existed at that time. It might have been called a prophecy of the war, because he showed how the whole stage was set for war, and that war was inevitable. I was surprised a little while ago to find the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark) speaking as if there had not been preparedness on the part of England. If he will read anything of the literature which has come to us since the war he will find abundant evidence that there had been very, very definite preparations on the part of England as on the part of other nations, for the last great war. Mr. Brailsford in a recent issue of The New Leader, in commenting on British policy had this to say:
The foreign ministers of other great powers interpreted their "duty" in the same way-
That is, as Great Britain did,
-and felt the same touching confidence in the capitalists whose ambitions they promoted. The result was that, for a generation before the war, Constantinople, Pekin and. Teheran were centres of intrigue, in which the financiers and the diplomatists of all the great powers, in the closest association, cajoled and bribed and bullied, formed their cliques, hired their partisans, scrambled for loans and concessions, competed in selling armaments and railways and in buying oil wells and mines, and carried their competition from the field of business to the world of high politics. Should the "heavy industry" of Germany or of France dig iron-ore in Morocco in order to lay it down in the form of steel rails on the road to Bagdad?-that in one concrete illustration
was the question which set all Europe arming in two allied camps.
Sometimes the rivalry was checked in one region by an arrangement, fatal to the liberties of its population, to divide it into spheres of influence. Tropical Africa was in the end partitioned peacefully: Persia was amicably torn in two by Russia and Great Britain. But always the rivalry broke out again, for always and in every country the pressure of business and finance was at work in the press and among politicians to prompt governments to forge more cannon, to build greater battleships, to exhaust the last reserves of man-,power, in the effort to gain a preponderance of prestige and force which might be used for economic ends.
And. then Mr. Brailsford goes on to meet the objection that all this is a thing of the past, and that through the League of Nations we had created an instrument which was going to put an end to this kind of capitalistic manipulation. He proceeds:
"An old story," you may say, "an obsolete story. Capitalism has made the world safe for democracy and banished war by its League of Nations." Save by its attempts to regulate the hours of labour, the one thing which the league has not touched, or begun to touch, is this curse of economic imperialism. Under its shelter the predatory hunt for oil and coal, for raw materials to monopolise and territory to exploit, has been blessed and sanctified: it has not been stopped. We arm more heavily than before, and as before diplomacy places the services of the state at the disposal of capital invested abroad; while the British government insists that the league must not interfere between us and the population of our fields of investment in Egypt and the Soudan. Capital has acquired nationality: shares possess citizenship, and scrip can say in Palmerston's words, Civis Romanus sum. So long as private capital can call up, to guarantee its profits, the clerks of the foreign office and the admirals of the fleet, so long will it perpetuate militarism and prepare wars.
I have spoken, of the situation as it affects the British Empire. Now I should like to draw attention to the advocacy of preparedness that is being carried on in Canada. I hold in my hand a pamphlet issued by the Navy League of Canada in which we have a very excellent statement as to the real reason for armaments. It is entitled "The Interdependence of Canadian Industry and Naval Defence." I notice as patrons: His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, Their Excellencies Baron and Baroness Byng of Vimy; and the Lieutenant Governor of each province. I notice among the honourary presidents: E. W. Beatty and Sir Henry Worth Thornton. This document reminds me very strongly of another that I hold in my hand, dated August, 1912, when the same kind of propaganda was being carried forward. On this particular document Hon. D. C. Cameron, then Lietutenant Governor of Manitoba, headed the list. I also find the names of George Bury, Vice-president Canadian Pacific Railway; M. H. MacLeod, General Manager Canadian Northern Railway; Hugh Suther-
Supply-Dejence

land, Executive agent Canadian Northern Railway. So that it is the same class of men who now advocate preparedness as urged it before the last war. I should like to read two or three statements from the pamphlet in question which, I think, place the issue frankly and fairly. I am not throwing any discredit whatever on gentlemen who honestly believe this is the way to save our country; I give them every credit for their convictions in this regard, but I claim they should extend the same credit to us and admit that we are honestly endeavouring to put forward a policy which we on our part believe will save our country. This pamphlet puts the case so clearly that I wish to place it before the House:
That at the present time, and so far as can be forseen by the most idealistic statesmen responsible for the destiny of their respective countries, there :e no immediate prospect of certainty that the re-actions of various national external policies will not result in a call to arms to support antagonistic national convictions.
That to meet our obligations to future generations, the development of national industries must be on a basis of stability, and that stability is ephemeral under existing conditions, without the security provided by armed forces.
The question is asked on the next page:
What is a navy for? There is a common idea that the object of a navy is to resist invasion, and if that conception were correct there would be little to say in favour of naval defence for the Dominion. But it ia far from accurate, particularly as regards Canada.
The primary role of the navy is the protection of lines of communication across the sea. There are many ways in which the navy has to carry out this duty, many kinds of naval activities, but whether it be the clash of great battle-fleets, the cruiser actions, the submarine and mine blockade of enemy ports, the convoy escort work, the patrols of minesweepers and light craft off our coasts, or the many other distinct operations, they are each and all phases of the main objective of keeping the sea routes open and secure from enemy action.
The pamphlet in the latter part does what some of us have tried to get the minister to do on previous occasions, and does it very frankly It discusses the question as to who our enemies are likely to be. The view put forward is that there are three conditions of emergency or war in which we may become involved: First, our position as a neutral, with a very heavy responsibility, in the event of war between the United States and some overseas power; second, ourselves at war with an overseas power; and third, war with the United States. I do not propose to discuss whether, in any one of these three eventualities preparedness would be our best means of safety; I think that could very well be left to the House. But I read again, a statement of the underlying theory:

The fact is that the seeds, the root of war, ne
not in armaments but in economic causes, in the re-actions of varying national policies framed by governments with a view to the industrial and commercial development of their peoples. The economic struggle goes on to-day as actively as prior to August, 1914. Nations, with their varying economio problems, their natural racial pride, their own group psychology, evolve policies which it is vain to believe will all be in harmony, and which involves an ever present risk of a clash wherein stability of industrial commitments will lie only with those in a position to maintain their sea communications.
One more brief quotation. After the pamphlet has frankly admitted that the Washington conference changed the details but not the principles of national naval defence:
So we differ both from those who say that armaments prevent wars and those who preach that armaments are the cause of war. It is the everlasting economio war, which prevails in time of nominal peace, which has produced, and will produce, physical war.
There we have a -most important statement made very fairly and very definitely by the navy league. I agree with the navy league in this regard:
It is the everlasting economic war, which prevails in time of nominal peace, which has produced, and will produce, physical war.
So we have to conclude that the last war was not, as we were assured, the war to end war. It was, in fact, simply a skirmish. I think we have to go further than that,. and say that those who promised us that this was the war to end war are not men whose judgment can safely be followed; they have proved themselves blind leaders of the blind. They have led us into the ditch. I think the least that might be expected of them is, if not to confess how seriously they were mistaken, at any rate to give opportunity for the discussion of some other and some better way.
Why should Canada not strike out along new lines? The hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) had on the order paper a resolution, which, I am very sorry, was not reached, suggesting a peace bureau to foster and promote international goodwill and understanding. Why not? We are spending our millions upon war preparations, why not spend at least a few thousands in trying to find if there is not some other way? We have trodden the hard paths of war; why not explore the avenues that may lead to peace? You want the thing put on a business basis? Mr. Chairman, if Canada adopted an attitude of this kind and was foremost among the nations that definitely set themselves against war and assured her citizens that they would keep out of these great struggles, it would be the biggest advertisement that Canada could ever make before the nations of the world. Your Wemlbley exhibition

Supply-Interior
would not not be in it with the statement that would go forth that Canada was done with war. You would have no need further to spend your millions of dollars in inducing people to come to this country, because the people would be flocking from war-torn Europe, only too glad to come to a country where there was no prospect of war.
But let me not deceive the House into thinking that I believe that merely by setting up a bureau of peace we could solve the problem. I come back again to this clear-cut statement of the Navy League of Canada. "It is the everlasting economic war which prevails in times of nominal peace which has produced and will produce physical war." And I would urge that this House should devote some attention to studying the fundamental principles of our economic and social order. I know there are those who, as soon as one suggests that we should have some fundamental changes, shout "Socialism" and try to banish the thought. I am not afraid of the word "Socialism," which comes from a perfectly good Latin word which means comradeship, which means that to-day we as individuals are no longer living isolated lives; that no nation is any longer living an isolated, individualistic life, but rather that we are living in society in a thousand and one complicated relationships and that we must adapt our political ideals and our political institutions and our political policies to meet the new situation that confronts us. I am perfectly well aware that it is comparatively useless to appeal along these lines to many members of this House, but I would like to appeal beyond the walls of this parliament, to the men who at the front learned what war really meant, because I have found after conversations with them that the majority of them actually thought that they went out to fight in order to end war, to bring in democracy, to have a changed social order, and these disillusioned men are among those who will back up any effort to put things on a new basis.
In conclusion, I would like to appeal to the men and women who have dreamed of a better future for their children and for humanity, and who are willing to take some risks to make their dreams come true. I recognize that the policy which I have advocated would involve risks, but the present policy involves not only risk, but almost certainly a failure. Why not take those risks which are incident to the development of the new means of protecting our nation?
Item stands.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
DEPARTMENT OP THE INTERIOR Interior-salaries, $1,437,542.50; contingencies, $100,000.


Charles A. Stewart: Last year we
voted for salaries, $1,501,410.25 for the permanent staff at Ottawa, whose salaries are chargeable to civil government. The amount asked for this year represents a decrease of $63,867. Statutory increases in accordance with the Civil Service Act have been provided for and these total $21,305. The reorganization of some of the branches accounts for a further increase of $1,725 while three new positions account for $6,480. The decreases are effected by the abolition of twenty-six positions amounting to $49,390, while twenty-six positions not required1 amount to $31,020. There are twenty-six positions abolished, twenty-six positions not required, and one position is for six months only. These are the reductions. But there are three new positions and this makes the net decrease forty-nine.


Arthur Meighen: Since last year?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes; these
are comparisons with last year's figures.


Arthur Meighen: This is the first time
the estimates of the Department of the Interior have come up'. They should not be gone into to-night but I will not press the objection if the minister will undertake that they will be gone on with on one of the first three days of the week.


Charles A. Stewart: It is intended that I should gtay only for a short while.


Mr. McMASTER:: Not more than every
fifth word is audible down here.


Arthur Meighen: I would suggest to the
hon. meihber that he come up here where he ought to be; there is plenty of room. The Department of the Interior, like every other department, should be gone into on a separate day on one of the first three days of the week; otherwise the motion to go into Supply is valueless as far as that department is concerned. However, so long as the minister undertakes that there will be a motion to go into Supply for his department on another day I shall be satisfied.


Mr. CAHILL:: The right hon. gentleman
will remember doing the same thing.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, but he gave an
undertaking.
Supply-Interior


Frank S. Cahill: Without any undertaking.


Arthur Meighen: Not at all.


Charles A. Stewart: The objection is that we are taking up two departments on one day?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
anticipate getting through to-night. However, I am willing to give that undertaking, certainly; I have no desire to deprive anyone of any opportunity to ask questions.


Arthur Meighen: Has there been any
merging of branches since last year? I understand that the year before the Irrigation branch was merged with the Water Powers.


Charles A. Stewart: No direct
heads of branches have been abolished but we have reduced our Land branch considerably. We have them all in the Norlite building under Mr. Greenway. Formerly they were under separate heads.


Arthur Meighen: School lands with Dominion?


Charles A. Stewart: All land branches are under Mr. Greenway at the present time. The same men are in charge but they are under one control.


Arthur Meighen: The minister reopened some sub-offices which had been closed before. Has he closed any sub-offices?


Charles A. Stewart: We reorganized a number of offices but I have not the list at hand. We gave Kamloops the status of a sub-office.


Arthur Meighen: Have any sub-offices been closed?


Charles A. Stewart: There may have been one or two. I am not sure whether Yoho is still in operation or not. These are only one man offices which are kept on a commission basis in the outskirts where homesteading is going on.


Robert James Manion: I notice at the bottom of the estimates that there is reference to a saving by superannuation of $20,500. What does that mean? I have always thought that superannuation would involve the paying of two salaries.


Charles A. Stewart: This is a departmental saving but the money comes out of the superannuation fund. There is a good deal of criticism with regard to the retiring of civil servants but under the Superannuation Act I do not think the government will pay

very much money. True, we did under the Calder Act, which called for a direct grant in many cases; but under the Superannuation Act, with 5 per cent levied on the civil servants, I cannot believe that there will be any heavy draft on the resources of the government.


Robert James Manion: The minister will understand what I mean; it mentions a saving.


Charles A. Stewart: It is a departmental saving.


Robert James Manion: But their superannuation allowance goes on while other people take their places in the department.


Charles A. Stewart: Not in this case, which is a saving to this department although it is not a saving so far as the general total is concerned. The superannuation must be paid out of the fund.


Arthur Meighen: I do not see why it appears there. I notice it is not in any of the other departments, for instance, Indian Affairs or Insurance. I do not understand how there can be a saving through superannuation. The number of employees is given; those employees are paid; how would there be a saving of their salaries through superannuation?


Charles A. Stewart: Apparently
there were savings because certain employees were superannuated during the year. I understood the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) to contend that the mere superannuation of a civil servant was not a saving to the government. But it certainly is a saving to the department, providing the position is not filled.


Arthur Meighen: It may be a saving to the department, but that saving will already be represented in the $1,462,000, which is paid to 768 civil servants. When you pay those employees, how can you save their salaries by superannuation? They are not superannuated, they are on the staff.


Charles A. Stewart: When retirements take place, for example, in the middle of the year, five or six months' salaiy is saved for that particular year.


Arthur Meighen: For the year we are on now?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. We had
a saving of $20,500 last year. The estimate is $25,000 for this year.


Arthur Meighen: How in the world can
that be? The department estimates that 768 employees will be required this year. If that many are required, and one of them is super-

Supply-Interior
animated in the middle of the year, there will be somebody to take his place.


Charles A. Stewart: No. We think that by further reorganization we can cut down our staff, but the difficulty is to know just when it is in order to make the cut. We cut it by $20,500 last year. By adopting this course, if certain [positions become vacant some time during the year in a large staff like this, we estimate we can save this much money. Therefore we have cut the estimate to this extent. In other words, we have obligated ourselves to make the reductions as far as is practicable. I find in my experience that it is a pretty good thing to do this, because then the officials of the department keep within the estimate.


