1925-06-11

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
OTTAWA	'

[Stage Direction]
O^IST^lDA.
iitrase of Commons Debates
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 11, 1925

Mr. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: I beg to present the third and final report of the select standing committee on Railways and Shipping, and as it is necessary that a motion be made for the printing of it, I would suggest that the reading of the report be dispensed with at this time. I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret), that the House concur in the recommendation contained in the last paragraph of the said report respecting the printing, as an appendix to the Journals of the House, of the proceedings of and evidence taken by the said committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Chambly and Vercheres):: I move, seconded by the
hon. member for L'lslet (Mr. Fafard), that the select standing committee on Privileges and Elections be given leave to sit while the House is sitting.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: I beg to lay on the table of the
House the interim report by the registrar appointed under the Combines Investigation Act, 1923, of his investigation into an alleged combine operating to limit competition in connection with the marketing of the New Brunswick potato crop.



PRIVATE BILLS FIRST READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 184, from the Senate, respecting The Calgary and Fernie Railway Company.- Mr. Hudson.
Bill No. 185, from the Senate, for the relief of George William Quibell.-Mr. Stewart (Hamilton).

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

Hon. Mr. MANION:: 1.	How much was spent by the Canadian National Railways on the railway yards, round house, buildings and other works in the township of Neebing, just west of Fort William?
2.	When were these works completed?
3.	How long have they been made use of?
i.	Is it true that they are being closed up at the present time?
5.	If so. what are the reasons?
6.	If closed now, when will they put back into operation?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	$1,305,053.
2.	September 16, 1923.
3.	Since September 16, 1923.
4.	Partially.
5.	No grain moving.
6.	With grain movement in the fall.


QUEBEC HARBOUR
Mr. HOEY:: 1.	What number of ocean steamers loaded or discharged passengers or cargo during the month of May last, in Quebec?
2.	What was the average length of stay in port per steamer?


Hon. Mr. GOPP:: 1.	Seventy-two.
2.	Thirty-one hours.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-BROADCASTING
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	What number of persons are employed by the Canadian National Railways in connection with their bioadcasting stations?
2.	How many persons are employed by the Canadian National Railways in connection with the receiving sets operated on trains?
3.	How many trains are equipped with receiving sets?
4.	Between what points do trains equipped with receiving sets operate?
5.	Is the use of such receiving sets limited to passengers travelling by parlor or pullman car?

Questions


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Nine.
2.	Thirty-six operators.
3.	Nine trains, or thirty-seven cars.
4.	Montreal and Vancouver; Toronto and Winnipeg; Halifax and St. John; Montreal and Chicago; Montreal and Quebec.
5.	Yes.
2. The total quantities shipped from the elevators for local consumption were:
Crop Year 1922-23:	Tons
Standard re-cleaned screenings.. .	39J
Elevator soalpings	 30
Elevator screenings	2,062i
Total	2,132


SCREENINGS-HEAD OF THE LAKES
Hon. Mr. MANION:: What was the price of the different grades of screenings at head of lakes in each of the years 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924?
Crop Year 192:3-24:
Standard re-cleaned screenings.. .
Elevator screenings	
Refuse screenings	
Tons
215
Total


Hon. Mr. LOW:: The board has no information available other than the daily published quotations of the Winnipeg market. A prominent shipper of screenings has furnished the following records of the range of prices of actual purchases :
Per ton:
Refuse screenings.. $ 2 50 to $28 00 Standard recleaned
screenings		13 00 to	56 00
1921-		
Refuse screenings.. Standard recleaned	1 00 to	5 00screenings	5 50 to	14 501922-	Refuse screenings.. Standard recleaned	Nil to	7 00screenings	6 00 to	14 001923-	Refuse screenings.. Standard recleaned	3 00 to	8 50screenings	10 00 to	16 501924-	Refuse screenings.. Standard recleaned	50 to	10 50screenings	12.00 to	22 00


Hon. Mr. MANION:: 1.	What was the total amount of screenings from all the elevators at the head of the lakes in the years 1923 and 1924?
2.	How many tons of screenings were sold at head of lakes for local feeding of stock?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1. The total amounts of dockage as set by the chief inspector, on grain unloaded at all elevators at the head of the lakes, after allowing for separations of commercial grain, were:
Crop Year	Tons
1922-	23	
179,5501923-	24..	.. ,	
253,956

The actual quantities used for feed are not shown.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	Is Colonel A. H. Borden, lately Assistant Officer Commanding at Toronto, now in receipt of pay and and allowances from the Militia department?
2.	If not, on what date did he retire?
3.	On what grounds was retirement sanctioned?
4.	What is the amount of his retiring allowance?


Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: Mr. Speaker, this of all questions on the order paper would be about the shortest to answer; I would think also about the easiest, so far as the material is concerned, to obtain. I do not see why that should be made an order for return; it is conspicuously one that should not be.


Lion. Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: Paragraph 3 of the question will involve a long statement. I undertake to bring down the return at once.



EXPENDITURES ON PUBLIC WORKS

Mr. COOTE:: What amount has been expended in each province smce confederation on (a) harbours and rivers; (b) dredging; (c) canals; (d) public buildings; and (e) graving docks and dry docks?



TRAINING CAMPS

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Are any June or other training camps being held for the militia?
2.	If so, where and for what units and length of time?
3.	What will be done this year for artillery units as to training?



STE. FLORENCE STATION-FREIGHT

Mr. PELLETIER:: 1. How many pounds of freight were shipped from Ste. Florence, Metapedia county, during 1922, 1923 and 1924, respectively?

Miners and Steel Workers
2. How much of that freight did the National Railways of Canada receive as their share?
3.	How many pounds of freight from that station were shipped f.o.b. Ste. Florence, and what share thereof did the National Railways receive?
4.	What was the quantity in pounds of freight shipped, and paid on delivery?
5.	How many cars were shipped and received at Ste. Florence in each of said years?
t). What was the revenue from sale of passenger tickets in same period ?



MINERS AND STEEL WORKERS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg):: Mr. Speaker, can the government give us any information with regard to this Canadian Press despatch from Glace Bay:
(jlace Bay, N.S., June 11.-After a pitched battle lasting upwards of fifteen minutes, striking United M.ne Workers of America miners recaptured the New U aterford power house station, shortly after noon to-day, and early this afternoon were in complete charge of the plant. One man, William Davis, was k.iled and another, Gilbert Watson, was shot in the stomach and severely injured. A number of the company's police were injured.
Does not this constitute a state of civil war? And how far .must it go before the government will intervene?


James Murdock: Mr. Speaker, we have telegraphic
advice indicating that the facts are about as stated by my hon. friend. I assume that the provincial government is closely in touch with the situation, and will indicate, as is its right, if the situation is such that it desires any assistance of this government.
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (West Calgary):	Mr. Speaker, I am sure that a number of hon. members are very much worried about the situation in Nova Scotia. I would ask the Minister of Labour ,if he proposes to keep in close touch with the situation so that in the event of the failure of the provincial government to preserve the interests of all concerned, he will then be in a position to take appropriate action?


James Murdock: Mr. Speaker, we have
been keeping in close touch with the situation, but I think we have a right to assume that the provincial government, having direct authority and control and being immediately interested, is entirely competent to deal therewith. I could not suggest to my hon. friend that in certain eventualities we might change our attitude.
264i	;



ROUYN RAILWAY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. A. LAPIERRE (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) to this article in the Globe of Saturday, June 6:
Hon. G. H. Ferguson's announcement that the Dominion government was not disposed to give approval for the Nipissing Central railway extension into Rouyn came as somewhat of a surprise after the supposedly well-informed buying of Noranda shares on Thursday had carried that stock up to a new high record price.
Has the minister any further information on this subject?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways):	Mr. Speaker, the situation, I
think, has been fairly well stated before. The Nipissing Central Railway Company, owned by the Ontario government, asks the federal government to pass an order in council giving them the right to proceed upon crown lands belonging to the province of Quebec, through which they may build a railway. The province of Quebec takes very strong exception to the right of the federal government to pass any such order in council. The government has decided to refer the matter to the Supreme court to decide what are the rights of the respective parties.


Arthur Meighen: Has the government not frequently, and indeed as a matter of course, passed those orders at other times?


Mr. GRAHAM:: Not under similar circumstances. I am told that on one occasion they did pass an order in council allowing the Canadian Pacific to enter upon crown lands. But the province of Quebec takes the stand very strongly that the cases are not similar.


Arthur Meighen: What is the difference?


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: There was no opposition in the
first case. Also, it was many years ago. I associate myself with what my colleague the Minister of Railways has said. The two provinces are taking absolutely opposite position? in the matter. The law authorities of the province of Quebec claim that this government has no right to confer authority on the railway company to take possession of provincial crown lands. On the other hand, the law officers of the province of Ontario claim that not only has this government power to do so, but it has no discretion in the matter, it has no right to withhold consent. In view of these two important provinces taking such different attitudes on a question of law, I
Alleged Power Merger

think the only reasonable course is for us to submit the question to the Supreme Court of Canada for decision.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: W as an opinion taken from the law officers of the crown?


Ernest Lapointe: The law officers followed the advice of the government to submit the question to the Supreme Court of Canada.



RURAL CREDITS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, some few days ago the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) asked the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) when the government proposed to introduce rural credit legislation. The acting minister answered :
I think I will be able to give my hon. friend a reply this week.
It is now Thursday. I would ask the Acting Minister of Finance if he proposes to introduce rural credit legislation to-morrow.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I recall that I said
to my hon. friend from Battle River that I hoped to be able to give him a reply this week. I still hope so. But may I point out to the hon. gentleman that the officer who was particularly interested in this legislation and was working on it for me has been attending the Banking and Commerce committee and other committees, while I have been busy here and have not had time to talk it over with him. I think he has his report rpady.


Edward Joseph Garland: Until today the Banking and Commerce committee has not sat for some time.


James Alexander Robb: Other committees have.



ALLEGED POWER MERGER

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Henry Lumley Drayton: I desire to call the government's attention to a press despatch to the effect that a large holding company is being formed of the power interests on the American side of the line and that their application disclosed the fact that their purpose was to anticipate a treaty with the Canadian government by which the amount of water to be diverted from the Niagara for power use would be doubled, and that success was so far anticipated that they had already purchased land rights from Niagara Falls to Lewiston and had also bought out the

Great Gorge railway route so as to be ready for development of the new overland power route as soon as the proposed treaty was consummated. I would like to ask whether the negotiations have gone to such a point as to justify these large investments; what the situation is, and whether the draft treaty can be given to the House.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The mention my hon.
friend has just made of such a treaty is the first I have ever heard of anything of the kind in contemplation.
COPYRIGHT ACT AMENDMENT On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: I would like to ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Trade and Commerce if it is the intention of the government to bring down, or allow to be brought down, before the conclusion of the present session, the Copyright Bill No. 2, which was before the House last year and which has been unanimously reported on by the select standing committee after the taking of a lot of evidence. This is a matter which is of interest to a large section of the people from one end of the country to the other.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government's intention is to proceed with government measures almost exclusively from now on. We will have to decide in the light of developments what may be possible with private measures.
INQUIRY FOR RETURNS On the Orders of the Day:


Arthur Meighen: There is a long list of
orders which have passed this House, some of them three or four months ago, and which are not yet complied with. So far as those that were moved by hon. members in the party which I lead are concerned, I propose to call them to the attention of the government all at once and thereby avoid several members rising for the purpose. We are close, at all events comparatively, to the end of the session, and from the length of this list it Would appear as if the session is to die without compliance with the orders of the House at all. I hope that is not the case.
One was passed on February 23 on the motion of the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark), regarding the number of acres of land belonging to the Dominion transferred to Ontario and on what date the transfers

Inquiry for Returns
were made; the consideration paid; the cost to Canada of administering and developing said lands prior to transfer, and so forth. It is an order which it would take some time to prepare, but not the time that has already lapsed.
Another was passed on March 2, asking for the amount of duty paid by American railway companies on American rolling stock used in Canada in the past twenty-six years; the names of such companies, the character of the rolling stock, and amounts; moved by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton).
Another, on the same date, was moved by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross), for the report of the investigation by David Campbell, K.C., concerning coal supplies; another moved by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) on the same date, was for a return showing the payment for services of David Campbell and D. R. MacLean during such inquiry; another, moved on March 4 by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross), with regard to the cost of the investigation held by David Campbell into such coal matters affecting military district No. 10; another moved on the same date by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) asked for a statement of the cost of the coal inquiry at Tuxedo Barracks, Winnipeg; the amount the commissioners received, and whether the government received objection to the amount paid from Winnipeg or elsewhere.
Another moved on March 9, by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black), for the correspondence respecting exemption from payment of income taxes on payments or remuneration, whether paid as salary, living allowance or otherwise, by the government of Canada to officials of the Yukon.
Another moved on the 9th of March by the hon. member for West Algoma (Mr. Simpson) with respect to the number of motor cars purchased by the government since January 1, 1912.
Another moved on the 11th of March by the hon. member for Kent, N.B. (Mr. Doucet), as to the tenure of office and names of officers commanding the military districts of Halifax. St. John, Toronto, and other military districts; another moved by the same hon. member. on the same day, for the name, rank, position and pension of each officer on the staff at headquarters at Ottawa, and so on.
Another moved on March 16 by the hon. member for Kent, N.B. (Mr. Doucet), for the correspondence between the Department of Marine and others regarding services rendered
in saving lives by Tiburce Mallet of Ste. Marie, Shippigan Islands, N.B.
Another by the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Grimmer) for a return for the months of May and June, 1924, showing invoiced value of importations into Canada of canning machinery leased by the Customs department.
Another moved on March 30, by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), for a copy of correspondence between the Department of National Defence or the Department of Justice and the Canadian Coal Sales Company, Limited.
Another moved on March 30, by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs), for a copy of all letters, telegrams, papers and other documents between the government of Canada and the mine workers of Cape Breton.
Another moved on April 22, by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), with respect to the to.tal amount spent by the present government since coming into office for public printing, aside from that done by the Printing Bureau, and other data.
Another moved on April 22, by the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. Black), for a copy of all correspondence, reports, documents, and so forth, passing between the Department of Justice and any other departments of the government, or ministers, or any other parties whatsoever, within the past six months, relating to the appointment of Inspector of Penitentiaries and the refusal to accept for such appointment Col. Eric W. MacDonald, of Halifax.
Another on the same day, by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), for a copy of all correspondence and documents passed between the governments of Roumania and Greece and the government of Canada, or the High Commissioner, regarding the adjustment of outstanding debts of these countries to Canada.
Another by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie), on April 27, for a return showing the number of civil servants eligible to come under the provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Aot, 1924-just the number.
Another on April 27, by the hon. member for Kent, N.B. (Mr. Doucet), for a copy of all correspondence and other documents in relation to the appointment of the new postmaster at St. Ignace.
Another on May 6, by the same hon. member-I am only going to give those whicti were passed up to a month ago; I shall not proceed on the assumption that any passed since are grossly in arrears

for all
Income War Tax Act

correspondence, statements of investigation, court (proceedings, reports, and so forth, in possession of the Departments of Customs and Justice regarding the alleged violation of law in respect to intoxicating liquors in or upon any bonded warehouse at Halifax.
Another by the hon. member for York-Sumbury (Mr. Hanson), May 6, for correspondence from the Department of Public Works with respect to the wharf at Matane.
Another by the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion), for a copy of all reports and memoranda with respect to Wrangel island, passed on May 11.
Another on the same day by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), for an order showing statement made out by Messrs. Wilson & Wilson as auditors covering the operation of No. 1 elevator-I understand that came down to-day.
Another by the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. Black), with respect to federal money expended by the National or Quebec Battlefields Commission in Quebec and how much in the Maritime provinces.
Another on May 11, by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), respecting the number of grain elevators owned or operated by the Dominion government, by the Harbour Commissioners or by the Canadian National Railway, or sublet from any of the above.
This is a rather formidable list, and it applies only to those moved from this side of the House up to a month ago. I would like some statement as to the cause of so many of them being so far back, and when we may expect them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The list read by my right hon. friend is a somewhat lengthy one, but it does not compare with the list of returns that have already been brought down. If there has been delay, it is due to the fact that the number of returns asked for this session has been exceedingly large, and some of them have been very heavy. Only to-day the members of the government were discussing this very matter with a view to expediting the bringing down of returns, and the different departments have been asked to make a special effort to have the orders filled as rapidly as possible.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: Will the government

state to-day whether they have any more legislation intended to be introduced this session, and if so what?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think everything that
is of any importance is on the order paper There is one little measure that the Acting Minister of Finance spoke of to-day with respect to the Battlefields Commission, also one with respect to the Audit Act, very small amendments, I think. Apart from that, I think the legislation is all down at the present time.


Arthur Meighen: I am sure that will be
interesting news to the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland).
Mr. GAR/LAND (Bow River): What about rural credits?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I omitted to
say that it is the intention of the government to bring down a measure on rural credits.


Ernest Lapointe: I may also have a bill relating to a
home for girls in the Maritime provinces, but it will not be controversial.



ANTI-DUMPING-REFUNDS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. L. STANSELL (East Elgin):: I
notice in a recent issue of the Canadian Countryman the report of an address delivered by Mr. L. E. Taylor, Secretary of the British Columbia Tomato Growers' Association, to members of the Ontario Vegetable Growers' Association, in which he states in regard to the dumping of fruits and vegetables, that where fines have been imposed in the usual course, the government has remitted these fines in full. 1 should like to know if that is the general practice followed in regard to dumping, or is it applied only in the case of products of the farm? His statement is that the fines have been remitted in full in every case of dumping of fruits and vegetables from the United States.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN:: The answer to
the question is, no.