Mr. BOYS:: Has this ever been 'adopted before?


Charles A. Stewart: No, it is
only done in this one department.


William Alves Boys: Do you provide for the salaries of a certain number of clerks for the year, and then in the early part or middle of the year, supposing one is superannuated, you save his salary for the balance of the year?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


William Alves Boys: That would be perfectly correct if his plaice is not filled.


Charles A. Stewart: It will not be filled because we have not the salary available for the position.


William Alves Boys: I would imagine there would be promotions, and possibly the junior position would be filled. Unless the minister can say definitely that for every superannuation there will be a reduction of one clerk, it would hardly be fair to take full credit for what would be saved by superannuation.


Charles A. Stewart: No.


William Alves Boys: Then I cannot see how you can possibly take credit for the full saving by superannuation. Supposing a man is superannuated, and his position is filled by the clerk immediately under him, and this 'promotion continues down to the junior. If on his promotion his position is not filled, then of course you subtract the salary formerly paid to him.


Charles A. Stewart: We set out last year to reduce our staff, and we think we can reduce it still further by co-ordinating the work and getting the employees into buildings where we can amalgamate the staffs. That is what we are trying to do. I cannot say at the moment, nor can the officers of the department, just when that particular position will be
abolished, because in effect that is what it means. That individual may go on the superannuation list, but the position itself will be abolished, and we will not require that salary for the balance of the year. This is more or less an estimate of what we will save in that way.


William Alves Boys: WThoever prepared this estimate and reached the conclusion that there was to be a saving of $25,000, must have had his mind fixed upon certain persons receiving certain salaries being superannuated at a certain definite period. The next thing that comes to my mind is, will those positions be filled? If so, and you are filling the junior position-the minister knows what I am referring to-when there cannot be that saying. But if the minister will tell the committee that the junior position will not be filled, then I at once concede that you would save the salary of the junior officer who is promoted and whose position is not filled. I think the best way to get at the explanation would be to turn to the page and consult the notes there which indicate how it is we are going to have a saving of $25,000. We would like to know the number of the employees, the salaries they are getting, and the dates upon which they will retire. Then we can figure up the saving for ourselves.


Charles A. Stewart: That is just the difficulty; hence this is the method we have adpoted. We have a list of last year's positions, of which we abolished twenty-six, but I assure my hon. friend that at the time I could not have told him exactly hcfw it would work out. If we knew that we would only vote salaries up to the time the retirements would take place. Under our programme this year we estimate that we will abolish completely several positions and make a net saving of $25,000. Therefore we have taken that sum off our estimates.


William Alves Boys: I would not prolong the discussion for one minute, so far as I am concerned, if the minister said that this will be saved by the abolition of positions, because if they are abolished of course we do not pay the salaries.


Charles A. Stewart: That is the only way we can abolish them.


William Alves Boys: Is it based upon certain definite retirements, or is it a guess?


Charles A. Stewart: If we can
get certain amalgamations through within a reasonable time and get our staff coordinated we can put those savings into effect. At all events, we cannot spend more money than
Supply-Interior

we are asking for, so we are taking the responsibility of reducing the estimate to this extent.


William Alves Boys: That is done sometimes?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, I
favour this system very much. Sometimes we may not make the reductions in the direction we expected, but we have to make them before the end of the year in order to save the money. It is imperative in this case.


Arthur Meighen: If you made it $125,000 it would be better.


Charles A. Stewart: I think my right hon. friend will admit that forty-nine reductions constituted pretty good progress last year, and I am prepared to go on in that direction.


Arthur Meighen: What mystifies me is
that this government shows reductions in all details, according to the professions of its ministers, but when you add the whole thing up it is the same as the year before.


Charles A. Stewart: It is not in this case.


Arthur Meighen: I say that in the individual cases it is less. This will all appear, though, in some other items.


William Garland McQuarrie: Is the department endeavouring to make this reorganization, or is it being done by the Auditor General? When the new Auditor General was appointed we were told that his principal duty was to reorganize the civil service through the Audit Board. So far as we can ascertain he has not done anything in that direction of any consequence. His salary was placed at $15,000 because he was supposed to have some special qualifications for this work, but so far as I can see that phase of his duties has been entirely dropped and the departments themselves are attempting reorganization-in perhaps an inefficient way, if we consider the results that are being obtained. Will the minister explain the system that is being followed in this connection?


Charles A. Stewart: I can only
speak for my own department. One of the difficulties I found on coming to Ottawa was the location of the staffs in different places all over the city. The Lands branch, for instance, had its staff in three different buildings; now we have them all in one building, and that makes saving possible. With respect to the Auditor General, he has not appeared in our department up to the moment, although I should be glad if he would come in, because if someone not connected with any of 
the staffs would go into the matter some saving could perhaps be made. We have, however, been decreasing the numbers of our staffs year by year, and I think we are not losing anything in efficiency. There is an idea prevalent that the work that has to be done by the Department of the Interior must be decreasing. That is true to a certain extent with respect to surveys, but it does not apply to leases, details of homesteading, pre-emption sales and all the other ramifications of the department's activities. In respect to these branches I cannot see that very much reduction can be accomplished, but I am putting reductions into effect wherever they can reasonably be made.


William Garland McQuarrie: What saving has been
effected in the Lands branch?


Charles A. Stewart: I shall be
glad to deal with that when we come to the vote providing for that branch.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: On page
78 of the estimates of last year the total number of employees for 1924-25 is given as 816; this year the total number of employees for 1924-25 is given as 817. The total amount voted was given in 1924-25 as $1,500,737, whereas in the 1924-25 column of this year's estimates it is given as $1,501,410. Will the minister explain that?


Charles A. Stewart: The explanation is that a matron was appointed whose salary was voted in the supplementary estimates; also a forest assistant. But there is nothing of the kind to be voted this year.


William Charles Good: Has the Civil Service Commission done anything to assist in the reorganization of the department?


Charles A. Stewart: All the reorganization is virtually in the hands of the Civil Service Commission. There is an officer of the commission in our department continuously, and he assists and makes recommendations to the commission, particularly with regard to any additions that are requested. The Civil Service Commission are not responsible for all the work, because we make the requests for the changes that are deemed necessary, and these are investigated and reported on by the officer to whom I refer. The recommendation of the Civil Service Commission must of course go with every move that is made.


William Charles Good: Then I understand that in
this department the services of the Civil Service Commission have been utilized to effect what reorganization has been made?

Supply-Interior


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, yes.


George Black: Is provision made
in this estimate for the salary of the gentleman who was formerly Gold Commissioner of the Yukon, Mr. Mackenzie, who, according to the minister, has been brought to Ottawa to assist in framing a policy for administration in the Northwest Territories along lines which will protect the natives and conserve wild life?


Charles A. Stewart: No; that is in the Northwest Territories vote.


Edward Joseph Garland: After last
year's criticism, has the minister been responsible for undertaking any co-ordination of the survey work of the various departments?


Charles A. Stewart: We will
come to that under another item.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am simply asking whether any attempt has been made to co-ordinate the surveys.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. I will deal with it when we come to it.


William Alves Boys: I notice there has been a reduction in this item of 863,868, and also in the number of employees. How many reductions are due to death, how many to superannuation and how many to dismissals?


Charles A. Stewart: Twenty-six positions have been completely abolished, and there are twenty-six more which up to the beginning of the fiscal year we were not sure would be required in the re-organization, but which we now know are not required; so we have fifty-two positions that are completely abolished. I cannot give my hon. friend details as to whether these men died or are retired, but there are fifty-two individuals whose positions have been abolished and we have created three new positions.


William Alves Boys: I appreciate that, because twice 26 are 52, and 49 from that leaves a difference of 3, but what I am trying to find out is this: If a position is abolished and the clerk who has been filling that position receives employment in some other department, then as far as the country is concerned there is no saving. We were given to understand that there was going to be some re-organization and economy effected as the result of the appointment of the new Auditor General and the Audit Board, and I thought perhaps there would be some in this department; may be there are; I wanted to 'find that out. I would like to ascertain from the minister whether, when a position is abolished in his department, the officer holding that position is dismissed or whether he
gets employment in some other department. If the latter is the case, and it applies in all the departments, the country makes no saving whatever as the result of these positions being abolished.


Charles A. Stewart: I would have some difficulty giving my hon. friend details, but I do not think any of these 52 went to any other department. A nufaber of them have been retired, and we are constantly having resignations. I have no knowledge that any of these went into any other department. As a matter of fact, there was some controversy amongst the Civil Service Commission as to whether an individual who resigned or was retired or stepped out of one department was eligible for appointment in another department, and I do not think that has been entirely settled yet. I can say frankly so far as this department is concerned, that when the services of an individual are not required, if there is a vacancy in some other department, he certainly ought to be given the preference.


William Alves Boys: Certainly.


Charles A. Stewart: But so far as I know, not one of these 52 has gone to any other department.


William Alves Boys: If I rightly understand, when any civil servant is dismissed, it is always as a result of an order in council.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


William Alves Boys: Then I would think the minister w'ould know. There would be some record kept when such a formality as an order in council is required to get rid of a civil servant, and it ought to be easy to keep track of the number who are dismissed. Can the minister tell me whether or not there have been any dismissals brought about by order in council so far as his department is concerned?


Charles A. Stewart: Do we
dismiss any individual?


William Alves Boys: I do not mean for misconduct, but because you wanted to abolish the office, or for any other good reason.


Charles A. Stewart: I have no recollection of that. Of course, every change in the department is recorded by order in council, and the majority of these cases would be retirements or superannuation. Then we have a number of young women who get married-


William Alves Boys: I would call that a promotion.
Supply-Interior


Charles A. Stewart: And we have individuals who leave the service for better positions, but as regards these 52 I have no recollection of any of them having been dismissed. These are voluntary retirements or superannuations, and when they step out the positions are abolished.


William Alves Boys: I think the minister will appreciate what is in my mind, and if it is possible to get the information necessary, I would like to get it. If we want to find out to what extent the country has benefited by what is suggested, Ve must of necessity know whether these abolitions or retirements or dismissals put an end entirely to the employment of the individual, or whether he got employment in some other department. As I have already said, if the employee is simply transferred to another department, the country saves nothing by that whatsoever. The minister has been very fair. He tells me he does not recollect any dismissals or transfers. That is partly satisfactory, but I would think we could get this information without any difficulty whatever. because if a civil servant is dismissed for any reason an order in council is passed and a record is kept, and we ought to be able to find out how many dismissals there are and whether the employee ceases to be an employee of the government in any department.


Charles A. Stewart: I can
recollect only one being transferred in my department, and that was not this year; I do not recollect a single transfer this year. When the services of a man are required in some department, a transfer may be effected, but that seldom happens. I think I can assure my hon. friend that, these fifty-two are all out of the service entirely ncrw, but I will verify this for my hon. friend later, and be glad to answer his question fully.


William Alves Boys: That is the information I
want.


Richard Burpee Hanson: When a female employee
marries, does she automatically leave the service?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


William Alves Boys: Not always.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
know of any in my department.


Mr. STEWART (Humboldt):: I believe we had a definite illustration of the consolidation of branches in the union of the Water Powers branch and the Reclamation Service. Can the minister give us the details of just what was saved in civil government expenses by the joining of these two branches, what

staff was dropped, and what new positions were created?


Charles A. Stewart: I can give
that information when we are dealing with Reclamation and Water Powers, which is a separate service from this. I will have a note made of the question.


William Garland McQuarrie: I understand there
was a good deal of controversy last year over salaries, and that a revision of salaries was brought in this year, and that many complaints have been received in regard to that revision. Would the minister say whether that applies to his department, and if so, how are those complaints being dealt with?


Charles A. Stewart: This salary revision, as my hon. friend knows, has only been out about ten or twelve d'ays. It will be surprising if there are not complaints; there usually are, but so far none have reached me from the Department of the Interior, or indeed from any other department, and of course this department is affected just the same as any other.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Could the minister tell
the committee just what an economic adviser in this department is, and what services he performs?


Charles A. Stewart: The gentleman who filled that position was a Mr. Patton. As my hon. friend knows when the Conservation Commission was abolished the staff came to the Department of the Interior. Mr. James White, who has since retired, came for one, and Mr. Patton came with him. The latter was classified, I understand, under that head in the Conservation Commission, and performed in the Natural Resources Intelligence branch of our department the same service the next year. Mr. Patton is now, I believe, going to enter another branch of the service, the Finance branch. He will appear next year as a transfer; it will not be a reduction of the staff.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not in the same capacity.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, in the same capacity.


William Garland McQuarrie: What provision is being made to hear complaints of the civil servants in regard to salary revision?


George Newcombe Gordon: The question is scarcely relevant.


William Garland McQuarrie: The minister said, Mr Chairman, he anticipated complaints. As a matter of fact I have seen by the press, particularly the western press, that civil servants

Supply-Interior
are highly indignant at the salaries that have been fixed for them, they do not think they have been fairly treated at all. I presume those civil servants are entering complaints although, perhaps, the minister has not heard of any in his own department. The question I asked, Mr. Chairman, was what provision was being made, or has been made for the purpose of hearing and determining these complaints, if any?


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend will understand the government has not the particular authority to hear complaints. The Civil Service Act makes the Civil Service Commission supreme in these matters subject to the action of parliament. The government cannot very well take action without the consent of parliament, because the Civil Service Act puts the control of the civil servants into the hands of the commission. Of course the government must take the responsibility of acquiescing in the adjustment of salaries by the commission; my hon. friend knows that the only remedy provided by the act, in case of a grievance, is a recommendation to parliament. All these difficulties are occurring in every department, and the grievances are being heard every day. Sometimes they are adjusted by the Civil Service Commission and sometimes adjustment is refused; cases of this kind are happening continually. With respect to the Post Office Department my hon. friend will remember that last year we offered to give a hearing to the executive of the employees after the adjustments were all completed; and I noticed the other day-
I only got this from the press, however-that the hon. the Postmaster General (Mr. Murphy) is having a meeting with the executive to discuss what they claim is a grievance so far as they are concerned. But under the act the only remedy for the government, if they wished to overrule a finding of the Civil Service Commission, would be to make a recommendation to parliament and have parliament pass on it.


William Garland McQuarrie: Is there going to be
any special committee this year with regard to the civil service?


Charles A. Stewart: Well, the
promise referred to was made to the executive of the employees of the Post Office Department. My hon. friend will remember that during the controversy that was one of the features of the case. We asked the executive to delay any drastic action until the adjustments were all made, and then, if they still felt they had a grievance, we would listen to the recommendations which they might make.