INCOME WAR TAX ACT, 1917. REPEAL OF SECTION 25 CONSTITUTING LIEN UPON ASSETS OF TAX PAYER

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of Bill No. 183, to amend the Income War Tax Act, 1917.
Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant):: Before this bill is read a third time, I think I should make a statement. When the bill was up for its

Bankruptcy Act
second reading, I suggested that in view of the fact that the committee on Public Accounts might have under consideration certain other amendments to the Income War Tax Act, it might be advisable to leave the bill over until those other possible amendments could be incorporated with the present bill. Since then I have had some conversation with the Acting Minister of Finance, and I understand that he is quite willing that any recommendations coming from the committee, when it is empowered to consider the matter, will be given sympathetic consideration by the government.
I have already given notice of a motion to authorize the committee to consider amendments to the act, but I should like before the third reading of this bill is gone on with to have some assurance from the minister that the motion of which I have given notice will not be opposed by the government, and that the government is prepared to consider sympathetically any suggestions that may come from the committee. I have no opposition to the present bill so far as it goes, and my only reason for asking for delay is that there may be other amendments which we might wish to incorporate in this bill. I would like to have a statement from the Acting Minister of Finance on that.


James Alexander Robb: It is quite true, as the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) says, that he came to me and discussed this matter, and I think I convinced him that it was important that this legislation at least should go through. I would not like to commit myself to saying that the government will support any recommendation that is brought in. My recollection is that I said to my hon. friend that it seemed to me a request for an extension of the reference to the committee on Public Accounts should come from the committee itself, and not from individual members of the committee, and I assured him that I would be prepared to consider that when it was submitted in that way through the chairman of the Public Accounts committee.


William Charles Good: The chairman of the committee is here. I understood the motion of which notice was given in the House yesterday, was agreed to by the chairman.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BANKRUPTCY ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 146, to amend the Bankruptcy Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Marcil in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. CAMPBELL:: No copies of this bill
have been distributed.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh yes. They have
been on the files for two weeks.


Mr. STEVENS:: It is a Senate bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Interpretation.
William Charles Good: There has been some little difficulty in locating this bill, Mr. Chairman. I would ask the Minister of Justice, who is in charge of the bill, whether this is the amendment that was recommended by the Banking and Commerce committee at the close of last session.


Ernest Lapointe: Not this section.


William Charles Good: What section are we on? I cannot hear the chairman.


The CHAIRMAN:: I have just read section 2.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Appointment of interim receiver.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON - I think we should have an explanation of this section, it seems to be unnecessary.
Ernest Lapointe: This is to prevent a
conflict which has happened on some occasions. When an authorized assignment is made, the official receiver appoints a custodian. Now, nothing prevents a creditor from presenting a petition afterwards to declare the debtor bankrupt, and then under section 5 of the act an interim receiver may be appointed. A contest then develops between the interim receiver and the custodian. Their du ies are the same, and there is no necessity or even justification, for appointing an interim receiver when a custodian has been already appointed by the official receiver. This is suggested by Mr. Justice Panneton, a judge in bankruptcy in Montreal, and many others.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I entirely agree with what my hon. friend says. It is the height of ridiculousness to- have two officials, and to have duplication and two sets of costs. Suppose the section -were to read thus?-
The court may, if it be shown to be necessary for the protection of the estate. . . . appoint an interim receiver.
Bankruptcy Act

As my hen. friend poin'.s out we are now saying that this is not to be done if there is a custodian there already If (here is a custodian there it never could be shown to be necessary This provision seems to me to be flying in the face of common sense. It does seem to me that the House is called upon to say there are some judges so stupid that notwith-s anding the fact there is already a court officer appointed for the purpose of looking after the estate they may appoint another one although they have no jurisdiction to make any appointment whatever except in case of necessity. If my hon. friend, as Minister of Justice and the shepherd of the administration of justice in this country, says that such a thing is necessary for our courts why there is an end to it, but it seems to be ridiculous.


Ernest Lapointe: It appears that if not
necessary it is expedient to have it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, I am sorry to know that there is necessity for such expedient.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Administration of insolvent farmers' estates by provincial government officer.
George Gibson Coote: Before the section carries
I should like to ask the minister if he would not make some change in subsection (3) of this section which reads:
In case any such provincial officer is appointed custodian and trustee, he shall not be entitled under thi3 act to be paid any remuneration as custodian or trustee nor any of the costs enumerated as costs of custodian in part 3 of the general rules.
As I understand the subsection the provincial officer who becomes trustee under this net will not be allowed to collect any fees whatever for the work he may have in connection with the administration of that estate. It seems to me that would be putting quite a burden upon the provincial government. We -all know that -the provincial governments in western Canada are hard up. I think however, they would not object to paying a custodian's expenses in such cases, for instance, as those where the estates were not sufficient to cover these costs; but surely they should be entitled to a fee which would cover their office expenses in connection with these estates Which they do administer. I do not think there would be any desire on the part of the provincial government to make any money out of this scheme; but I think there should be provision made here to entitle them to such fees as were necessary 
to pay for the expenses they must incur in the administration of these estates. I should like to ask tihe minister if he would not make some amendment which would permit that.


Ernest Lapointe: The justification for this amendment is that it is intended to reach a special case where the farmers referred to in the section have not sufficient property to warrant the administration of their estate in the usual way. The argument advanced was -that it would not cost anything and that the provincial officer would be paid by the province. The section has been accepted with that understanding. It is exactly what was recommended by the committee on Banking and Commerce last year. It is also what was suggested by the Canadian Council of Agriculture, and, I think, by my hon. friend himself last year.


George Gibson Coote: I have been in consultation
with the Attorney General for the province of Allberta regarding this act, and I think he is very pleased with the amendments that are being brought down, with -the exception of this one. The reason that many farmers could not take advantage of the Bankruptcy Act was, that when they went to the trustee they were required by him -to place in his hands, as a deposit to guarantee his expenses, possibly $100 and in some cases $150. This amendment would obviate that difficulty. The provincial officer who acts as trustee under the act would now receive that man's application (for bankruptcy without requiring any deposit; but after he has administered the man's affairs, and in some cases incurred considerable office expenses, why should the provincial government be required to pay the whole of that and not collect any fees? That is the only change I should like to see in this section.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think there
would be any justification for compelling the appointment of that -provincial officer if he is not to charge fees as any other trustee would.


George Gibson Coote: There is no compulsion, is
there, under this legislation?


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, yes. It is provided that:
-the official receiver shall, in the case of any assignment by a person engaged sol.ely in farming or the tillage of the soil, appoint such officer as custodian.
Of course, if he is not doing his work properly, under another section of the act the creditors may replace him in the ordinary way, or the court may replace him; but from the start the official receiver has no option -he must pay that provincial officer.

Bankruptcy Act


Edward Joseph Garland: In this particular case I am, for at least once, in hearty accord with the minister. I tihink it would be dangerous at least to do as suggested, although I do not argue that it would be followed necessarily by any unfair practices. I should be glad to see this legislation stand as it is now. I do not want to put in the hands of any provincial government, whether a Farmer government or any other kind of government, the power to make an assignment in order to pay the custodian in cases of the extreme kind for which this legislation is proposed.


Milton Neil Campbell: I find myself thoroughly in agreement with the minister in this case. In Saskatchewan we have an adjustment bureau which is already handling many cases of this kind, and I think the authorities have already intimated that they would handle these cases without cost. I see no particular trouble in Saskatchewan.


Mr. McTAGGART:: My understanding is
along this line: That the chief difficulty today in the way of the farmers being able to take advantage of the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act is caused by the fact that their assets must represent fifty per cent of their liabilities; and if their assets do not represent fifty per cent of the liabilities they will not, under the law as it stands to-day, be granted a clearance by the court. Is that right?


Ernest Lapointe: The judge has a certain discretion in the matter. Ordinarily the farmer would have to wait two years to get his discharge, if his assets were not fifty per cent of his liabilities, but the judge might shorten that period.


Neil Haman McTaggart: Is it not the fact that the assets must represent at least fifty per cent of the liabilities before he will be granted a discharge?


Ernest Lapointe: He cannot be granted a discharge immediately unless the assets are fifty per cent of the liabilities; the law provides that he will have to wait two years for his discharge, but if that is the only reason why the discharge cannot be granted immediately, the judge has a discretion in the matter, and may shorten the time.


Neil Haman McTaggart: At the expiration of two years may the judge grant the discharge?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Neil Haman McTaggart: I am glad to hear the minister say that, but there are not many farmers in western Canada whose assets
would amount to fifty per cent of their liabilities. For that reason, if the provisions of the law were to remain as they are, they would not be of very much use to the farmer who desired to take advantage of it.


George Gibson Coote: I cannot oppose this measure, but I think the minister is wrong in contending that the provincial government should bear the expense of putting all these farmers through bankruptcy. I argued this case with my hon. friend's predecessor in office some time ago, when I wished him to appoint an official receiver who would receive assignments from the bankrupt farmer who could not afford to put up the deposit required, and the then Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) said:
I cannot agree with you that it is a right principle that the government should pay for putting people through bankruptcy.
That is what he is compelling the provincial. government to do through this act. If the man has some estate, and goes to this officer and has him act as his trustee in bankruptcy, why should that officer not be entitled to some fee to cover the out-of-pocket expenses in administering the estate of this man? In some cases there is considerable expense and under the act the provincial government has to pay all the 4 p.m. expenses which may be incurred in connection with the case. I think that the man's estate, if it is worth anything, should pay the expenses, and I cannot see that there is any need to place it all on the provincial government. I am sure the provincial government will accept it, if that is the best they can get, to help out the bankrupt farmer, but it is putting an unfair burden on the government.


Ernest Lapointe: I am aifraid I will have to give up any hope of ever having my hon. friend agree with me on anything. I thought I had struck a policy in this case on which my hon. friend would be compelled to side with me, because he has taken a large part in discussing these matters. He knows that last year I was very strong in my acceptance of his suggestion. I have accepted it, and I came here this afternoon absolutely certain that I would have his commendation.


George Gibson Coote: I would like to give my
commendation to the minister. I want to congratulate him for bringing down this act. I simply thought that this act was not quite perfect, and I wished to draw his attention to it. I want the act to go through, but I feel that the provincial government is going to have to pay a little more than their share.
Bankruptcy Act


Milton Neil Campbell: Is not the Alberta government already handling the estate through the Debt Adjustment Bureau?


George Gibson Coote: They are handling cases in the Debt Adjustment Bureau, but I do not know who pays the expenses.


Mr. SHAW:: My hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Coote) was associated with me when we prepared for the committee the necessary legislation, which was subsequently approved by the Banking and Commerce committee, and our purpose was to prevent the loading of costs upon the unfortunate individual who required to come under the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act. At that time I understood that the Attorney General of Alberta was not unwilling to assume whatever obligation there might be in taking care of those cases where the farmers were in a difficult and precarious position. I think the minister's legislation is entirely in order, and I would hate to see him withdraw it now that he has brought it in.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
On section 7-Dealings with undischarged bankrupt.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What does this really mean?


Ernest Lapointe: This provision really
should have been made in 1923. It simply adds the words " or authorized assignor " after the word " bankrupt ", The man who has assigned to the official receiver 'is not in the same position as the man against whom a receiving order has been made.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 8 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
On section 11-Power to Minister of Justice to authorize certain judges to exercise powers of the court, etc.
Ernest Lapointe: This section has been
strongly recommended by many members of the House including my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Boys). The opinion is that in certain districts the county court judge should be authorized to act, and we are taking the power to appoint county court judges when advisable.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is a good
thing in the first instance to have as far as possible a central clearing house for insolvency matters until such time as the practice is settled, because it would hardly be advisable to have one bankrupt treated in one way

and some other bankrupt .treated differently. But once the practice has become well established, it seems to me that we could save money by decentralizing the procedure. And I should think that under the act as it now stands the jurisprudence ought to be pretty *well understood. I can see the value of the amendment. But how will it work out? Surely the minister will not have to be asked, each time there is an assignment in bankruptcy in any particular county, for leave to take the matter to the county court judge? Should it not be provided by general regulations to leave it to the parties concerned to take their petitions to the county court judge or to the central judge, in Toronto for example? It would hardly be conducive to the quick despatch of business if nothing could be done without a special application on every occasion.


Ernest Lapointe: As my hon. friend knows, the officer in the department who is specially charged with the duty of administering the act receives every week returns from all districts, and I think we have in the department sufficient information to justify us in appointing county court judges in>
particular cases.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The question is one of appointing some judge in a district where this is thought necessary. It does not mean an application in every instance?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Mr. MORIN:: Under this section will the
judges of the Superior court in any district in the province of Quebec be eligible?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 12-Who may practise as barristers, etc., in bankruptcy courts.
Mr. RYCKMAN:: By this section we are
repealing section 87 of the act. What is the reason?


Ernest Lapointe: Under section 87 of the
act barristers of one province could plead in another province in bankruptcy proceedings. This section was enacted in anticipation of the establishment of new federal courts of bankruptcy, but, instead of that, parliament has conferred jurisdiction upon the provincial courts. This being the case, parliament has no authority to enable barristers in one province to practise in another; that would be ultra vires of our powers.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

Fruit Act
On section 13-Penalty for acting as trustee without bond.
Ernest Lapointe: This is merely to make
a clerical change.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.
On the preamble.
Edward Joseph Garland: Will the
minister give us some assurance that the act will come into force fairly soon? The sooner this is done the more effective it will be.


Ernest Lapointe: There are certain rules
under the act which it will be necessary to alter in conformity with the present amendments. I can promise my hon. friend that as soon as the changes are made the proclamation will issue.


Edward Joseph Garland: I trust the
minister will expedite those changes.


Ernest Lapointe: Certainly.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



FRUIT ACT AMENDMENT BILL SENATE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (for Hon. W. R. Motherwell, Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of and concurrence in the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 117, to amend the Fruit Act.
Mr. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this amendment entirely. My main reason is that there is no such body as the Horticultural Council of Canada, and I suggest that it is not reasonable to insert a wrong description. There is a body whose name is the Canadian Horticultural Council. I am further opposed to the amendment because it cuts right across the main object of the section, which was to facilitate the creation of grades which are not included in the Fruit Act. To refer this matter to a body such as the Canadian Horticultural Council may result in wery considerable delay, as that council is composed of the representatives of the fruit and vegetable interests all over Canada and it is only at the annual meeting that matters such as this are considered. This very matter has been discussed at considerable length in the conventions of the fruit growers' associations in
different parts of the Dominion; it has also been discussed at the annual meeting of the Canadian Horticultural Council. Matters such as this are frequently discussed between the fruit interests of America and of Canada. The fruit growers are perfectly satisfied with the clause as originally drawn, and I do not think it would be in their interests that the Horticultural Council of Canada should be brought into consultation, even if the name was correct. But my main reason for opposing the amendment is that it would be inserting in the bill reference to a body which does not exist.


William Charles Good: Mr. Speaker,
we have no copy of the amendment made by the Senate.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The amendment will be
found in the Votes and Proceedings of yesterday. The amendment is to subsection 3 (a) of section 2:
The minister,-
and here is the amendment made by the Senate:
-"after consultation with the Horticultural Council of Canada and" with the approval of the Governor in Council,-
And so on. There is no other amendment.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, after the remarks of my hon. friend from Yale (Mr. Stirling) I think the minister (Mr. Graham) might allow this motion to stand over for the time being. If there is no such body as the Horticultural Council of Canada, it would seem a rather extraordinary amendment. Surely there must be some misunderstanding.


William Charles Good: I see the only change is the
insertion of the "Horticultural Council of Canada," vdiich is claimed to be the wrong title. It seems to me that if it is merely a clerical error it might be remedied if the motion is allowed to stand for a short time.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) seemed to think that the amendment would not do any serious harm. I think there is a good deal to be said in favour of my hon. friend's contention, and if the Minister of Agriculture were here himself I would suggest rejecting the amendment. But under the circumstances I think it is better to withdraw the motion until the minister himself is present.
Motion withdrawn.
Supply-Finance



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ACT AMENDMENT BILL


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of and concurrence in the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 151 to amend the Northwest Territories Act.
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Department of Finance-charges of management- offices of the Assistant Receivers General-salaries, $118,000; contingencies, $15,000.
Mr. HANSON:: How many Assistant
Receivers General are there, and where are they located?


James Alexander Robb: There are offices in Toronto, St.
John, Winnipeg, Halifax, Victoria, Regina, Calgary, Charlottetown, P.E.I.; and in Mont-treal the City and District Savings Bank acts as assistant receiver general.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: What is the average
salary?


James Alexander Robb: Toronto, 83,540; Winnipeg,
$3,540; Halifax, $2,610; St. John, $3,060; Victoria, $3,060; Regina, $2,610-


Edmond Baird Ryckman: That is sufficient.


Mr. SPENCER:: WThy is there this difference in the salaries? Is it because of length of service?


James Alexander Robb: I imagine so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Printing Dominion notes, $450,000.
Edward Joseph Garland: I notice
that under this item there has been a reduction, which is probably something to be approved of. Is this reduction possible because of lesser cost of printing?	'


James Alexander Robb: The reduction of $15,000 is
due to the lower contract rate.


Edward Joseph Garland: WThat was
the number of notes printed under this vote in 1924 and in 1923?


James Alexander Robb: I do not know that I can give that, but I can give the estimated number of sheets required: of one-dollar notes, 5,000,000; of two-dollar notes, 875,000; of five-dollar notes, 100.000; of fractionals, 67,000.
	j


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this work done by
tender?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: From whom are tenders
asked?