REVISED

William Garland McQuarrie: That would be a com-mi.tee of the government?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


William Garland McQuarrie: But there is no committee of the kind I referred to in existence at the present time?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


William Garland McQuarrie: That is the question
I was asking, whether it was the intention of the government to have any committee of the kind this year?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
answer that question.


George Black: Could the minister tell us why the Inemational Boundary Commissioner is dropped from the estimates?


Charles A. Stewart: As my hon. friend knows Mr. McArthur is dead, and the duties he performed have been combined with those of the Director General of Surveys who now takes charge.


George Black: Would the minister explain to the House what is meant by "exploratory engineer?" I see there are some twelve or fifteen different kinds of engineers mentioned in these estimates, and I should like to understand what an "exploratory engineer" is?


Charles A. Stewart: Since the
abolition of the Conservation Commission we have had one or two engineers whose business it is to assist the municipalities in making a survey of their conditions. For example Mr. Kitto is one of the officers who perform this particular line of work. It is largely to supply them with industrial information, to give them advice if they ask it; it is only done upon request. For example this official was in Winnipeg a short time ago making a survey there for that purpose, and advising the city council on matters largely industrial. These officers came over from the Conservation Commission.


Mr. BLACK (Huron):: Is that work done at the expense of the city?


Charles A. Stewart: No, it is
done at our expense.
T Tr. McQUARRIE:	May I ask how the
travelling expenses are dealt with? Is there a certain per diem allowance provided, or do the officers concerned put in claims for expenses at the end of their journey when they return to Ottawa? What restrictions or what supervision is there in regard to travelling expenses, to see that the amounts charged arc right and proper?



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Interior
Charles A. Stewart: With the
exception of a man who is going outside of Canada when by order in council his per diem allowance is fixed, he has to render a certified account for his expenses.


William Garland McQuarrie: Is there any limit to
the expenses an official may incur? If he is travelling from here to Vancouver can he take a compartment, if he wishes, on a train, or is he limited in the matter of expenses? As I understand it in some of the provinces- I think, for example, in Alberta-they have found it advisable to put a curb on the travelling expenses of civil servants, and the employees themselves find it more satisfactory to have a per diem allowance; it costs the country less and the civil servants are better satisfied to have it that way. I think I mentioned this matter last year and the minister said he knew something about the system, that he was watching it, and that he would give it a trial, or something of that kind. I am told it worked out very satisfactorily in Alberta; and it has been suggested to me that the same system might be applied to the services of the Dominion, with a saving to the country and also, perhaps, with more satisfaction to the employees themselves. That is the point I am raising. Under the present system, as I understand it, a man goes off on a trip, comes back, puts in his bill for expenses and the bill is paid. There is practically no restriction as to what expenses he may incur as long as they are considered to be in reason. There is no attempt at economy whatever. Apparently the government is satisfied to allow things to go along in the same old way, making no effort toward economy. Could the minister tell me if this point has ever been considered by this government, and if so what conclusion has been arrived at and what were the reasons for such conclusion?


Charles A. Stewart: Usually most people would prefer to travel on a per diem allowance, because that per diem allowance must be sufficiently large to cover their expenses. They get an allowance sufficient to provide for reasonable accommodation, and we have a very close check upon these accounts, which are checked by our own auditors and our own accountants, in our own department, and rechecked by the auditor. As I am a member of the Treasury Board, I know pretty well that there is not very much leeway. In addition to that, these accounts must be certified. If I were to give my candid opinion I would say that we save money by asking for the return of the vouchers for the accounts and by the careful checking that goes on. I will mention 
one instance. We have a good many removals, running into a considerable sum of money. These come before the Treasury Board and we have any number of them on every occasion on which the Treasury Board meets. We find that by careful checking we have been able to cut the removal expenses very considerably. I am not taking any credit, but I want to point out to hon. gentlemen that these accounts are scrutinized, because there is of necessity a great deal of travelling in the service, for that reason we have a careful check on all the accounts for travelling expenses.


William Garland McQuarrie: Does this item of $32,000 include all the traveling expenses in the department for the year?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


William Garland McQuarrie: Then we have travelling expenses and sundries. How much is for travelling expenses and how much is for sundries?


Charles A. Stewart: It is estimated that a sum of $22,000 will be required to meet the expenses of officials at Ottawa, permanent or temporary, who may be travelling on government business, and an amount of $10,000 will be necessary to cover the expenses such as telegrams, postage, subscriptions to newspapers, express charges, and other items relating to the inside service of the department at Ottawa.


William Garland McQuarrie: Then does the item
above that, printing and stationery, relate to printing and stationery outside of the Printing Bureau?


Charles A. Stewart: The Printing Bureau charge us for that work. Nothing goes outside.


William Garland McQuarrie: Nothing at all goes outside?


Charles A. Stewart: No, that is for index books for the Registration branch, land patent record books, special paper for patent printed form, purchase of typewriters and supplies and stationery required for the general use of the inside service at Ottawa.


William Garland McQuarrie: There is no outside
printing at all in this particular branch of the department?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


William Garland McQuarrie: No advertising or anything of that kind?


Charles A. Stewart: No.

Supply-Interior


Richard Burpee Hanson: The .minister spoke of employees being transferred from the Conservation Commission to his department. Could he tell us how many of the 817 employees were transferred from the Conservation Commission, how many lare left now, and how
9 p.m. long before they will be out of the service? This service I understand has been done away with and the Conservation Commission abolished practically.


Charles A. Stewart: No, that
is not correct. Part of the service is being continued in the Natural Resources Intelligence branch of the service, but these employees were in the department when I came here.
I cannot tell when they were transferred.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many of the 817
were from the Conservation Commission?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
tell how many came over, it was before my time and we have not a record of the names.. It would be very difficult for me to tell, except as to two, Mr. White and Mr. Patton. Mr. Patton is still with us and will be exchanged; Mr. White is retired. I cannot tell my hon. friend how many of that particular group are still in the service.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I do not wish to delay the item, but this seems a good opportunity to ask for something in which I feel a little interested and possibly the matter may be dealt with in some publication. If so I want to see it. I am not objecting to what we are spending for this astronomical research work, but I would like to know the results we are getting from it. Have any discoveries been made or any works carried out that are of practical benefit? I do not mean to criticize if they are of practical benefit, but at the same time I would like to know what the relation is between what we get and the money we spend.


Charles A. Stewart: I am afraid you have given me a rather difficult question to answer. As a layman I frankly confess that I have not any doubt that the service is a valuable one to the country, but as a layman I would have considerable difficulty in explaining the value to my hon. friend. We spend a good deal of money on the service and no doubt the investigations are valuable, but just to put it in a concrete way, would be very difficult. However, when the vote comes up I will get that information.


William Garland McQuarrie: I see provision made
here for four editors, grade 1, at $2,400 per annum or a total of $9,600. What are their duties?
212i	i '


Charles A. Stewart: We get out a Natural Resources Intelligence Monthly to advertise the natural resources of the country, new discoveries of mineral wealth, and so forth. Our reports must be put in the hands of someone competent to take care of them and he is called editor. I do not want to be responsible for all these titles; I am merely stating the duties they perform.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There are also two
publicity agents. What are their duties?


Charles A. Stewart: We have
Mr. Campbell now at Wembley. The business of these men is to advertise the scenic beauties of Canada, to encourage the tourist traffic. That is all they do.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suppose the minister
knows that the Canadian National Railways have a bureau which is doing the same thing. Do they work in co-ordination with these publicity agents of his department or do they work on their own hook?


Charles A. Stewart: The Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific both maintain services of this kind, and although the Canadian National Railways belong to the country, Mr. Campbell does not advertise them particularly; he is trying to induce people to come to Canada rather than to go to Europe to spend their wealth while travelling. We are bombarded by boards of trade all over the country to assist them in advertising campaigns and I think the time has nearly come in Canada, in view of the increasing importance of the tourist business here and the large amount of money it is bringing into the country, when there should be some co-ordination throughout the Dominion. For example, I think the city of Vancouver spends thousands annually in advertising. I am not complaining about that of course, but I cannot help feeling that great, good would result from such co-ordination as-exists in connection with fire fighting and better methods of forest conservation and preservation. Something of this kind in relation to the tourist business would help materially.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am inclined to agree with the minister. I realize the value of the tourist business of this country and I am not criticizing in the slightest degree the expenditure under this head. There is no doubt that tourists along the Atlantic and in the mountains leave millions of dollars here which otherwise would not come to Canada. In New Brunswick we have a provincial tourist
Supply-Interior

association and the city from which I come maintains a tourist bureau. The same is true of all the principal centres in the Maritime provinces. I think it would be an excellent idea to have some co-ordinated effort to prevent the enormous over-lapping that now exists.


Leon Johnson Ladner: In line with the minister's
remarks os to co-ordination in tourist advertising for the purpose of inducing tourists to come to Canada, the publicity bureau at Vancouver in charge of Mr. Davidson submitted such a proposal to the government. Other tourist organizations in the various cities throughout the country are also interested in this matter; and the suggestion is that the government, in formulating a policy in this direction, as well as contributing to its upkeep, should aim at an advertising campaign that would be nation-wide rather than sectional. The idea should be for example that the bureaus of Ontario while participating in a nation wide policy would also try to induce tourists in the United States adjacent to Ontario to come to that province, and similarly the people of British Columbia would endeavour to bring tourists to British Columbia. I might tell the minister that, contrary to his idea, the city of Vancouver is not working in isolation; it has established a practical policy of co-ordination, having joined with the states of Oregon and Washington, under what was known as the Pacific Northwest Tourists' Association, in an extensive advertising campaign through the medium of hotels and otherwise to induce thousands of citizens to come from California and the middle states up to Portland, Seattle, .and Vancouver. British Columbia and the two .American states are treated as one territory :'for this purpose. I think the minister might profitably inquire into the results of this practical scheme. If he does he will find that it has been eminently satisfactory and has *brought into British Columbia many thousands of tourists who otherwise would never have gone there. Did the minister not receive a proposal of this kind some time ago, and in view of his remarks would he not be disposed to take the initiative in bringing together the advertising bureaus of the cities of Canada and other interested organizations to carry out such a policy as he has suggested to-night?


Charles A. Stewart: I have
memoranda from Mr. Davidson on the subject and I had the pleasure of a visit from him last year and this year as well. We are preparing to put on what will be more or less a week of broadcasting for the pur-
pose of getting tourists to come to Canada right across the country. Our difficulty is that we must be extremely careful about our advertising, and that is why co-ordination appeals to me. I say frankly that so far we have done very little advertising in the way of newspaper or pamphlet publicity in the United States. We have contented ourselves with sending lecturers throughout the country at important points where large gatherings could be got together. These people have lectured on the scenic beauties of Canada, not emphasizing any particular part of the country; and the intensive local work has been carried on by organizations such as that maintained at Vancouver. The results have been splendid. I am quite prepared to take the initiative in getting together all the forces to see whether we cannot co-ordinate the efforts of the railways, the municipalities and the government in a drive to secure tourists. There may not be over-lapping at the moment but there is a possibility of some duplication with all the separate units working independently.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I have had occasion to
go into this matter in detail, having been connected in a professional way with a very large organization, the Brewster Transport Company at Banff, as well as with the Terminal City Motor Company and Triangle Tours at Vancouver. I am also acquainted with the activities of other organizations. I know that those men connected with the tourist business who have made a great success advertise the tourist features in a scientific way. This method does not appear to be followed by the government agencies. Experts in the tourist business do not give lectures. They ascertain when any organization is making arrangements for a convention, they send representatives to the chairman of the committee which has to do with selecting the convention city, and these representatives are provided with a plentiful supply of maps, photographs and other information, which they lay before the chairman of the committee. In a word, they are expert salesmen of our natural beauties, and they are very successful in bringing conventions to our cities. As a result of their efforts the tourist traffic across Canada in prospect next year, from information I have gathered, which has been confirmed by our railway executives, is simply tremendous. For instance, in one day alone 2,200 people will visit Banff and Lake Louise. These tourist organizations co-operate with the railways in securing this business. My suggestion is that the publicity bureau at

Supply-Interior
Vancouver and other cities be called upon to co-operate with the railway organizations which desire to get business for their railways! I would urge upon the minister the wisdom of the government taking the initiative in this work and not continuing its policy of drifting, because the tourist traffic means millions of dollars every year to Canada and to British Columbia. No doubt the minister has the data in his files, and if he studies it he will be surprised at the amazing advantages which are derived from practically no capital investment through inducing hundreds of thousands of people to visit the Dominion every year, for they leave a large amount of money behind them and spread a knowledge of Canada throughout other lands.


Mr. ROBINSON:: It seems to me that the government should adopt some general policy rather than a local one which might benefit only certain portions of the Dominion. Does the hon. gentleman suggest that the government deal with it locally?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I was simply suggesting
that the government should call together the people who understand the business of inducing tourists to visit our cities; in other words, that it should take the initiative and encourage those engaged in the business by intimating that the government will participate with them financially in working out a policy that would be of national advantage.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Is any publicity carried
on for the province of Quebec, and especially for the county which I have the honour to represent in this House, a county in which is situated the great summer resort of Murray Bay? Also, is any of this publicity work carried on in both languages, and particularly in the French language?


Charles A. Stewart: The government advertises the whole Dominion without specifying any particular locality.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That is a mistake.


Murray MacLaren: Perhaps the minister
would inform us if these publicity agents organize the parties of tourists which from time to time visit this country from the United Kingdom. Three large parties of teachers from the United Kingdom will visit Canada this year. Hitherto' such parties always begin their tour at Quebec and proceed westward. Now, we do not wish to convey to these teachers a wrong geographical impression of this country, and it would be rather unfortunate if they imagined for one moment that the Dominion begins in the east in the city and
province of Quebec. I would suggest to the minister that whether his publicity agents organize these parties or not, he should send them a true map of Canada, so that intending tourists may obtain a correct geographical idea of the Dominion, and thus begin their lour further east than Quebec before proceeding westward through that province and the other fine portions of the Dominion. I am satisfied thait his publicity agents need this point drawn to their attention. I do not say that this ignoring of the Maritimes is deliberate, rather it is a habit with these people, and there are many instances of it in o:her departments, but I think the minister can help the situation materially by taking action along the lines I have suggested.


William Garland McQuarrie: What system of distribution is adopted with respect to the publications which are got out by the four editors?


Charles A. Stewart: We have a mailing list and are glad to send the publications to anybody who applies for them. This list is steadily growing. My hon. friend will notice that many of the articles in the Natural Resources Intelligence Monthly are quoted very largely by the press throughout Canada. A notable instance is Toronto Saturday Night, which my hon. friend will agree is a very important journal.


William Garland McQuarrie: Have you some system in making up the mailing list, or is the work done in a blind way that does not really accomplish anything?


Charles A. Stewart: If, for example, an individual asks for a copy of the Natural Resources Intelligence Monthly, we put him on the mailing list. We treat him in a sense as an interested party.


William Garland McQuarrie: You do not send the
publications to people who do not happen to ask for them?


Charles A. Stewart: We do not.


William Garland McQuarrie: I understand that the
minister does not use the newspapers or the magazines for advertising purposes; he relies on his lecturers, of whom he has two, and on these publications, which -are sent out by his department to people who ask for them. Has he ever considered the question of a more extensive distribution of -these publications, some of which contain very valuable material?


Charles A. Stewart: In former
years these publications were sent out indiscriminately and mar" ~f -them were seldom
Supply-Interior

if ever read. Now we send them out to those who are interested in them. The circle of distribution is constantly enlarging, and we know that those we do send out are read and appreciated.


William Garland McQuarrie: I agree that indiscriminate distribution would not produce results, but to distribute only to those who request them is not enough. The object, I take it, is to interest people in Canada, people who perhaps are not thinking about Canada at all. You will never get them with this system, or this lack of system. Are these publications distributed outside of Canada?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes-to the United States, for instance, to England, to the continent.


William Garland McQuarrie: Are they printed in both French and English?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.
iMr. BOYS: How many are on the mailing list at present?
Mr, STEWART (Argenteuil): I have not that information before me but I will get it.


William Garland McQuarrie: I notice that there are three senior jfhotographers and three photographers. What do they do?


Charles A. Stewart: They do
work connected with the aerial surveys, natural resources and intelligence, and the observatory.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I notice that all these departments have a departmental solicitor, and at the same time we have an expensive Department of Justice in which there are half a dozen good lawj'ers. Is it really necessary for every department to have ia lawyer of its own?


Charles A. Stewart: In our department we need a great deal of legal advice. For instance, we handle about 5,000 leases annually ;and it is well to have these carefully scrutinized by a lawyer 'to ensure that they shall be in proper form. But there is no reason why that work could not be done in the Justice department, and I am ready to transfer every one we have to that department. I agree that all the solicitors could very well be under the Department of Justice, and that is one of the things I would like to see put into effect as soon as possible.


William Garland McQuarrie: There are three confidential messengers in this list at $1,200 each. I notice that the Finance department which might be expected to need messengers of this kind, has only one. What are the duties of a confidential messenger?


Charles A. Stewart: They are
really not confidential messengers at all. We have reduced the number by one, and we may be able to reduce them by two more as soon as we can get our staffs so situated that we shall not be constantly carrying files from one building to another. I do not know why they are called "confidential". There is one old gentleman in my outer office who, I presume, might be called a confidential messenger; he is a very valuable old gentleman who has seen long service.


William Garland McQuarrie: What is the difference between the three grades of messengers-confidential messengers, senior messengers and messenger clerks?


Charles A. Stewart: I am afraid that is a poser; I do not think I could give the distinction. I presume one of them does clerical as well as messenger work.


William Garland McQuarrie: They would not be confidential messengers, then?	.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
think any of them come under the category of confidential. I never send any of them on confidential messages.


William Alves Boys: Reverting to what I was discussing with the minister perhaps half an hour ago, I notice that there were five astronomers last year, and there are only four this. Has the staff of astronomers been actually reduced by one? I should think that is perhaps a service that would either hold its own or expand.


Charles A. Stewart: My experience with it is that it has been expanding all the time.


William Alves Boys: Then if you had five before,
and five were needed, I do not quite see how the research work of this branch can be carried on with only four, and I was wondering if the work that was done by the fifth man is being done by some other officer, or how the minister accounts for the reduction.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Young
of the observatory at the coast has resigned, and we are not filling his position.


William Alves Boys: Is he the only astronomer at
the coast?


Charles A. Stewart: No, Mr. Plaskett is in charge at the coast.


William Alves Boys: Has there been any increase
in the staff below the astronomers? My point is this: If you required five to carry on the work before, you cannot carry it on efficiently with one less.

Canada-Finland Treaty


Charles A. Stewart: It may be
accounted for by the fact that the work is being carried on by a junior to Mr. Young, who is not filling Mr. Young's position; that is, we have not increased his salary to that extent.


William Alves Boys: He will not be called an
astronomer?


Charles A. Stewart: I can only
say that I am asking for reductions only to the extent that they can be made without injuring the service in any way.


George Black: What are the
duties of the Chief of Wild Life?


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is aware that we have a treaty with the United States for the preservation of bird life, and that it is necessary to have officials to carry out those duties. This official is in charge of that particular work, the preservation of wild life.


George Black: Is there a staff
in connection with this work, and if so how are they provided for?


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend will have noticed that we put through an amendment the other day by which we are enlisting the services of the provincial game guardians in this work. It is simply another case of trying to co-ordinate all the work that is going on in the preservation of wild life under an official in charge here at Ottawa.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: I see there is provision for a Director of Forestry. Is that a separate branch from the department? Is it working in connection with any other department? What is the work being done by this Director of Forestry?


Charles A. Stewart: We have the forests in the three prairie provinces and in the Dominion land belt in British Columbia to look after. The duties of the Forestry branch are to preserve the timber resources, and that branch is headed by the Director of Forestry. Mr. Campbell who occupied that position has retired, and Mr. Finlayson has recently been appointed to the position.


Arthur Edward Ross: Will the minister
be kind enough to give details of the work that is being done by that branch?


Charles A. Stewart: Perhaps
my hon. friend would wait until we are dealing with the forestry item, because I shall undoubtedly have to give all the details again on that item.


Arthur Edward Ross: When we take up that item, would the minister be good enough to have a detailed statement of what is being done by this branch, and as to whether there is a general forest conservation system throughout the country?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 128, respecting trade between Canada and Finland.
Motion agreed, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-short title.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I think the hon. minister
was to give some further statistics when we went into committee, and I would suggest that that might be done now.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I laid
on the table at three o'clock the information that was asked for. It was not statistics in connection with this bill, but in connection with another bill, but there was some correspondence which the right hon. leader of the opposition asked for, and which I laid on the table at three o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 129, respecting a certain trade convention between His Majesty and the Queen of the Netherlands.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Convention approved.
Arthur Meighen: This is the treaty where we get nothing and make a few concessions for fear that we will get worse.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
3318	COMMONS
Canada-Netherlands C(invention
On section 3-Extension of advantage to the Netherlands.
Arthur Meighen: What is meant by "any foreign power"? Does that include any part of the British Empire?


James Alexander Robb: No, that would not include any part of the British Empire. That would be any other country.


Arthur Meighen: Well then, they can give to the other dominions and to Great Britain better terms than to us?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) wants it carried. Does he know what bill it is?


Frank S. Cahill: Better than my right hon. friend did. He has been looking round for the bill and now that he has it I doubt whether he knows yet what it is about.


Arthur Meighen: I am not asking to have it carried.


William Alves Boys: Will the hon. member for Pontiac explain the bill for us?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
On the schedule.
Arthur Meighen: The schedule is the important part if there is anything important in the bill. Now we come to the expression "foreign country". Article 1 reads as follows:
Articles the produce or manufacture of Canada imported into the Netherlands and articles the produce or manufacture of the Netherlands imported into Canada shall not be subjected to other or higher duties or charges than those paid on the like articles the produce or manufacture of any other foreign country.
Now, the question I put before is pertinent. Unless that is modified in the remaining part of the article it would mean that the Netherlands could give to the other parts of the British Empire treatment better than to us. I read further:
Nor shall any prohibition or restriction be maintained or imposed on the importation of any article the produce or manufacture of Canada into the Netherlands, or of any articles the produce or manufacture of the Netherlands into Canada which shall not equally extend to the importation of like articles being the produce or manufacture of any other foreign country. This last provision is not applicable to the sanitary and other prohibitions occasioned by the necessity of protecting the safety of persons or of cattle, or of plants useful to agriculture.
So that there is no doubt the Netherlands are left free to make their tariff better for any other dominion or for Great Britain than for us.
[Mr. Meighen.l


James Alexander Robb: I do not so understand it.


Arthur Meighen: I would be sorry if, besides the member for Pontiac and myself, the minister does not understand it.


James Alexander Robb: I think my right hon. friend
has interpreted the article wrongly. I think it makes it distinctly clear that we have the most favoured nation treatment.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, but what about the words "foreign country?"


James Alexander Robb: If my right hon. friend will
read the article again he will observe its meaning.


Arthur Meighen: I know what it means ;
it is a matter of what the words "foreign country" mean:
Articles the produce or manufacture of Canada imported into the Netherlands and articles the produce or manufacture of the Netherlands imported into Canada shall not be subjected to other or higher duties or charges than those paid on the like articles the produce or manufacture of any other foreign country.
Now then-


James Alexander Robb: Any British country is a
foreign country to the Netherlands. My right hon. friend will agree to that.


Arthur Meighen: Is the minister quite sure of that? What is meant by a "foreign country?"


James Alexander Robb: The Netherlands is a foreign
country to us. Neither Great Britain nor any of the British dominions is foreign to us; we are all in the same class.


Mr. CALDWELL:: I would take it that the wording would allow us to give Great Britain,
or any of the British colonies a preference over the Netherlands.


Arthur Meighen: I do not doubt that.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: But I do not take it
that the article would allow the Netherlands to give Great Britain or any of the British colonies a preference over Canada, because Great Britain, or any of the British colonies, is a foreign country to the Netherlands the same as we are; while neither Great Britain nor any of the British colonies is a foreign country to us. I think the article preserves the right of Canada to give Great Britain or any of the British colonies a preference over the Netherlands; but it would preclude the Netherlands from giving either Great Britain or any of the British colonies a preference over Canada. That is my view of it, although I may be wrong.

Canada-Netherlands Convention


William Alves Boys: Does not the minister contend that "foreign country" as used in article 1 means every country other than Canada? Because this is an agreement between the Netherlands and Canada, and as the minister has said Great Britain is a foreign country to the Netherlands; and if it applies as a foreign country to the Netherlands, one of the parties to the treaty, it surely must apply as a foreign country to the other party to the treaty, unless there is a reservation.


James Alexander Robb: My right hon. friend and the
chief whip of the Conservative party are good lawyers. Well, I will read it this way to see if it is not quite clear:
Articles the produce or manufacture of Canada imported into the Netherlands shall not be subjected to other or higher duties or charges than those paid on the like articles the produce or manufacture of any other foreign country.


William Alves Boys: I quite agree with the minister there. The difficulty is, this is an agreement between two countries, and you cannot put an interpretation upon certain words in that agreement which interpretation will mean one thing when applied to one of the parties and a totally different thing when applied to another of the parties;	and
"foreign country" as used there it does seem to me applies to every country other than Canada in the one case and other than the Netherlands in the other. Therefore, in that sense, Great Britain would be a foreign country to Canada for the purposes of this article. If the minister reads it I think he is bound to come to that conclusion.


James Alexander Robb: Not at all.


William Alves Boys: Let me see if I cannot make
the point clear. The minister admits that Great Britain is a foreign country so far as the Netherlands is concerned. I think that is admitted, I think the minister has said that.


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


William Alves Boys: Well then, let us again state
that this is an agreement as between two parties. If this foreign country means Great Britain, so far as the Netherlands is concerned, how can it mean anything else in the same agreement between the same two parties when applied to Canada? And if the intention is that it should, there should be some reservation.


James Alexander Robb: The article appears quite clear to me. In the first place it says:
Articles the produce or manufacture of Canada imported into the Netherlands shall not be subjected to other or higher duties or charges than those paid on the like articles, the produce or manufacture of any other foreign country.


William Alves Boys: Read it the other way.


James Alexander Robb: Reading it the other way:
Articles the produce or manufacture of the Netherlands imported into Canada shall not be subjected to other or higher duties or charges than those paid on the like articles the produce or manufacture of any other foreign country.


William Alves Boys: Foreign country would include Great Britain.


James Alexander Robb: No.


Arthur Meighen: That is the difficulty the minister is in. I think if he will look at other treaties of the same kind he will find an express reservation which apparently has been neglected here. If the words "foreign country" were used in relation to ourselves alone, the minister would be right, but he cannot say to the Netherlands, "Those words mean one thing to us, but they mean another thing to you," and without an express reservation the minister has got himself bound to either one of two things.


James Alexander Robb: No.


Arthur Meighen: Either he has to give
the Netherlands the same treatment as he gives Great Britain, or the Netherlands will be free to give Great Britain better treatment, the same as we are free to give Great Britain better treatment-one or the other.


James Alexander Robb: No. My recollection is that
this was referred to the Justice department, and if my hon. friend has any doubt as to the definition of it, I am prepared to let the measure stand and again refer it to the Justice, department, but my own mind is quite clear.


William Alves Boys: It is not so much a doubt as to the definition, it is as to the application. What I cannot understand is how the minister can think that when these two countries are parties to the agreement, and in the body of that agreement the words "foreign country" are used, that in the one instance "foreign country" as applied to the Netherlands would refer to Great Britain, but although used in the same agreement, applying also to Canada, with no distinction, with no re-10 p.m. servation, he would put a totally different interpretation on the words as applying to Canada.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: The effect of the treaty is that it is understood that in all matters governing the import, export and transit of merchandise the Netherlands grants to Canada, and Canada grants to the Netherlands the treatment of the most favoured nations. What does the wTord "nation" mean there? It does not simplify matters and does not



'COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Canada-Netherlands Convention
solve the difficulty at all to tell us it has been before the Justice department. The department has no standing such as that of a tribunal which can deliver a judgment and force people to accept it. The Department of Justice merely expresses an opinion and it may be correct or it may be incorrect. But the opinions expressed in this House are quite on a par with those expressed by the Department of Justice.
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: In one point of view, England is not a foreign country to Canada; but at the same time, by reason of the fact that this language is used in the one sentence without even a comma, I think it might be advisable for the minister to let it stand and consult the Justice department, in view of the discussion which has taken place to-night, and make sure of the point, because it might be a serious matter if this interpretation should be as the leader of the opposition seems to think it is. Personally, I do not agree with him but I am not a lawyer and I do not want to pass a legal opinion on it, but I think the minister might be well advised to let it stand.