James Alexander Robb: The printing is done now by
the Canadian Bank Note Company. In April, 1924, tenders were invited for the five-year period from October 1, 1925. Tenders were received from the Canadian Bank Note Company, Limited, the Dominion Bank Note Company, and the British American Bank Note Company. The first two tendered for the whole work; their tenders were approximately the same. The tender from the British American Bank Note Company covered postal supplies'only. The prices quoted were not considered satisfactory by the department and the tenders were refused. After negotiations with the present contractor, the Canadian Bank Note Company, an agreement was entered into providing for a decrease of five per cent from the prices stipulated in the previous contract. This agreement covers five years from April 1, 1925 and gives the government the benefit of a five per cent decrease for the 'last six months of the old contract, representing a saving of approximately $25,000. Compared with the old contract, the saving effected over the period covering the five years is approximately $250,000.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is it the intention of the
government to continue the printing of fractional notes-those for sums less than a dollar?


James Alexander Robb: Yes. They are pretty nearly
out of circulation, but they are useful in making remittances and that sort of thing.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: In view of the large profits accruing to the companies printing government notes, has the department ever considered the advantages that might come from having this printing done by the government itself?


James Alexander Robb: I am not sure that they are
making a very great profit. They showed us their books, and the profits are not so very large. The work of this company is very satisfactory indeed. I visited the establishment of a concern in London, England, who are large printers and engravers of currencies, and I reached the conclusion that our plant here in Canada was rather superior to what they have overseas. These people in Canada, and through their connections in the United States, print for many of the countries of the world.

Supply

Finance


Archibald M. Carmichael: That does not answer the point I raised, whether the department would think it advisable to do their own printing and engraving.


James Alexander Robb: No, I should say from my
short experience in the department that we are getting the work done just as cheaply as it could be done by the government itself. I am not sure it is not being done cheaper.


Robert James Manion: Some time ago I heard it stated that large supplies of excise stamps, for instance, were printed a great deal in advance of requirements. Is there any truth in that?


James Alexander Robb: We carry, I think, a sixmonths' supply, but I should not think the department would be authorized to go beyond at least a year's requirements.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Is it the
intention to substitute the new nickel completely in place of the old five cent piece? The new nickel is of such a size that it may become mixed up with the twenty-five cent piece. We have too much small coin. We have the old five cent piece, the new nickel, the ten cent piece and the twenty-five cent piece. There is a greater difference between the old five cent piece and the twenty-five cent piece than there is between the new nickel and the twenty-five cent piece.


James Alexander Robb: This is a matter that comes under the Mint. I have heard some objection to the new coin. I will look into the matter after the session, when I get time.


William Charles Good: There will be an opportunity
to discuss the question of coinage on another estimate?


George Newcombe Gordon: Yes, on the estimates
for the Mint.


Henry Elvins Spencer: With regard to the quantities of notes kept ready for the government by the printers, I think the government is very wise to have a supply on hand. I suppose there are government officials in the printing department who check up the various amounts of notes that are printed and in stock?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, we have a very complete method of control. From the evidence reported in the press as having been given yesterday before the Public Accounts committee by the Auditor General, there might be an impression that there is not a complete audit in the system, but there is a very thorough audit within the Finance Department. In order that hon. members may have it before them, I think I had better put on record a complete statement of the methods employed
in this connection. The statement is as follows:
Treasury board minutes passed in 1881 and 1910, authorized a certain procedure in connection with the management of Dominion currency and the audit thereof by the Auditor General. Naturally the growth of business in the interval has rendered obsolete many of the provisions of these orders, and as a consequence, a revised departmental procedure and system of verification and check as between the various branches at Ottawa and the offices of the Assistant Receivers General throughout the country came into effect. A complete control is maintained and an internal audit is made by an experienced staff.
I may say here that we audit up every night before the staff leaves. If hon. gentlemen would care to go through the department and observe personally the system that is followed, I should be glad to have someone take them through-though not all at once; we would not like to take more than four or five at a time. The members of the staff are all locked inside there and no one is allowed to leave until a complete balance is made at the end of the day. The statement continues:
The present system was approved of by Messrs. Edwards Morgan and Company, chartered accountants of Toronto, in connection with the audit and supervision of departmental practice which they conducted in 1921 and 1922.
The Treasury board in January 1925, passed a minute, copy attached, outlining in detail the procedure at present followed by the Department of Finance. The following is quoted therefrom:-
"The board are of the opinion that the procedure outlined above is well designed for the protection of the currency and direct that the said procedure be recognized as the one to be followed in the management of the Dominion Currency.
"It appears to the board that down to the point where worn or mutilated notes are received by the department to be destroyed, no further check is required than that provided for as above described, but that before the said worn or mutilated notes are destroyed they should be examined by the Auditor General as prescribed by section 17 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act."
The Auditor General has not made an audit of the note reserves held at Ottawa since some years prior to the commencement of the war, nor has he made any requests to do so. From 1910 to 1913, the Auditor General's department sent officials to our outside offices, at which stores of notes and gold are kept. Men inexperienced in handling securities, unfamiliar with vault combinations, and incapable of assuming the full control necessary to make an effective audit were sent on these inspection trips. The inspection was valueless, and the result was to create a bad impression on the stafl of our offices. During the war the audit of outside offices by the Auditor General was discontinued, and no requests had since been made by him for facilities from the Department of Finance in that connection. It is apparent, therefore, that the only audit of currency which the Auditor General has been conducting is that of redeemed notes for destruction, as called for by the Audit Act. This audit has been a casual one-
I would ask the hon. gentleman to observe this:
This audit has been a casual one, so casual that under it a trusted official of the Department of Finance, using it as a cover, was able to manipulate notes in course of
Supply-Finance

destruction, so as to steal some thousands of dollars, for which offence a term of imprisonment was imposed.
After this occurrence, the Auditor General's department still carried on the same casual audit, and after being appealed to on more than one occasion by officials of the Department of Finance to put in a thorough audit, is still following the same procedure to-day.
I would like hon. gentlemen to observe that I am not now referring to the present Auditor General.


Edward Joseph Garland: In what
year did this imprisonment take place?


James Alexander Robb: I think it was between 1919 and 1921. And another man, I think, took his own life.


Edward Joseph Garland: Was this
in connection with war bond coupons?


James Alexander Robb: It was in 1922, I am informed. The memorandum continues:
Without the efficient audit which our own officials maintain, it would still be possible for officials of the department, by collusion, to obtain a certificate of destruction from the Auditor General's representatives covering notes which have not actually been destroyed. This is the condition which the department has appealed to the Auditor General to rectify, without result.	.
Under the test audit as now conducted by the Auditor General's staff of millions of $1, $2 and $5 notes withdrawn from circulation, the amount of notes counted is only one-half of 1 per cent of the total notes destroyed; the balance are left in sealed packages and taken as correct and destroyed.
Hon. gentlemen will note that the amount of notes counted is only one-half of one per cent of the total notes destroyed; the balance being left in sealed packages and taken as correct, and destroyed. I would observe that that is evidence that the Auditor General's department have taken our audit, and our audit is, we claim, pretty correct.
Now I will give an instance of the conditions that make the men who are responsible for the Department of Finance very chary as to who is allowed to go through these locked gates and into these vaults, and I think this will appeal to hon. gentlemen.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You do not let members
of parliament in?


James Alexander Robb: Not without a permit. I will now give the instance:
Further, this audit is conducted by a junior clerical staff of the Auditor General's department, inexperienced in currency work. Recently, a junior clerk employed in the transfer of securities and notes from one branch of the department to another, was released from our employ on account of unsatisfactory services. In the course of a few weeks, this man appeared in the Currency branch, as representing the Auditor General, for the purpose of examining and passing on notes prepared for destruction. He was without experience and qualifications to assume such responsibility.

I am not saying that this was done at the instance of the Auditor General, the Civil Service Commission may have sent this man to the department; but I say that this man had been dismissed from the Department of Finance for incompetency, and he was sent in to conduct an audit.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You did not have to take
him.


James Alexander Robb: We did not take him. To
continue:
As a further evidence of the incompletenes of the audit of the Department of Finance carried on by the Auditor General's department, it might be mentioned that to date there has been no audit by that office of expenditures relating to the payment of interest on Dominion bonds, which amounts to about $125,000,000 a year.
In view of the impression which some people appear to have gathered from the press reports of the evidence taken before the Public Accounts committee, I would be very glad indeed if the Public Accounts committee could have a meeting and call in as a witness the Comptroller of the Currency, who has charge of that branch. I am sure he will satisfy hon. gentlemen that there is a very complete audit, one system balancing against the other, and all checked. As I said before, no person is allowed to go out, not even a junior clerk, until everything is balanced at night.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In justice to the officials
in his own department, why does not the minister himself ask the Public Accounts .committee to take this up?