Arthur Meighen: The minister negotiated this treaty himself, did he not? Did he make it clear to the Dutch negotiators?


James Alexander Robb: Quite.


Arthur Meighen: It is certainly doubtful enough to warrant a confirmation. I would not like to hold up the treaty, although it is not a very important one, but I would suggest that the minister confirm that interpretation by cable, and that would be far more important than the opinion of the Department of Justice or the opinion of anyone. Being a treaty between nations, it is not really a legal point. It is just a question of what a reasonable man reading it would likely take out of it. I fancy too that two out of three would say that what is a foreign country to one is a foreign country to the other in the same treaty, and the minister would be very well advised to get the interpretation he puts on it confirmed by the government of the Netherlands by cable, because it would be extremely serious if we bound ourselves, without any concession, to give to Holland and the Dutch colonies the British preference right off or any other preference we ever give Great Britain.


James Alexander Robb: I would not like to go so far to say that we are going to re-open this with the Netherlands, but on Thursday when the matter was before the House objection was

taken to this bill on the ground that it did not clearly define whether or not the goods should come in through Canadian ports, and I promised then to refer it to the Justice
department. I have here the report of the Justice department, and reading it over, it makes it pretty clear. The report reads:
Department of Justice,
Canada.
Ottawa, 16th May, 1925.
Re: Convention of Commerce between Canada and the Netherlands
Dear Sir:
Referring to my interview with Mr. Russell and Mr. Viets of your department, regarding the question which arose in a discussion in the House, reported at pages 3181 and 3182 of Hansard of the 14th May, 1925, I beg to advise you as follows:
By Article XIV of the Convention of Commerce between Canada and France, 1922, it is provided that:
"To enjoy the benefit of the tariff advantages provided for in the foregoing articles products originating in and coming from France, the French colonies, possessions and protectorates shall be conveyed without transhipment from a port of those territories or from a port of a country enjoying the benefit of the preferential or intermediate tariff into a sea or river port of Canada.
Reciprocally to enjoy the benefit of the tariff advantages provided for in the foregoing articles the products originating in and coming from Canada imported into France, the French colonies, possessions and protectorates shall be conveyed direct from a Canadian port without transhipment in any country that does not enjoy the said tariff advantages.
Provided, however, that nothing in this article shall exempt the product of either country from any sur-taxe d'entrepot that is now or hereafter may be imposed on products imported indirectly."
In the subsequent convention made with Italy in 1923, and in the present convention with the Netherlands, no similar clause is to be found, but it is provided by Article I of both conventions as follows:
"Articles the produce of manufacture of Canada imported into the Netherlands and articles the produce of manufacture of the Netherlands imported into Canada shall not be subjected to other or higher duties or charges than those paid on the like articles the produce or manufacture of any other foreign country. Nor shall any prohibition or restriction be maintained or imposed on the importation of any article the produce or manufacture of Canada into the Netherlands, or of any articles the produce or manufacture of the Netherlands into Canada which shall not equally extend to the importation of like articles being the produce or manufacture of any other foreign country. This last provision is not applicable to the sanitary and other prohibitions occasioned by the necessity of protecting the safety of persons or of cattle, or of plants useful to agriculture."
As I interpret this provision, it clearly means on the one hand that articles the produce or manufacture of the respective countries shall not be subjected to other or higher duties or charges than those paid on the like articles the produce or manufacture of any other foreign country, and that on the other hand either country is free to impose any prohibition or restriction on the importation of such articles if such prohibition or restriction equally extends to the importation of like articles being the produce or manufacture of any other foreign country. Having in view these provisions, and the fact that both countries understand that the purpose of the convention is to extend to each other what is known as most favoured nation treatment, I see no

Canada-Netherlands Convention
reason to doubt that Canada has the right to impose the same prohibitions or restrictions under the present convention as were imposed in the convention with France above referred to, and which are in fact imposed with respect to all foreign countries enjoying most favoured nation treatment. If, therefore, appropriate legislative sanction exists for the imposition of any such prohibition or restriction, I think that no difficulty with the Netherlands will arise. Inasmuch as the provisions of article I of the convention above quoted clearly indicate that the intention of the convention was to permit the imposition of prohibitions and restrictions of the kind mentioned, I think that _ if clause 4 of the bill approving the convention be enacted as drawn, it will constitute sufficient legislative sanction for the making by the Governor in Council of such orders and regulations as are deemed necessary to put such prohibitions or restrictions into effect. I understand that a similar clause was incorporated in the bill relating to the convention between Canada and Italy, 1923, and I would not, therefore, vary the wording of the clause if it can be avoided.
The above remarks apply as well to the convention with Finland.
Yours truly,
W. Stuart Edwards,



D. M. J.

[Stage Direction]
I think that makes it pretty clear that we are safeguarded.
Arthur Meighen: I am not taking exception to the deputy minister's opinion but I want to point out to the minister that in his resolution as he introduced it there was not included a full statement of article 1 and of the reservation contained in the second sentence here:
Nor shall any prohibition or restriction be maintained or imposed on the importation of any article the produce or manufacture of Canada into the Netherlands, or of any articles the produce or manufacture of the Netherlands into Canada which shall not equally extend to the importation of dike articles being the produce or manufacture of any other foreign country.
That is the restriction on which the deputy minister relies and, I fancy, relies correctly. What the minister said before was that merely because it was in the French treaty we could therefore apply it to the Netherlands. But it would not apply at all. It is in the French treaty, and the only importance it has is this, that if it were not in the French treaty we could not apply it here, notwithstanding this second sentence. But because the second sentence appears, then, it being in the French treaty, we can apply it to the Netherlands. If the minister had the second sentence in his resolution there would be no question at all in the House and he would not have had to go to the Justice department. This is a matter where Holland is bound to consider Great Britain, in relation to trade matters, a foreign country as respects Canada. If I were in a court I would rather have Holland's end of the case. In so far as Canada is concerned, in her trade matters one country is as foreign
to her as another. Holland could very well say to us, "We are dealing with you alone in matters of trade, and if you are going to give a preference to one nation you must give it to us. We are not concerned with your internal relations."


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: The minister will remember that in recent years it has not been infrequent in certain quarters to emphasize the fact that Canada is a nation. I am not finding any fault with that; but having laid the fact down in such emphatic terms, when we read the word "nation" in a convention of this character it must surely have the meaning we have been attaching to it; and if Canada is a nation Australia i3 equally a nation. Is it really the opinion of the government that they cannot deal with Australia for instance, as a component part of the empire and yet a distinct entity within the empire, on a better footing than they can deal with the Netherlands? Or is it the deliberate intention of the government to .so bind us that whatever concessions we make to Australia must, automatically operate to the benefit of the Netherlands? If that is what the minister intends to do he has in my judgment succeeded in doing it by article 4 of the treaty. If that is the intention of the government and they take the responsibility of it there is nothing more to be said; they are in charge at the helm and this is the direction in which they wish to steer. But if the minister does not intend to do that I can say to him with the most positive assurance that the language employed is not effecting his purpose but a very different one. Like my right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) I . would advise him, if he does not mean to do this, to hold the matter over until he has made the thing perfectly clear in a diplomatic way; otherwise the result I have indicated must absolutely follow.


James Alexander Robb: I cannot allow my hon. friend to put into my mouth or to ascribe to the government ideas which were never entertained. My hon. friend is a good lawyer and he might plead a case well before a court of law, but I do not intend to get into any argument with legal gentlemen regarding the phraseology of this bill. I am satisfied that the bill declares exactly what was intended, that we should give the Netherlands our intermediate column of tariff, or a little better m some cases, wherever we have conceded it. But there is no intention of giving them the British preference, and I am satisfied that no court would hold that. However, if it will satisfy my right hon. friend I will undertake,
3322 ^	COMMONS
Canada-Netherlands Cinvention
if he will allow the measure to go through now, to see in case there is any doubt that the correction is made in the upper house. For my part I believe that the bill safeguards our interests.


William Alves Boys: Suppose a trade agreement
were made between the Netherlands and Australia in which a very low tariff was given by Australia in favour of goods manufactured in the Netherlands.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is wrong altogether, because Australia has not a low tariff.


Mn BOYS:: I am only stating a supposititious case; I can take Great Britain if the minister prefers. Would Canada in that case be entitled to the benefit?


James Alexander Robb: That is my understanding.


William Alves Boys: Then, if the minister takes
that view, how can that be so unless Great Britain is treated as a foreign country, which a moment ago the minister was unwilling to do?


James Alexander Robb: Great Britain and Australia
are foreign countries to the Netherlands but not to Canada.


William Alves Boys: That is the point. Let us
take the case of New Zealand; if she is not regarded as a foreign country to Canada, Canada could not get the benefit of any agreement that might be made under such a treaty.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Article 4 says nothing about foreign countries; it says "favoured nation".


William Alves Boys: I am coming to that feature
of it. In article 4 the word nation is used. Does not that include every nation except Canada and the Netherlands? Is not Australia, is not New Zealand, is not Great Britain a distinct nation within the meaning of that article?


James Alexander Robb: If it will expedite matters and my right hon. friend desires to make the language more emphatic, I will offer no objection to correcting it- in the upper house.


Arthur Meighen: But the minister cannot do that.


James Alexander Robb: The upper house can.


Arthur Meighen: How can the minister
correct it? This is an agreement, and I do not see how he can change it. unless the Petersen plan is to be followed again. And I do not think that the minister wants to get into that humiliating position too often. I think the suggestion I made is much simpler 
and far less objectionable. Let the minister get a cable from the Netherlands government, and then it would hardly lie in the mouth of that government afterwards to insist on a different interpretation. But for the life of me, I would not want to rely on this.


James Alexander Robb: Will my right hon. friend be
satisfied if I get a message from Mr. de Meester, the representative of the Netherlands in Canada?


Arthur Meighen: That would be a lot
better than nothing.
Progress reported.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
bills proposed to authorize the construction OF BRANCH LINES TURTLEFORD
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways):	Mr. Speaker, if there is no
objection we might take up the Turtleford and Bengough to Willowbuneh branch line bills. The resolutions were discussed thoroughly in the House, the bills were sent to the Railway committee, and the Railway committee have reported them back without amendment. I do not think there is any objection from any quarter to either of these bills.
Arthur Meighen: Let us go ahead with
those.
Mr. GRAHAM moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 69 respecting the construction of a line of railway forming part of the Canadian National Railways between Turtleford and a point in township 48, range 12, west of the third meridian in the province of Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Part of cost to be provided by the Canadian Northern Railway Company, and so forth.


Arthur Meighen: Has the minister reconsidered his policy of keeping out of the estimates the money to be spent on these lines?


George Perry Graham: We find this is the most
practical way altogether.


Arthur Meighen: That means politically.


George Perry Graham: No. Work is now going on on railway lines under these bills that might possibly be held up if we were waiting for the estimates.

C.N.R.-Branch Lines


Arthur Meighen: I know, but the minister got one-sixth of his estimates through within a few days of the opening of the House. The difficulty is now we do not know from the estimates what the country is going to spend.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
On section 5-Approval of parliament if authorized amount exceeded.
George Perry Graham: That was put in all the
bills last session.


Arthur Meighen: In the Senate or in the
Commons?


George Perry Graham: In the Commons.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Nature and form of securities to be approved by Governor in Council and signed by Minister of Finance.
George Perry Graham: This is the regular clause, there is no change.


Arthur Meighen: I do not get the significance of the last sentence. The securities referred to in the first two sentences are the securities of the company, and are to be guaranteed in a form satisfactory to the minister, and so forth. Then the section continues :
Should the Governor in Council decide that any of such securities shall be secured by mortgage or deed of trust, the form and terms of any such mortgage or deed of trust and the trustee or trustees thereof shall be such as the Governor in Council may approve or d irect.
I do not get the point there. How do you secure a security? The government would not need a mortgage to secure its guarantee, because certainly the company in issuing its bonds must give a mortgage, and if the government guarantees that mortgage the clause is not necessary. I do not see why it is necessary at all. It is not for the government to decide that any security is to be secured by mortgage; it cannot help but be.


George Perry Graham: I do not know the legal
bearing, but this was worked out very carefully by Mr. Ruel a year ago and inserted in all the bills. Would not the construction rather be, that should the Governor in Council decide that any of such securities shall be secured by mortgage or deed of trust, then the form to be used must be that prescribed by the Governor in Council?


William Alves Boys: I could understand that
thoroughly if bonds were issued and not secured by mortgage, but, as the leader of
the opposition has pointed out, they always are secured by mortgage, and then one finds it difficult to appreciate the intention of the clause, unless it means further and additional security; but if this was intended, one would think the draftsman would use the words "such further and other security as the Governor in Council may direct."


George Perry Graham: It is possible that this
last sentence is not necessary, but the Justice department thought it was. It is the same as in last year's bills. I imagine the only criticism that could be offered against it is) that it is superfluous; but there must be some good reason why it was inserted. Mr. Ruel thought it was nepessary.


William Alves Boys: It may have been intended to cover what I mentioned.


George Perry Graham: Perhaps so.


Arthur Meighen: The first part of the
clause is in quite familiar language; I remember it in many railway acts. But I never saw that last one, and anything superflous is dangerous in a bill of this kind. I would rather see it out myself, but I will not insist on it. Mr. Ruel may have thought it necessary, but I do not see why.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Advances pending issue of guaranteed securities.
Arthur Meighen: What is the course pursued in this respect? There is no doubt the National Railways do not issue bonds in respect of each single line; that would be very cumbersome and expensive. I presume they periodically make an issue: For instance, they made an issue of $35,000,000 not many months ago. I suppose the practice is that the government advances the money for one line or another line, and so forth, until the market is supposed to be favourable to a large issue, and then the government is recouped. In that event, are these advances to the National Railways included in the few millions which at the end of the year the Minister of Finance reports as constituting the government's advances to the railways during the year? I would expect not.