James Alexander Robb: I am asking them now. I
think I should go a little further. I have read a part of the evidence-I did not have time to read it all-and I gathered from the evidence that the Auditor General made it pretty clear that in his judgment there was a satisfactory control, and that the audit was good, but apparently some of the press have allowed another idea to go out, and a reading of the evidence does not justify the viewpoint as I gather it from the press despatches. The Auditor General, I may say, has only been in office now not much more than a year, and I think he is making every effort to complete his staff and surround himself with good and competent officials. I do think that in the Department of Finance and in the Department of the Auditor General the deputy ministers should) have considerably more to say than the Civil Service Commission in the selection of the men who go in to audit and look after the finances of Canada. -

Supply

Finance


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister in his statement, which I congratulate him upon as being very frank so far as it went, made some reference to the bond coupon defalcations. May I ask the amount, and whether any or all of it was refunded?


James Alexander Robb: It was Dominion notes. I
am told. I have not got the amount here. It happened before I came into the department.


Edward Joseph Garland: Certainly
the department should have that information.


James Alexander Robb: I think that information will
be available in the department, but I have not got it here.


Edward Joseph Garland: I wonder
if the minister would know whether any part of it was refunded, or whether it all vanished.


James Alexander Robb: I understand there was a
certain amount of it recovered.


Edward Joseph Garland: But not
all of it?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: Were those coupons audited by the Finance department only?


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friend had been
following me, he would have observed that they were audited by the Auditor General's department.
Mr, GARLAND (Bow River):	I thought
it was Dominion notes the minister was speaking of then. Were the bond coupons also audited by the Auditor General's department?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


William Charles Good: I was in the committee, and I may say that the Auditor General stated very frankly that the internal audit in the department was in a sense very effective. But I submit to the minister that we should not be satisfied with any kind of an internal audit. I think if the Auditor General is to do effective work in any of the departments he ought to be allowed to go in and make such examination as he thinks fit, no matter how effective he may consider the audit to be. Now, he submitted yesterday, in another connection, that he was not quite sure that he had power to go in and make an examination in one of the other departments.


James Alexander Robb: That is in the Income Tax branch?


William Charles Good: Yes. I do not wish to enter into that matter now, but I should like to submit to the minister that in connection with the Finance department, the Dominion notes, and so on, it would be some satisfaction if the Auditor General make a systematic audit, even if it be simply a test audit, of the work being carried out in the department. In that way the country will be given some assurance that we are not depending wholly on an internal audit. One other point: Did I understand the minister rightly to state that in this contract for the printing of Dominion notes stamps were included? If so, what stamps-postage as well as excise stamps?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, but the postage and excise stamps are not in this vote. This just covers the printing of the Dominion notes.


Edward Joseph Garland: Are letter of credit cheques issued by the department?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, but not by all the departments. Since my hon. friend has brought that matter up I may say that I purpose, if I get time before the close of the session, to bring in a new act, slightly different from the other, in connection with the Board of Audit Act, which expires July 1 this year. I purpose asking the members of that board to go very carefully into the matter with a view to changing the system of handling the finances of the country. I think we should have a pretty complete control not only over the expenditure but over the revenues. I should like to say, in answer to my hon. friend the member for Brant (Mr. Good), that there is at present a test audit made as I pointed out in the statement I made a few minutes ago. The Department of Finance welcomes a test audit, but if my hon. friend himself were in charge of the department and responsible for its administration he would rather resent the Auditor General sending in a man that he himself had dismissed for incompetency.


William Charles Good: Quite so.


Henry Elvins Spencer: As regards the printing
of notes, I surmise that the printing of the smaller notes-one-, two- and five-dollar notes-would cost the same as the larger notes, the $100 notes or even the legals?
Supply-Finance


James Alexander Robb: I have the figures right here.
They are as follows:	Old	New
	Contract	Contract
Fractional (25 cents) notes per thousand sheets	$66	$62 70$1 notes per thousand sheets.. ..	62	58 9012 notes per thousand sheets.. ..	62	58 90$5 notes per thousand sheets.. ..	80	76 00$500 notes per thousand sheets ..	85	80 75$1,000 notes per thousand sheets.	85	80 75Hank specials- $500 notes per thousand sheets..	65	61 75The rest are all the same down	to thefifty-thousands. I imagine	the reason for	the difference in cost is the lessened number.


Henry Elvins Spencer: They average about six cents a piece, then.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, I suppose so. That is for a thousand sheets. There are ten on a sheet of the fractionals, four on a sheet of the dollars, and one on a sheet of the bank specials.


Edward Joseph Garland: A minute
ago the minister made a statement that before the end of the session he proposed to introduce some changes.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend will recall
that two or three years ago there was introduced what was known as a Board of Audit. That board was composed of two chartered accountants, the Auditor General, and the Deputy Minister of Finance. The intention was that the Board of Audit should go very carefully into the affairs of the different departments, devise a system to prevent overlapping in each department, and effect economies. They have been doing some work in the different departments, but the work is not yet completed. We are going to extend the term of the act, and I purpose making some changes in it. If I remain in charge of the department I am going to ask the board for their advice-of course it will not be accepted until it is submitted to parliament-as to the adoption of a more effective measure of control by a pre-audit. There are some people who believe we should have a pre-audit before any account is paid.


Edward Joseph Garland: Controlled
by whom?


James Alexander Robb: Controlled by the department that is responsible. There are those who believe that before any account is paid it should be audited. Of course there are difficulties in the way where we do business with foreign countries; but something of that nature could be worked out in order to have more effective control not only of the expenditure but of the revenues of the country.


Edward Joseph Garland: I think the minister is to be heartily congratulated on his decision.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was not in
when this discussion started, but there is no question at all in my mind, not as to the advisability, but as to the absolute necessity, of reform in connection with our present methods. I had a bill prepared when I was in the department which I proposed to submit to parliament. That proposition was rudely interrupted by the elections of 1921. I see no reason, and never could see any, why ordinary business methods ought not to be applied in government administration. It is not a question of to-day or yesterday, it is a question of decades practically, since modern business discovered that, when you are dealing with large transactions and large corporations the only safe thing to do is to have a running audit, which is generally described as a preaudit. Our system here in the past has been a system practically of auditing all disbursements. We have a large book called the Auditor General's report which tells us a year afterwards, when the money is all gone, just what has been paid, and shows clearly that the payment has been made. Of course, it is nice to know' where your money has gone, but it is really better to know in the first instance whether your money should go at alh


James Alexander Robb: Hear, hear.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is the idea of the pre-audit. After the defeat of the former administration I spoke to mv right hon. friend the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) about it; I thought it was something with which politics had nothing to do. Well, I am afraid that perhaps I am a good deal more radical than my right hon. friend. He saw some difficulties in the way and after awhile-after approaching him more than once a,nd after the lapse of a good deal of time-he suggested to me that possibly the best way of arriving at this matter would be to appoint a board of audit for the purpose of going into the whole question. Personally I think there is only one thing necessary and that is a little action. The question of a pre-audit is nothing new. I at once fell in line with my right hon. friend, as he did not see his way clear to do what I thought should be done, and this board was appointed. The idea that I had-and I may just as well tell the House now because I want to get the earliest expression of opinion that we can get in the matter now that it has been brought up again-was that it was absolutely unnecessary to have separate sys-

Supply-F inance
terns of accountants practically for every department of government service, with separate book-keepers-yes departmental auditors and the like-and then to have a grand battery to come into action when everything is all over in the person of the Auditor General. My idea was that we would apply the ordinary principles of pre-audit. Under that system the whole accounting would be taken over by the Finance department. That department would have a representative in each one of these other departments making his daily entries, and the next day the entries for the previous day would be over to the Eastern block, being checked and audited, not only as to payments but also as to receipts.
Mr. MARCH, (Bonaventure):	Whom
would the hon. member have make these appointments


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would not
be so much concerned about that. Sometimes the government makes good appointments. Every government makes some good appointments, but sometimes they make terrible appointments, and this government has made many such. I think the appointments of the commission are very much better than those of this government, if the hon. gentleman wants my opinion.


Charles Marcil: My hon.
friend said that seme appointments made by the commission were not at all satisfactory.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, and some
appointments made by the government are not at all satisfactory.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is it not also true that any appointment made by the commission which is unsatisfactory can readily be cancelled?


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no
difficuky at all. The government need never accept any nominee of the ccmmission. It is very much more difficult when the government makes an appointment which is wrong. In that event the country is saddled with the appointment. My hon. friend knows that in connection with this very matter appointments have been made by the government which he regrets, and instead of there being a whole lot cf appointments to be made, as my hon. friend's question would sugges1, there are a whole lot of dismissals which should be made.


Charles Marcil: I only
wanted the view of the hon. member. Would he recommend that the appointment be made 265	:
by the minister in charge of the department or by the ccmmission?


Henry Lumley Drayton: 
James Alexander Robb: That is true.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, there is no doubt about- it. It is absolutely ridiculous. I want to have the proper system put into effect at once-I see no reason why it should not be put into effect to-day. I admit all these matters present some difficulty, but you can never do anything without running up against a little bit of difficulty here and there. You only overcome those difficulties by meeting them and starting to do something with them. It is quite true, as my hon. friend says, that this is a big business we are carrying on. It is rather difficult to look after a preaudit system when we are spending some money on the continent. Let us look at that bogey for just a minute. Here we are in
Supply-Finance

Canada spending three or four hundred millions. Our vote for the French office, on the continent, is $42,000. Just think of any official for a moment considering or reporting that there is difficulty in putting in a pre-audit here because it cannot apply with the same force where we are spending $42,000 on the Parisian office! We are spending a few thousand dollars in the Yukon, and undoubtedly the method of procedure would not be exactly the same in the Yukon as at Ottawa. There would be a little further distance to go and greater difficulty in having a pre-audit there than there would be here, so that business could be carried on day by day without that restriction; but on the general issue there is no difficulty whatever about the preaudit. The bill I have referred to was prepared for me by Mr. Edwards, who is now one of the members of the board. The reason why I went to him is this. One of the greatest successes that the world has ever seen was the manner in which the different forces of industry in Canada were co-related, one with the other, under the Imperial Munitions Board. At one time there were upwards of six hundred factories carrying on different parts of the work, doing the work where it could be done in the cheapest manner, and in the best way. It was all done on the one account. Those people had to get the money regularly and quickly. Nevertheless over all that area, covering these hundreds of plants, involving the expenditure of a tremendous sum of money, the purchases of great masses of raw material, there was such a system of pre-audit put in by Mr. Edwards that by eleven o'clock in the morning the state of business of the day before was known, and by the afternoon of the same day cheques could be issued under the pre-audit system under which every interest was absolutely protected, with the result that costs came down enormously. That is just simply ordinary business management.


William Charles Good: Common sense.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Absolutely, common sense and nothing else; there is no mystery about it. When I took office in 1910 as electric light commissioner in Toronto, where there was not a pre-audit system, I know the changes that we made in six months after we had that pre-audit system in, how business was easier and money was saved, and how leaks here and leaks there were checked. I am not only going to submit to my hon. friend to look into it further, but I am going to pray him to stop looking into it and tell Edwards to go ahead and do something. He can do it. There is no difficulty about doing

it at all. If we introduce theoretical gentlemen into this thing a whole lot of difficulties can be created and we can. have nice refinements drawn here and there involving long reports. Some little thing over in France, some small matter away up in the Yukon, would have to be looked into, and long reports would be prepared and submitted. But it is not necessary to pay much attention to that sort of thing; it is a plain matter of everyday business which is exceedingly simple to anyone accustomed to organizing large ventures. I admit that it is not ordinary auditing; it is a matter of devising a proper system to take care of business on a large scale, and it necessarily must involve considerable abilities in the way of organization. But we want the best and most approved methods of organization to-day in vogue in Canada, and I hope my hon friend will be able to see his way to take some action in the matter.


Edward Joseph Garland: Would this audit be independent?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is absolutely independent in the sense my hon. friend speaks of, but it is an audit within the government. The hon. member will see that in connection with all these matters the systems of auditing practised by large institutions are inter-dependent; but there is a difference between the auditing staff and the spending staff. T)ie auditing staff is entirely apart from the organization of the minister.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is
the present system?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Under the
present system we have separate bookkeeping institutions in the various departments. We have a whole gamut of books, and we have departmental auditors.


Edward Joseph Garland: I had reference to the Finance department.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Finance department to-day has practically no control; the only thing we have outside of the departmental audit is the general audit, and, as hen. gentlemen know, that is rather late.


James Alexander Robb: We have a complete audit
within the department.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is within
the department itself. I am not saying anything against the audit of the Finance department; so far as I know that was put on a proper basis. At one time however we had trouble there and I instituted certain investigations, which were not pleasant, involv-

Supply- -F inance
ing my having to see that a certain gentleman was prosecuted and sent to the penitentiary.


Edward Joseph Garland: Only one?


Henry Lumley Drayton: There was another one but I forget what happened in his case. However, having regard to the volume of work done, the enormous amount of bonds issued, interest coupons, and so on, the showing was extremely satisfactory. There is nothing I have to say to my hon. friend (Mr. Robb) as to his own department, but the system should be brought up to date. The minister says that the board has been doing useful work and I think the House should have the benefit of any information that is available. I understand that reports have been submitted but I do not know whether they have been tabled. If not, I think they should be tabled for the information of the House. I am not sure, but I have heard that there was a report with regard to Montreal and Quebec harbours, with special recommendations in connection with these, and also with regard to the Vancouver Harbour Board and the Canadian National Railways The one thing which to my mind is quite essential is a more complete financial control on the part of the country that supplies the money to finance the Canadian National Railways.


James Alexander Robb: I am glad my hon. friend approves of the suggested changes. I have had some reports from the board with regard to the harbours and I have read them all, I believe, with the exception of that on Vancouver harbour; I should like to read that one over. I have no objection to tabling these reports. I would not care to go to the expense of printing them but certainly they should be tabled. Regarding the question of consolidation, hon. members will be glad to know that only recently we have given instructions to all the officers of the different departments in the United Kingdom to the effect that they shall submit financial matters for the approval of the High Commissioner.


Edward Joseph Garland: The ex-
Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) made a statement with reference to certain changes that have taken place in connection with the audit system of the Finance department in comparatively recent years. Could the minister (Mr. Robb) indicate to what extent such changes have occurred? In the short time I have been here I have been rather alarmed at some disclosures which I hesitate to speak about, in connection with the defalcation of war bond coupons in the 265*
Control of Currency branch and, I believe, some misappropriation of credit cheques in one of the Militia branches, in consequence of which action was taken by the department. In view of these things it is clear that at one time at any rate there was a rather loose system in the department. I do not want to be unfair, but I hope that the system has been improved, and I should like to know what changes have taken place.


James Alexander Robb: If the Public Accounts committee desire to bring before them the Comptroller of Currency thejr will find him an interesting and profitable witness. One never knows, of course, but so far as we can judge there is now pretty complete control, and the officials tell me that it is impossible for these irregularities to occur. It may be interesting however to know that not long ago an officer in one of the departments of the public service had to be prosecuted for forgery. We have therefore to be continually on the watch, for you cannot introduce any system that will make men honest.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is
true; but where there is only one audit system in such a department as that of Finance-


James Alexander Robb: There is more than one;
there is a test audit besides.


Edward Joseph Garland: How often is the test audit made?


James Alexander Robb: I believe the Auditor General
was before the Public Accounts committee yesterday and he said that in his judgment there was a careful audit.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In fairness I
ought to say that on the whole the officials of the department are very honourable and trustworthy.


Edward Joseph Garland: I think so
myself.


Charles Marcil: Were most
of these officials appointed by the previous government or by the Civil Service Commission?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Most of them
were appointed either under the government that preceded the Borden administration or under the Borden administration itself. There is no doubt about that, and I make that statement for the benefit of my hon. friend.


Edward Joseph Garland: By whom
were the defaulters appointed?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I could give
that information but hon. gentlemen would not like it. I do not think that we should
Supply-Finance

go into that. It is always very difficult to get governmental business out of a rut. For instance, in 1920, I had an outside auditor make the first capital audit of the department. At that time the Auditor General was largely engaged in auditing disbursements. But the extraordinary thing is that although that was the first audit, so honestly had things been done that practically nothing wrong was found.


James Alexander Robb: December 1, 1921.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes. That was the first outside audit ever made. It was a thorough audit by a most competent auditor. The changes then put into effect had regard to the interior economy and also to the form of balance sheet for it was then that I had the accounts recast and an ordinary balance sheet prepared. The changes also covered the case my hon. friend refers to in connection with the theft of interest coupons of one of the New York loans. I think he will say it was covered pre.ty well. There is no longer any likelihood of the slightest danger in the future from that source. Then came the question of some irregularities in the Currency branch. Drastic changes were put into effect there, and at present I think the matter is being pretty well looked after.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Commission for payment of interest on public debt, purchase of sinking funds, auditing, $110,000.
George Newcombe Gordon: The discussion has
really been upon this item.


Edward Joseph Garland: To whom is the commission for payment of interest on the public debt paid?


James Alexander Robb: The Bank of Mon'real. It is the government's official agent and I think it has an arrangement to pay the other banks whatever expenses they may incur.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is
the reduction due to?


James Alexander Robb: 
Henry Lumley Drayton: I thought the
rate was always one-eighth of one per cent. Where is the three-sixteenths paid?


James Alexander Robb: It is required to pay commission to the bank for cashing interest coupons on renewal loans.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why should not that be one-eighth? It looks to me a little higher rate than we used to pay.