George Perry Graham: I do not know just what the Finance department does. The Canadian National did make a loan of some $14,000,000 and included in that loan were certain amounts for the branch lines. These amounts were not needed at the time, but were deposited with the Finance Minister and drawn upon as required. I think the whole $14,000,000 was not
CJV.R.-Branch Lines



CIOMMONS

[Stage Direction]
drawn upon at the end of the fiscal year; some $3,000,000 remained.
Arthur Meighen: The member for West
York (Sir Henry Drayton) has arrived, and I speak with some diffidence on this subject on that account. But it would seem to me very questionable practice for the National Railways to issue its bonds in advance of necessities and then for the government to finance on money of the National Railways in the meantime. It is bad enough for the National Railways to lean on us, but we do not want to lean on them. I think the right practice would be for the government to advance the money and then when an accumulation is sufficient and the market favourable, to issue bonds to recoup the government.- that is to say, if bonds are to be issued at all. It would seem to me that the sooner we get to the time when we make loans to the railways direct, the better, because undoubtedly the money can be more cheaply secured in that way ,and then, the country knows exactly where we stand. This gradually moving into the guarantee atmosphere-no guarantee one year; a moderate guarantee the next year; a far bigger one the next year, and the cash advances growing in the reverse order-well, it just gets the whole country confused and gives politicians who must confuse, to avoid calamity, an excellent opportunity to do so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: 
George Perry Graham: The unexpended.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Unexpended. So it really makes no difference so far as that particular question is concerned, but just see

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
where the company is putting itself. As a result of putting this misleading entry in here they have got to put up a corresponding entry against it, and for the additions to funded debt next year they have got to add $14,000,000 odd as money then raised, adding it then to the debt. So far as the cash is concerned, and so far as the interest is concerned, no one is losing any money, absolutely none at all; but it is something that takes some time to get into, it is something which misled a lot of people, it is something which on the face of it is wrong, and which, if continued too much, is going to lead to altogether too much inter-financing between government and company; but so far as any money being lost as a result of it, no money has been lost.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 74, respecting the construction of a line of railway forming part of the Canadian National Railways between Bengough and a point at or near Willowbunch, in the province of Saskatchewan, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-power to construct and complete line described in schedule.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I would like to
get an understanding with my hon. friend as to the situation here. I am not rising to object to the building of the line to Willowbunch. I do not know whether it is really the right point or not. A great deal would depend on what is being done in the district. I have been told that the Canadian National has made an arrangement with the Canadian Pacific that the territory to the south and west will be looked after. We discussed in the House last year the question whether the line should be extended from Bengough in a westerly direction but a good deal more to the south than Willowbunch, Willowbunch being up a little to the north. Going down in that direction we run across a district where there are old, old settlers, who for years and years have had to haul their grain over distances which absolutely prevent any return. We have the Canadian Pacific line down there with quite a gap to be built, and there was a question I know as. to whether the Canadian Pacific would ever build that gap. Last year one
of the things we discussed was building down to the south and west for the purpose of relieving those people by an extension-I forget the meridian number at the moment, but I think it was No. 8. At any rate it would mean probably eighteen miles construction to the west of Bengough, reaching down to a country where there are any amount of people, and where they need the railway very badly. Now we are turning away from that and going up to Willowbunch, to the north and west, and I have been given to understand that the National thinks it will have discharged its duty to the people down there if it builds that way because an arrangement has been made with the Canadian Pacific to look after that other portion to the south. I really think the people of the district are entitled to have a clear statement as to that situation. Their necessities are great; the handicaps they have laboured under in the past are heavy, and this construction to Willowbunch rather looks as if for the future they had to depend on the Canadian Pacific.	I hope before this
conclusion has been come to that some arrangement has been made under which the Canadian Pacific will within a certain definite time make that other construction, and I would ask my hon. friend to let us know whether the Canadian Pacific is to build in that territory to the south and west, and if so, when that construction is going to be done.


George Perry Graham: The original idea of the
Canadian National was the line laid down in the bill now before the House. Last year a deviation was proposed, as my hon. friend says, in order to serve another part of the territory and, if I remember correctly, before the bill was through it was left quite optional as to different routes. Well, parliament has determined, and rightly so, that so far as possible there shall be little duplication.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We all agree on that.


George Perry Graham: Consequently it has been arranged, and I think the Canadian Pacific are perfectly agreeable, that while the Canadian National builds to Willowbunch the Canadian Pacific will build from the west. I am told but I am not sure-I have the papers somewhere and I think it Vas discussed in committee-that the Canadian Pacific has been getting out its charter and carrying out its surveys and will begin with the construction commencing not later than 1926.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, I have no doubt the district will be very glad to get
CJV.R.-Branch Lines

the assurance. I think they would like to see the work started this year; they have waited a tremendous time. I think the minister is fairly right in his discussion of the situation, except that he is wrong as to Willowbunch being the original proposition. What we had originally brought down last year was the building of a line from Radville. The Rad-ville line was a line considerably to the east of Bengough, and it ran through a very rough country where construction would be extremely heavy and where there were no settlers. It is true that when you got further south you encountered settlement; but you had to get away south before you met it and a lot of money would be lost in coming down that way. Before the Senate committee the engineers of the railway said they were always against the Radville line, they did not recommend it, and that the construction from Bengough would be more useful and more economical. Those are the only two propositions, whether the line is to go from Willow-bunch or Bengough. The alternative proposition last year was to extend for a longer distance to the south for the purpose of looking after those people who have been requiring attention for so many years. The action taken last year by this House was to leave it optional-whether the company would build from Radville south, or whether they would build from Bengough.


Edward Joseph Garland: There is a question which occurred to me, not in direct connection with this bill but in connection with the construction of some branch lines: In the event of an agreement having been entered upon for the construction of a joint line, and a certain amount of money being put up by the Canadian National Railway and a certain amount on behalf of the Canadian Pacific, or some other company, who decides when the work must be gone on with? Has the government any power to compel the construction of the line?


Henry Lumley Drayton: That would not come up here. The only instance of an arrangement of this kind that I know of is the joint section which was to provide for the Drumheller district. That was agreed on yearn ago. I do not know how much of it has been constructed.


Edward Joseph Garland: None.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I should have thought there was some.


Edward Joseph Garland: If in order I should like to ask the minister for a moment to turn to this line-the Rosedale south east-
erly line. The money has been voted by this parliament, for the National's share and the Canadian Pacific has put up its portion. The officials of the latter company inform me they are ready to go on with the work, they are anxious to go on with it, but they cannot get the Canadian National to start the work. Who is to take the necessary action in a case of that kind? The people out there need the line, the people in Drumhdler need transportation facilities to move their coal; if the line were built it would mean a great deal more business for them in the district, and1 would also help the farmers along the route.


Henry Lumley Drayton: 
Edward Joseph Garland: I sincerely hope that the minister will see that the Board of Railway Commissioners will take action in this regard. I cannot get satisfaction from anybody with respect to it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Make application to the board.


George Perry Graham: I will take pleasure in
sending the remarks of my hon. friend to both the railway presidents to-morrow.


Edward Joseph Garland: Send it to the Board of Railway Commissioners; that would be much better.


George Perry Graham: It is one of those difficult situations in regard to which I do not know where the authority lies unless it is with the Board of Railway Commissioners. I will see that the matter is brought to the attention of the company; it is the first I have heard of it. In a case of this kind we go to one company and of course they say they iare ready. Then we go to the other company and they say they are ready also; it is generally the other Miow that is delaying matters. The only thing is to try and get them to come together.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Part of cost to be provided by Canadian Northern Railway Company and balance by Canadian National Railway Company; Canadian National may issjie security which may be guaranteed.

C.N.R-Branch Lines
Henry Lumley Drayton: In connection
with that I was going to ask my hon. friend how this is proposed to be taken into the company's capital? We may just as well be fair about this question, and look it straight in the face. This is our road and we are just as much liable for these bonds, endorsed as they are by the provincial treasurer, as we will be for the other bonds coming subsequently which we also have to endorse. Now what is to be done about it? Is there to be camouflage so that the obligation will not appear in the addition to the debt? Is there to be a statement made that we have not endorsed these bonds and therefore it should not come in as part of our obligations, or will the obvious, right thing be done in this one instance anyway? The people of Canada are building a railway with borrowed money. It is not enough to look after the whole of the line but we have to go out and borrow more. This loan which is a first charge upon that property is raised under the guarantee of the province. The next loan will have our guarantee on it, and surely it would be childish to pretend that that loan should, for the purpose of arriving at our own situation, be looked upon as anything other than our own obligation.


George Perry Graham: Well, I have not given it any thought, but this is cash we are getting.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I agree.


George Perry Graham: We are getting cash from the province. My own view absolutely, although on consideration I may be wrong, is that the Canadian National will be liable for the interest on the whole investment.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend
does not quite catch my point. We are authorizing the government to guarantee further obligations because they will have to be issued in the name of the company. The security for those obligations is the line that is to be built. That security is subject to this cash as the minister points out. The cash does not make any difference one way or the other. What does count are the bonds already issued and guaranteed by the province: and before we can look to any of our security here at all if we are still foolish enough to go on thinking this railway is not ours, if we still go on hiding our heads in the sand and not looking upon an obligation of this character as an obligation of the whole country, then we are in the position of any second mortgagee. What is the good of a second mortgagee's security unless he is in a position to look after the first mortgage? I should have thought the thing was clear.



REVISED

George Perry Graham: I did not expect a discussion of this kind, or I would have brushed up my memory a little. As a matter of fact, these branch lines of the Canadian Northern system are being treated I think in exactly the same way as they have been treated since the Canadian Northern was taken over by the government many years ago. The federal government I think paid the interest on these securities guaranteed by the provinces. I do not know whether the principal amounts were taken into the capital or not, but the principal amounts must be in the capital of the Canadian Northern system, because they are part of the Canadian Northern.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Sure.


George Perry Graham: And I imagine the capital charges will all be against some integral part of the Canadian National or Canadian Northern.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Sure. '


George Perry Graham: And the amount of interest due on all securities will appear in the books of the Canadian National. I understand they are a charge against the Canadian National, just as if they were part of the original account.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister is overlooking entirely the one thing of real importance here, and that is the question as to the government's investment and the question of the government's net or gross debt. If we are going on giving guarantees just as we feel like giving them, whether there are prior securities against the system or not, whether there is a value there on which we can get a return or not, then we are only misleading ourselves and misleading the public. The hon. minister says it is exactly the same as when the company owned it. Well, it ought not to be the same. So far as the coiftpany is concerned, it is the same, but I am speaking of the larger question, as to the government's position and the security for the people's money.


George Perry Graham: I will look into that
further. I had not given it any thought.


Neil Haman McTaggart: It occurs to me that
the Canadian National Railway is under some obligation to the people in that district in regard to this line. It must be remembered that in the vicinity of the Fife lake country and west of it, as far as the sixth and seventh meridian, or still further west-


Henry Lumley Drayton: I put it at the eighth meridian.



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
C.N.R-Branch Lines
Neil Haman McTaggart: The eighth meridian
would be right-the people have for years been looking forward to the extension of the line from Bengough. At this time it appears as though an understanding had been reached between the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific Railways, and I should foe very glad if I thought such was the case. However, I am not assured of that. I 11 p.m. learned a few weeks ago that the Canadian Pacific Railway were proposing to introduce a bill in the upper chamber asking for authority to construct a road from south of Assiniboia and in the direction of Fife lake. I sent over to that chamber the other day for a copy of the bill, but I was informed there was no bill; so that I do not know whether the Canadian Pacific Railway is asking for that authority or not. I feel that the people in the Fife lake country and in the Wood mountain country will expect some assurance from the Canadian National that the Canadian Pacific is going to proceed with the development of our railway facilities in the south country. I want the minister to understand that I am not at all opposed to the extension of this line to Willowbuneh because I am familiar with the country, and I know that in the vicinity of Willowbuneh there is a splendid farming district. But I want to point out that if in the future it is necessary to extend the line from Willowbuneh to the westward, then the line should not really go down into the Willowbuneh valley, as I presume it is expected to do under this bill. The town of Willowbuneh lies in quite a deep valley, and it would seem that if the line were built into Willowbuneh it would probably remain a stub line for some time. The point I wish to make for the benefit of the minister is that there should be some assurance given to the people in that south country that railway facilities will foe developed either by the Canadian National or the Canadian Pacific Railway. So far as I am concerned, I am not particular which line is built as long as the people in that country get the railway facilities. I wonder if the minister could give us some assurance in that regard.


George Perry Graham: I went over that ground
when the hon. member was not in the chamber. I pointed out that I felt confident that the Canadian Pacific Railway proposed to have an act of parliament passed to proceed with the surveys and begin construction from Assiniboia southward, not later, I think, than the year 1926.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Assiniboia eastward.


George Perry Graham: South and east, if I remember. I do not think there is any question tha/t the Canadian Pacific intend doing that, and that arrangement having been arrived at, it would be unwise to duplicate lines. I think parliament would not agree to that, even if the roads did desire to do it, because the time has come when we must economize as much as possible and serve the people as well as we can without running into wild extravagance in the duplication of lines.


Neil Haman McTaggart: In the event of the
Canadian Pacific Railway proceeding with the programme which is apparently in prospect, it is not expected then to extend the line beyond Willowbuneh?


George Perry Graham: Not at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Certificates of minister as to mileage.
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Mileage and costs are estimates only, and not to be exceeded by more than 15 per cent.
Henry Lumley Drayton: This is the
standard provision.


George Perry Graham: Yes, all the way through.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5'-Approval of parliament if authorized amount exceeded.
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Nature and form of securities to be approved by Governor in Council and signed by Minister of Finance.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Has the minister ever thought whether it would not be wiser to have these things as they formerly were under the usual vote? I know previously he was against it, but does he not really think, looking into it, that it is not working out very well? Formerly we knew exactly what the whole situation was. Now we got it of course in a different way. In the way in which it now comes before us we have to split the amount as between the government's returns and the company's returns. The government gives us a return as to the securities guaranteed under the vote. We have the discussion under the vote altogether, while, if you get the company's figures, you have not only the guarantees under the vote but the guarantee

Special War Revenue Act
under the different bills in which the right of construction is given. I suppose it would not be fair to ask the minister to say anything definite on this point, but if he wants to get simplicity in the accounts and to give the people something like a bird's-eye view of the situation, I think my suggestion is the right one. I do not ask the minister to say anything now.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 119. to amend the Special War Revenue Act, 1915.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-"Cheque."
James Alexander Robb: The purpose of this section
is to define more clearly what is meant by "cheque." The intent of the act has been evaded by the use of documents that do not come within the definition and the amendment seeks to meet that difficulty.


Arthur Meighen: The definition of cheque includes any document or writing not drawn upon or addressed to a bank in exchange for which tihe bank makes payment of a sum of money. I cannot think of how any bank could make a payment of a sum of money if the document were not addressed to the bank.


James Alexander Robb: Thus has been done for some
time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does the minister refer to the'difficulty in connection with grain tickets?


James Alexander Robb: They are issuing grain and
cream tickets and certain lumber tickets in such a way as to avoid the tax.


Arthur Meighen: What form would they
take?


James Alexander Robb: I do not know precisely in
what form they are drawn but they go through the bank.


Mr. GOULD:: Under the Grain Act the
ticket shows the number of bushels which the 213i
farmer has hauled to the elevator, together with other details, indicating to what sum he is entitled, and he can go to the bank and get the money on that ticket. It is really a receipt although it is considered a cheque.


Arthur Meighen: This is to catch the western farmer.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the estimated gain in revenue under section 1?


James Alexander Robb: I have no estimate.


Henry Lumley Drayton: To what extent is the act being evaded?


James Alexander Robb: To a considerable degree.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Can we not get closer than that? I should think it would be to a very considerable degree. This ought to add very largely to the total revenue from the stamp tax.


James Alexander Robb: We hope so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I believe, from a return brought down in the House some time ago, we are now getting nine and a quarter millions, roughly speaking, from this tax. Does my hon. friend think he will get a couple more millions out of this provision?


James Alexander Robb: I cannot venture to quote
figures.	.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Would a million be a safe estimate?


James Alexander Robb: I really do not know to what extent the act has been evaded, but the complaint is made that while some people are honestly observing it, others, through the use of these tickets, are avoiding the tax. The amendment seeks to put all on the same footing.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is keeping up his fences pretty well and I do not say that he should mot. He is taking off the stamps on cheques under five dollars; I think he will make much more money under this clause .than he is losing under the other.


James Alexander Robb: I think that is a fair guess.


Mr. DAVIES:: When the farmer takes a
load of grain to the elevator he receives payment in the form of a grain ticket, which is really a cheque paid by the grain firm for the wheat which is purchased. I find that when we take these grain tickets to the bank to cash them the bank immediately makes the farmer pay the stamp tax on the ticket, not as a cheque but as a receipt. Will this section do away with that?
Special War Revenue Act


James Alexander Robb: This amendment is to dear up the situation. It will not affect itlhe farmer who sells the grain but the man who buys it. It has been found that some grain firms have been observing the act While others have made their payments through the grain tickets. We propose to meet that difficulty by this amendment.


Oliver Robert Gould: Hardily any of the grain companies who issue this paper as a receipt for the grain received!, which entitles the holder to draw upon the bank, ever pay ithe tax themselves, and it is contended in the west that the person who issues the cheque should be responsible for the tax.


James Alexander Robb: The act provides that.


Oliver Robert Gould: The individual takes his
ticket to the bank and in a good many instances the bank insists on ithe stamp being put on by the holder before the oadh is handed over. Others have not insisted on this; it seems to have affected different localities or towns differently. The minister's intention evidently is to bring about uniformity in this regard, but I think he would receive revenue through a striot enforcement of this provision so far as wheat tickets are concerned without imposing 'the tax on cream tickets. For my part I should like to see the tax on cream tickets abolished. It does seem to me 'that the man Who is struggling the hardest with a few cows is the one who is least able to afford this taxation. If the minister were in the western country a't certain times of the year and compared the marketing of grain lat ithe different stations with the delivery of cream in cans that are sometimes only half full he would very likely see the logic of this argument.


Mr. EVANS:: I have received protests lately from certain business firms, Gordon Ironside & Fares Company, Limited, and ithe Hudson's Bay Company out west, Who say that they have to put on Stamps which duplicate the tax on the monthly statements they send out. Is it insisted upon that a stamp should be affixed to a monthly statement for $10 or over? In that case is the statement accounted as a receipt?


James Alexander Robb: The question of stamps on
statements was brought up when this bill was before the House a few days ago. The Deputy Minister of Customs and! Excise, Who administers the act, tells me it was discovered that some firms make remittances twice a week and others three times a month, and that a statement is sent at the end1 of the month. Naturally such a statement is an acknowledgment of the money received, and I think

the deputy minister ruled correctly that it should be subject to a receipt tax. That was one of the methods adopted to evade the tax.


George Newcombe Gordon: This does not deal
with receipts but with bills of exchange.


John Evans: There is another duplication of payment which will come rather hard on the farmer in some cases. The commission man places the proceeds of sale of wheat to his own account, and he has to put a stamp on the cheque when remitting to the owner. In that case the one sale has to bear a stamp twice, which does not seem to me quite fair.


Claudius Charles Davies: Mr. Chairman, I should like to be quite clear regarding the stamp on grain tickets referred to a moment ago. Am I to understand that when a grain firm issues to a farmer what we call a cash grain ticket it will have to place a stamp thereon, and if the farmer takes that ticket to his bank to get it cashed, he also will have to place a receipt stamp on it, so that the ticket will bear a stamp on the front and on the back, one affixed by the grain firm and the other by the farmer?


James Alexander Robb: No, Mr. Chairman. Whoever issues the ticket for the grain, if it is recognized as a cheque, must put the stamp on. I have not the act with me at the moment, but a few days ago I read its provisions into Hansard. Penalties are provided if the issuer of the cheque does not pay the stamp tax.


Charles Wallace Stewart: I do not
think the minister has caught the point of the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. Davies). On the back of the cash grain ticket there is a receipt form which, if it were a cheque, would be an endorsation, but it reads as a receipt. I think what the hon. member wants to know is this, if they continue to use that same form will it require a receipt stamp when it is a receipt for the money of the cheque on the other side, which cheque has already been stamped?


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friend gave me a
cheque for grain payable to my order, I would have to endorse it before I received the money, but I would not have to put a stamp on the back of it.


Claudius Charles Davies: As the hon. member for
Humboldt (Mr. Stewart) says, on the back of the grain ticket it reads "payment received," and this is signed by the farmer. At present the bank requires you to place a two-cent stamp upon that as a receipt.

Special War Revenue Act


Arthur Meighen: The effect of this would be to change it from a receipt to a cheque.


Claudius Charles Davies: That is the point.


Arthur Meighen: It would necessitate
stamps for both.


James Alexander Robb: No.


Arthur Meighen: It just means the farmer has to pay the $2,000,000, if it amounts to that. .


James Alexander Robb: I did not say it amounted to that. The man who buys the grain pays, not the farmer.


Arthur Meighen: The minister need not worry, the farmer is going to pay it. I know the man who issues the cheque has to pay the stamp, but he will charge that up to the farmer every time.


James Alexander Robb: Not in eastern Canada.


Arthur Meighen: He does not issue that kind of ticket here, but wherever he does the farmer will have to pay. The grain company has him just where it wants him. I do not say it is unjust, but there is no use deluding ourselves into the belief that the grain people are going to pay; it will be the farmer.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Stamp tax on bills payable on demand, etc., or drawn on person outside of Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why should there be discrimination between foreign and domestic bills?


James Alexander Robb: It is in order to bring bills to the same basis as cheques. We discovered that within the past year or two this foreign business has drifted down to New York because of our high tax, two cents for every fifty dollars. On very large bills of exchange, running into hundreds of thousands of dollars, the exporter sent his business down to New York and evaded the tax.


Richard Burpee Hanson: At the time the tax was introduced the minister was warned that it would have the effect of drawing deposits out of Canadian banks. It has had a very detrimental effect, especially along the border. Of course, there is good reason for this change if business is withdrawn from our banks, but it does seem to me the sooner the government reduce the tax the better it will be for business.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Stamp tax on cheque defined in subsection 1 (e).


Arthur Meighen: We can hardly swallow
that all at once.


George Newcombe Gordon: We will take it by subsections.
On subsection 14 of section 3:


Arthur Meighen: Is this a re-enactment?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, it is really.


Arthur Meighen: Why is it re-enacted?
What is the real change?


James Alexander Robb: In section 3 I do not think there is anything new.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think, Mr. Chairman, it is because we have changed the subject matter of the section, the definition of a cheque, and we are making it clear that the law will apply to the extended meaning.
I do not think there is anything more in it than that


James Alexander Robb: I think hon. gentlemen will
find on reference to the explanatory notes the only new matter is underlined.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On subsection 15 of section 3-Stamp tax on foreign bill.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose, Mr. Chairman, this is really treating what we have already done with the preceding paragraph in another phase. Am I right?


James Alexander Robb: That is it exactly.


Arthur Meighen: There is some change
here.


James Alexander Robb: No, it is exactly the same as the others.


Arthur Meighen: This appears to make
subject to tax any foreign bill issued by an individual, not by a bank. But why should it be necessary to repeat all these sections? That is what seems strange to me.


James Alexander Robb: It is just to make it clear. Subsection agreed to.
Subsection 16 of section 3 agreed to.
On subsection 17 of section 3-On bank paying cheque without stamp.


John Evans: I would draw the attention of the government to the inconvenience that sometimes arises in connection with obtaining revenue stamps. Would it not be the same thing if a postage stamp of the same value was affixed?


James Alexander Robb: It was important that we should be able to determine our revenues
3332	COMMONS
Special War Revenue Act
from the post office and from these excise stamps respectively, and that is the reason for it. I know there was some inconvenience at first, but I think it is working very well now.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The whole law is one of those inconvenient, troublesome things. What- the hon. member for Saskatoon says merely illustrates one of the annoyances of the act. We are the only people in the world who put up with such an act. I do not know of any other place where there is a pyramiding of taxation such as we have in Canada on cheques. The United States have no tax at all on cheques, and never have had. Great Britain first had a tax of a penny and afterwards made it two pence on all cheques, while we have all this nuisance of calculation and the like. I really think the character of the stamp is the least nuisance, because if you happen not to have a stamp you can attach a postage stamp lightly and the bank will always take it off >and substitute a proper stamp for it. I admit that it is a good thing to know what we are doing; I only wish we knew better what we are doing. It would be well if we could know something with regard to the cheques of different values; if we could do that, perhaps we could tell how much we are paying on the new receipt tax.


James Alexander Robb: I have some information here I was to get for my hon. friend. This shows
the total stamp taxes for 1924:
On demand and	call loans	$1,114,477	04On overdrafts	
389^544	60On cheques, promissory notes and bills of exchange	
6,397,134	12Tota!	$7,901,153 78
I have not the details for 1925, but the gross revenue from this source was $9,324,455.36.


Mr. SALES:: Has the minister the item for promissory notes separately?


James Alexander Robb: No, not as I have it here.


Oliver Robert Gould: No commission is paid to persons in small towns, for instance, on the prairies, where the banks are often three or four stations apart, for the handling of these revenue stamps, and we often have to depend on the generosity of others in order to get the stamps necessary for our documents. It seems to me that if the stamps must be different for postal and excise purposes, a small commission might be paid to somebody to handle them in such places as these where banks are not available.


James Alexander Robb: I am sure my hon. friend has only to bring that matter to the attention of

the Minister of Customs and Excise, who administers the act, to have it given consideration. I recall that the minister asked me for recommendations as to places where stamps could be sold in two or three small villages in the constituency I have the honour to represent where there was no bank. I think the practice is to place these stamps with reliable merchants in villages where there are no banks.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What- about
post offices?


James Alexander Robb: Sometimes post offices too, I think. I shall direct the minister's attention to it.


Milton Neil Campbell: I discussed that matter with the Department of Customs and Excise a year ago, and the stand they took was that it was not advisable to place the stamps in post offices because of the possibility of their becoming mixed up with postage stamps. But in one instance that I took up with them, the case of a village a long way from a bank, the department arranged to place a supply of stamps with a merchant in the village, so that there has since been no cause for complaint in that district.


James Alexander Robb: I will draw their attention to that.


Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton):: I think the member for Macleod the other night asked the minister if it would be all right for those who did not have stamps on hand to add to the amount indicated on the cheque the words "and stamp tax." The minister said he would give an answer later. Has he considered the matter?


James Alexander Robb: I admit I had quite forgotten that. I will try to remember it to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Subsection 18 of section 3 agreed to.
On subsection 19 (a) of section 3-Stamp tax on a statement of a maximum amount of advances.
Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the section, I presume, with regard to which there has been so much criticism throughout the country Does this refer to the new regulation of putting a stamp on statements which indicate the receipt of a sum of money?


James Alexander Robb: No. A case was brought to our attention only recently of a large broker going to a trust company or life insurance company and asking them for $100,000. Had he gone to a bank he would have had to pay

Special War Revenue Act
the stamp tax, but because he went to a trust company or life insurance company, he did not have to do so. We are making it clear that trust companies and loan companies, and so on, are on the same basis as banks in this respect.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this not a double taxation on the same transaction?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How would the advance be paid except by cheque?


James Alexander Robb: This is on the security he gives for it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I believe that
here my hon. friend is going altogether further than he thinks. I appreciate that he wants to get a stamp on every transaction.


James Alexander Robb: No, but I want everybody to
be on the same basis.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think
that he wants two stamps on the same transaction, but that will ibe the effect the way it is worded. Take the case of anyone who is buying some stocks and is not fortunate enough to be able to pay for them all at once, and his broker is carrying them. His broker has to get money from the bank to do that, and when his broker gets money from the bank, the broker pays all these taxes, and then they are all charged up to the unfortunate fellow who is short on his stock. Now under this section as we have it here- I have just seen it, but it strikes me offhand that it means that the broker not only passes on to his customer, the stamp taxes he pays to the bank, but he has to repeat the same proposition in connection with the same transaction.


James Alexander Robb: I do not think so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will my hon.
friend say now that that will be looked after by regulation to make that clear?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, I will say that. This was carefully prepared by solicitors after consultation with a man who is dealing in this business, and who represents a pretty big business, and knows pretty nearly what is going on. I think this is quite safe.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If I buy bonds from a
broker, say $20,000 of bonds on the instalment plan, the broker does not carry them himself; he hires the money from the bank, and he has to pay the bank the stamp taxes on the loan, and he charges that to me. Now under this section I will be charged the double tax. I do not think the minister ever contemplated
that. I do not believe that is what he had in mind, but it will certainly bear that interpretation. What the minister is driving at is to put a tax on private loans from trust companies and banks to an individual where bonds are lodged as collateral. That is a form of financing that to-day escapes taxation. But this section would take in the case of a broker such as the hon. member for West York has instanced, and I do not think the government contemplated that.


James Alexander Robb: I give a pledge now that I will direct the officers to adjust this to see it is not double taxation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It must be obvious to the minister that the point is well taken.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am quite content to let it go if the minister will say that a regulation will go through to see that that is not done.


James Alexander Robb: Yes I will see to that.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Subsection 20 of section 3 agreed to.
On subsection 21 of section 3-Bill or note as collateral security.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I am glad to see the minister is giving some relief along this line. I have had personal experience in connection with borrowing money on the collateral of promissory notes, and I know I have had to pay double taxation. I would like to point out to the minister that under the regulations interest is charged quarterly on demand notes or advances, whereas a man can go to a bank and make arrangements for a loan for a year on a four-months' note, and he only pays taxes three times in a year, whereas on a demand note he pays taxes four times. That is an anomalous state of affairs, and perhaps it might be looked into.


James Alexander Robb: I will have that looked into.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-stamp tax on all money orders and travellers' cheques.
James Alexander Robb: The words underlined are
new and extend the tax on money orders or travellers' cheques .to such documents issued by a bank or any person. Heretofore the banks were issuing these small money orders without putting a tax on them. We are here putting them on the same basis as express orders.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Special War Revenue Act
[Stage Direction]
On section 5-stamp tax on amounts not exceeding five dollars.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Has my hon.
friend got any return from the banks as to the amount of cheques issued under five dollars?


James Alexander Robb: I have not got that yet.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I understood
that some time ago a circular was sent .to the banks asking them to give the government particulars as to the number of cheques issued within different ranges. What information has my hon. friend got on that?


James Alexander Robb: I have not got the returns
yet, and I am therefore unable to give the information to the House.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
On section 8-Licenses to bona fide wholesaler or jobber.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
real change there?


James Alexander Robb: The words underlined are
new. This limits it to an amount not more than $15,000 and not less than $2,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We had that
up before, and there was some question as to whether we were not really increasing the bond.


James Alexander Robb: I discussed that with the commissioner, and he says no, after consultation with the Deputy Minister of Customs and Excise, that it decreases the bond.
Section a,greed to.
On section 9-Priority of excise taxes repealed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is meant by the
repeal of section 9?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The lien goes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I was going to ask the
minister in regard to the regulations under this act, I presume, calling for a stamp to be affixed to monthly statements sent out showing a previous payment. I think all who have to do with that class of business know that it is very difficult to send out statements without showing some payment if the account is not paid in full each month or at whatever interval it is rendered, and yet under this regulation it was necessary to affix 
a stamp according to the amount that was paid. There was an intimation-in fact, I think once it was dropped, then it was reinstated. Can the minister state whether that is to be dropped again?


James Alexander Robb: No, it will not be dropped.
My hon. friend was perhaps not in his seat when I explained a while ago that I had discussed this with the Deputy Minister of Customs and Excise who is administering the act, and he tells me that some firms were not issuing any receipt for moneys received on account during the month. The first of the month they send out a statement, and that constituted a receipt. I think my hon. friend will agree that they should pay, because it is a receipt. I will go a little further than I went a few minutes ago, and say that it is just possible that some firms doing business in an honest way may be penalized on account of the chaps who are evading the act, but I think the officers are trying to correct it as far as possible.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I appreciate the minister's difficulty. I am not bringing this forward to harass him in any way, or to be critical, but I have had a very large amount of correspondence from very reputable firms, as well as the Credit Mens' Association at Vancouver, and I presume other credit men's associations have also made similar representations. I appreciate it because I have had in years gone by a great deal of experience in this sort of thing. There are many concerns particularly wholesale houses, that carry accounts along year in and year out, which really are never closed. Perhaps there is a payment made on drafts, and so on, during the month, but they show at the end of the month that the business is not completed. Yet they are called upon under the new regulation to affix a stamp. Take the case that the minister mentioned. If a firm deliberately adopted the method of sending out statements yearly and not giving any receipt that would be easily distinguishable from the other class, and I submit this to the minister: It is hardly fair to penalize a score of honest, reputable firms because some one firm out of twenty, or perhaps one out of fifty, is seeking to evade the law in the way mentioned. I would rather see some regulation framed so that where it could be shown that they were evading the law they would be penalized rather than make such a sweeping general application. For all .the revenue the government gets out of the receipt tax I would suggest that that tax be abandoned altogether rather than cause this irritation and confusion.

Special War Revenue Act
I feel myself that the case made ;by these very numerous reputable firms-and I have in my room scores of letters on the subject-is one which the government should very carefully consider; and I would ask the minister if it is not still possible to at least drop this rather irritating regulation.


James Alexander Robb: The Minister of Customs and Excise is looking into the question now. I think the officials are trying to arrive at some method whereby a man who is doing business in an honest way will not be penalized.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder if my hon. friend could tell me exactly what that means? It is pretty hard to tell really what it means under this regulation. A receipt in the ordinary sense is an acquittance.


James Alexander Robb: No, it might be a receipt on
k account.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, it is an
acquittance, it is pro tanto an acquittance. When you send a cheque in you get a receipt for your cheque; but on top of it you always have in every single course of business a monthly statement. That is the course followed by practically every wholesaler in the trade. Then, too, if there is a person that gets hit with the stamp tax it is the man that has an account with a broker. That happens all the time.


James Alexander Robb: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend but the statement of the broker is not taxed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why is it not?


James Alexander Robb: I have received a statement
every month and have not noticed any tax on it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Now my hon.
friend is going to try and get that tax. Whenever I get a statement I notice there is an item charged for taxes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of one sort or another.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Of one sort or
another. There is not a statement sent in but there is some charge for taxes.


James Alexander Robb: We are talking of the stamp
tax now.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So am I talking about the stamp tax. A charge is made for
the stamp tax some way or another.


Mr. MARLER:: To what section is my
hon. friend referring.


Henry Lumley Drayton: To the section
that refers to the stamping system. I really submit that we have gone just about far
enough in harassing the public. If we are to understand now that no one can get a statement of his account without paying a tax on that statement simply because there are some credit items in it I think the whole country ought to understand what is really being done. You cannot make a payment without paying a tax on your cheque; and for you to be told that you cannot get a statement of your account from your creditor without having to put more stamps on it, if that statement shows credit items, it does seem to be ridiculous. Yet that is what this section says.


James Alexander Robb: There is no change in the section.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know
but the change comes in in this way. We have had sensible people administering this act at some times, and we have had other people administering the act at other times who I think are very far removed from that condition. We have had rulings that these statements ought not to be taxed, and we have had rulings that they are to be taxed. My hon. friend says it is his intention that the mere statement of account that a man gets from his creditor is to be stamped because there are credit items in it.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend knows better
than anyone in the House that the Department of Finance does not administer the act, although I am not shielding myself behind that statement at all. I have told the House frankly that I made inquiry of the deputy minister of the department administering the act and he explained to me that the reasons for the provision were that some people were evading the tax in the way mentioned. I agree with my hon. friend that if a remittance is made during the month, the person issuing the statement should not be compelled to put a stamp on his statement; but the Credit Men's Association should see to it that the merchants throughout the country, if they are members of their association, deal fairly with the department. The department must be protected in some way. Now if one person evades the law and my hon. friend does business fairly and rightly by issuing his. receipts and putting a stamp tax on them, does he not think it only is fair to him that everybody should be put on the same basis?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think the minister is putting everybody on the same basis. We have bad the illustration of a broker. Take the case of stocks that are held on margin with a broker and the dividend payments that are made by a company on its stock certificates. The debtor, who i3
Special War Revenue Act

carrying that stock, has not paid anything; he it not entitled to any receipt in one sense because he has paid no money. On the other hand the companies have paid their dividend cheques and have paid the stamp tax in every case. Does the minister really seriously say that all these little transactions should be segregated and the receipt stamp put on all of them?


James Alexander Robb: No, what I say is that it has not been brought to my attention that the brokers do put stamps on their monthly statements. It is the first I have heard of it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I know one
thing, and that is that when the business public really get to know how financing is going on in this country, they will transfer their transactions to the other side of the line. I wonder if the regulation is not driving business from Canada.


James Alexander Robb: In correcting evasions of the
law we are bringing business back.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is not correcting it at all. If every time a statement is sent out for the payment of money it must have a stamp attached, simply because there are some credit items in that statement, it is about time we clearly understood the situation. If there is any one way of clearly showing the absurdity of the pyramiding of these little stamp taxes this certainly is the way.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I cannot agree with my
hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) in his attitude with regard to the stamp tax at all. The stamp tax is in essence a tax on a document evidencing a receipt of any description. If there is a receipt in the account, even should that money come from a third person, and it is credited to the person named in the account, why should the person not pay a stamp tax on that receipt, the same as on any other receipt?


Mr STEVENS:: Here we have a wholesaler distributing to a number of small retailers. A retailer comes in in the middle of the month and pays 850 on his account and gets a receipt, which is stamped. At the end of the month the wholesaler sends him a statement showing goods purchased to the value of S200. He has alreadjr paid the tax on the 850 he paid on the 14th of the month, and yet he is required to pay a tax again on the whole amount of his monthly statement, including the $50. The thing is preposterous.


Herbert Meredith Marler: That is not the same
thing.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is what I am talking about.


Herbert Meredith Marler: That is not the point raised by the hon. member for West York.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He raised the same point in connection with a different class of receipt.


Herbert Meredith Marler: No, not quite.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let us stick to my point and see if we cannot win the minister to our view. I think the minister will admit, the government must admit, and every hon. member in the House must admit, that that is a gross injustice to that individual. Why persist in doing that? It is unquestionably a double tax. What will result is this: The wholesalers and others, in sending out their statements, when dealing with private families, where in many cases th'ey carry monthly accounts right along, will cease entering upon the statements the amounts paid, otherwise the stamp will have to be affixed, and while the sum may seem small, yet the accumulation of stamp taxes will amount to a great deal. There is a stamp tax on the cheques, and a stamp tax on the receiot, and a stamp tax on this, that and the other thing. It is multiplying the stamp taxes. That I think is really unreasonable. There may be one case in fifty where the department would lose money. I doubt if the minister or the department could cite in the whole of Canada half a dozen cases. They might possibly find half a dozen or a dozen, but supposing they found1 a hundred, that is nothing compared with the multiplicity of honest individuals who are going to be penalized. I say to the minister therefore that it is better to lose the small amount that is alleged to have been lost than to irritate and penalize the large number of honest dealers. I go a s'ep further still, and say that if it is found impossible to administer the stamp tax in an equitable fashion throughout the country, for the amount of revenue received it would be far better in the interests of harmony and keeping business in something like an equitable and favourable state of mind, to drop the whole thing. I do submit that that regulation should be withdrawn. I want to say to the minister, and through him to the department that administers these various taxes, that undoubtedly they have an irritating job. There is no question about it. The officials must be driven nearly to distraction, but there is always a tendency on the part of the official mind to disregard or overlook the convenience of the public, and to seek, and properly so, to exact the last dollar. That is where the minister ought to step in and j udge fairly between the public andl the

Special War Revenue Act
official honestly seeking to do his duty, it is true, but still perhaps erring a little too much in the matter of exactitude; so that I submit earnestly to the minister-and I hope he will take it up with his colleagues-that he should to-night give us an assurance that he will endeavour to have this regulation withdrawn. It is desirable, it is fair and it is equitable to withdraw it; on the other hand, to enforce it is going to do more injury to honest and reputable firms than the value of the revenue received would warrant.


James Alexander Robb: In the absence of the minister who is administering the act, I cannot agree to have it withdrawn. I will take it up with him once again and see if it cannot be arranged. I am sure the government is desirous of avoiding irritation.


Herbert Meredith Marler: What the hon. member.
(Mr. Stevens) asks for can be done by regulation. He is simply desirous of avoiding paying the double tax. He does not want to attach a stamp to a monthly statement, but does not object to attaching a stamp to the ordinary receipt.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Where the money is paid during the currency of the account, my hon. friend would object to the provision that a stamp should be attached to the statement; but that is a matter which can be arranged by regulation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the matter we are complaining of, and the difficulty is we cannot deal with it in the act because it is in the regulation.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I have just heard a part of the discussion, and I realize from the discussion that a letter I received from a friend who is doing a very large retail business in St. John is not without foundation. I presumed when I got the letter that there must be some extraordinary mistake, because what he complained of was that where a partial payment had been made, possibly by cheque- but that would not matter-he had to give a receipt duly stamped; and that if he sent out an ordinary monthly statement of account afterwards showing the credit that had been received,, he must place a stamp on that. Surely that cannot be the regulation. It must be a misinterpretation of the spirit of the act.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is the regulation.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: If that is 'the regulation,
with all respect to the gentleman who framed it, it seems to me profoundly absurd and unjust, and I trust the minister will find some way to remedy it. As far as any possible
chance of evasion or fraud is concerned, I agree with hon. members who have stated that it must be almost infinitesimal. The minister himself in this very bill is opening to my mind a far greater chance of loss, because while firms such as the one I am speaking of will not resort to it, there are many individuals who will resort to the expedient of issuing a large number of cheques just under the sum of $5, in order to pay an account which amounts to much more than 15. In fact, I cannot understand opening a door such ajs is opened by this act, because it leaves it open to them to evade the tax, not by fraud, but by an absolute compliance with the act, which will militate against the stamp tax revenue which the government has a right to expect. I do not care whether you place the amount at $5, $10, or $25 there will always be an opportunity for evasion, so long as the sum owed is greater than the amount fixed by the act. It is a door which should not be opened. I sympathize with the people who dislike putting a stamp on a three or four dollar cheque, but surely there should be no need to trouble the House with a discussion of this matter at all. This stamp tax has been so long in force in England that it should be decided to adopt the experience of a half century at least or perhaps more. People have practised every trick of evasion, and they have met them where it was necessary to meet them. To follow them I think would be reasonable, but to try to provide for every possible case where there may be some peculiarity of the human mind looking for an evasion only results in intolerable torment and burdensomeness to people who are honestly trying to comply with the law, but do not want to be dealt with unjustly. Ail these matters are unfortunate. The conditions which make the stamp tax necessary are unfortunate. 'Surely we should be able to collect the tax with as little friction as possible, but we should not exact the taxes in such a way that people feel they are paying more than one tax for one transaction. That arouses a feeling of injustice which is not easily quelled. It causes discontent with taxation in general, and I think that our office as legislators ought to be directed to making taxation ias palatable as possible and to create, if we can in the public mind the idea that the people should loyally and if possible cheerfully accept the burdens of taxation. You cannot get that feeling when a man sees that he is discriminated against with absolute, implacable injustice.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 12.05 a.m. (Tuesday).
Chicago Drainage Canal

Tuesday, May 19, 1925