James Alexander Robb: Here is the memorandum
I have on that:
When the war loans and victory loans were issued, the commission paid to the banks included charge? for their services in connection with flotation of the loans and also for cashing coupons until the loan matured. These charges were as follows:
War Loans	Commission
1915-	1925	
I	of	1	per	cent1916-	1931	
^	of	1	per	cent1917-	1937	
9/20	of	1	per	centVictory Loans	Commission1917	
4	of	1	per	cent1918	
i	of	1	per	cent1919	
4	of	1	per	cent
When the victory loans matured in 1922 and 1923, the
banks demanded payment for their services in connection with cashing interest coupons of the renewal loans. After negotiations it was agreed that the commission payable should be at the rate of three-sixteenths of l per cent.
The Department of Finance held that payment at the rate of one-eighth of 1 per cent would be fair. Commission at this rate is paid the Bank of Montreal. New York, for cashing Dominion of Canada coupons. The banks, however, submitted that, since the work involved redemption at over 4.000 points in Canada instead of at one office, this rate was unduly low and demanded one-quarter of 1 per cent. The agreement of November, 1923, provided for a compromise at three-sixreenths of 1 per cent.
The rates paid the Bank of Montreal, New York and London, for similar services are:
Bank of Montreal, New York-
Cashing Grand Trunk Pacific coupons	
Cashing Dominion of Canada coupons	
Redemption of bonds	
Issuing of bonds	
Bank of Montreal, London-
Cashing Grand Trunk Pacific coupons


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for temporary clerical work in connection with the transfer and registration of bonds, etc., and the flotation of loans, and authority for these purposes to employ a temporary staff, fix their rates of remuneration and otherwise wholly regulate their services, without reference to and notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act; and also to pay additional remuneration to any employee engaged in connection with the flotation and redemption of loans for work done outside of prescribed hours, at such rates as the Treasury board may approve. $110,000.
Edward Joseph Garland: How many employees are paid out of this vote?
I of 1 per cent
1/8 of 1 per cent 1/16 of 1 per cent 1/16 of 1 per cent
I of 1 per cent

Supply-Finance


James Alexander Robb: There are 116.


Edward Joseph Garland: Are they
temporary?


James Alexander Robb: Yes. Of this number 108 are furnished by the Civil Service Commission.


Edward Joseph Garland: Are these
temporary employees eligible for superannuation?


James Alexander Robb: Oh, no.


Edward Joseph Garland: Would
they be entitled to any statutory increase?


James Alexander Robb: I would not think so. We
have them for from three to five months and sometimes for over a year, depending on the amount of work in connection with loans from time to time.


Edward Joseph Garland: Of course,
Mr. Chairman, it is some relief to me to know that 10S of these 116 employees have been secured through the Civil Service Commission, but I look with some suspicion upon the growing custom on the part of the department to introduce into their salary votes some little sentence such as is contained here, "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act," the effect of which is to take from under the control of the commission the appointment of these employees and to virtually restore the patronage principle. I think an opportunity will be provided later on to discuss this question, but I wish now to give notice that I regard with great dissatisfaction and with some suspicion the growing inclination on the part of this government to withdraw these people from the control of the commission. I think at the present time there are some thirteen thousand positions exempt from the commission's control, and the number is increasing every year; this year there is a very large increase. What is the salary of the deputy minister?


James Alexander Robb: It is $10,000.


Edward Joseph Garland: Was any appointment made this year to the position of secretary of the Treasury board?


James Alexander Robb: No, the deputy minister is the acting secretary of the Treasury board.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is it proposed that any other gentleman shall be appointed secretary?


James Alexander Robb: Not now, no.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does the position of secretary of the Treasury board carry with it an additional salary?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: Then there is no truth in the rumour that there is an additional salary of $5,000 for the secretary of the Treasury board?
Mr. R.OBB: There is an amount voted, but it has never been used.


Edward Joseph Garland: It is not the intention of the minister to use it?


James Alexander Robb: No, not now.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is there an assistant secretary of the Treasury board?


James Alexander Robb: No. The officer before me acts as assistant to the Treasury board. The present deputy Minister of Finance has been in the department about forty years and is a most efficient officer. A man who has been in any department or trade or business for such a long time has grown up with it and knows it. The deputy minister is no longer a young naan; he is entitled to retire if he wishes to. A few years ago, through stress of work and perhaps some of the worry we have referred to this afternoon, his health was not of the best. He did want to resign, but he was prevailed upon to remain, and I hope he will remain in the department. When it came to appointing a bank inspector I was told by the Banking and Commerce committee to get the best man I could find and pay him whatever salary he wanted. I tried to get a couple of men, but I did not like to go over the salary of the deputy minister. I could not, however, get a man at the salary of the deputy minister whom I thought to be fit to take the job and who would satisfy the members of the Banking and Commerce committee. I was successful in getting a man of very wide experience, who, I believe, is an excellent officer, and I had to pay him $15,000 a year. We had the same experience when we were looking for an Auditor General. In view of these conditions I asked myself what would happen if the deputy minister persisted in offering his resignation, and I will say frankly to the committee that I put that amount in the estimates in order that the minister, whoever he might be, would be in a position to offer a salary that would attract to the office such a man as I believe should be at the head of the Finance department of Canada, a business handling over $500,000,000 a year.


Edward Joseph Garland: I confess it is with some relief that I learn that there is not to be an increase of $5,000 to the present salary of the deputy minister because of the creation of the office of secretary of the Treasury board, or his appointment to that
Supply-Finance

position. My reason for tihis is not because I have any serious criticism to offer of the routine work performed by the Deputy Minister. Because of his long service in the department he probably knows more about the details of the administration end of it than any other man would know or could know. There is another question, though, that comes into it, and that is the development of modern finance: I doubt very much whether the Deputy Minister of Finance has had the time to make himself as conversant- I will be as kind as I can-with the recent changes in international as well as national finance that the present development of Canada would require. But my principal reason for raising the question at this time is briefly this: Canada is a young nation with a small population and ever-growing expenses, yet we have an excessive deputy-minister salary roll. I have taken the trouble to make some computations, and I find that there are some thirty-six deputies in Canada, running to a cost of $173,500 per year. The additional list of those officials who hold the rank of deputy adds to that the sum of $104,000, or a total of $277,500. In the United States twenty-one men in the service hold the rank of deputy minister, with a total salary of $157,500, an average of about $7,500 each. In summary, Canada has thirty-six deputies, including those holding the rank of deputy, at a total salary of $277,500, or $30,833 per million of population, while the United States has twenty-one, at a total cost of $157,500, or only $1,432 per million of population, a ratio of about thirty to one in favour of the United States in economy. I will admit that arguments can easily be adduced by the minister and others to explain why that should be, but I simply place these figures on Hansard so that the minister will be in a position to resist any further pressure for an increased salary list of deputy ministers or for advancing any more officials to the rank of deputy.


William Charles Good: I would like to discuss the
question of the deputy ministership, but I do not know whether or not it comes under this item. It has already been discussed to some extent, and with the minister's permission, I should like to say something more.


Charles Marcil: A reference to the subject may be
made, but an extended discussion of it would not be in order.


William Charles Good: If there is to be another opportunity, I will await until that time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

To provide for the salary of Walter Duncan at $2,550 per annum, as a special investigating officer under the direction of the Department of Finance, with the power to administer oaths in the performance of his dutips, and also to provide for contingent expenses of this service, a further sum of $5,050.
Edward Joseph Garland: What was
this gentleman's business last year?


James Alexander Robb: I do not like to refuse my
hon. friends anything, but I do refuse to say what this gentleman's business was last year. I may say it was very profitable to the country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-unforeseen expenses, expenditure thereof to be under order in council, and a detailed statement to be laid before parliament within fifteen days of next session, $60,000.
Arthur Meighen: This is "miscellaneous"
enough. Can the minister identify it?


James Alexander Robb: It is the usual vote. There
is a reduction of $15,000. Up to February 20, 1925, we spent last year $57,323.48. A statement of details is tabled at the beginning of every session.


Arthur Meighen: Has the minister the
statement there?


James Alexander Robb: No, but I can get it.


Arthur Meighen: I think the minister had better hold the item until we get it.


James Alexander Robb: This vote has been there for
many years.


Arthur Meighen: I know, but each year
we get a statement of what it has been applied to. What is it mostly intended to be applied to this year?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend should know
there were expenditures under this item during his term of office.


Arthur Meighen: I never spent any of it.


James Alexander Robb: Somebody spent $34,801.75, in 1921-22, and $36,150.25 in 1920-21.


Arthur Meighen: That is just about half
this amount.


James Alexander Robb: I notice it is continually growing. The expenditure has been as follows:
1910-11	 412,629 18
1913-14	 14,691 30
1919-	20	
23,982	241920-	21	
36,150	251921-	22	
34,801	751922-	23	
51,926	261923-	24	
35,515	62
If the information to which my right hon. friend referred has not been tabled, I will see that that is done.

Supply-Finance


Arthur Meighen: , The expenditure is certainly growing. That is the reason for more careful inquiry into it. If there was something definite, it would be different.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend must observe
that there is a decrease in our total vote of $77,000.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, and I think there
should be a lot more. Has the minister no idea at all of what this is for?


James Alexander Robb: It is for unforeseen expenses,
such as the entertainment of premiers or representatives of foreign countries who are visiting Canada, also for such an unforeseen event as a catastrophe, for instance.


Arthur Meighen: Unemployment associations?


James Alexander Robb: I would not say that.


Arthur Meighen: Because that is the truth.


William Charles Good: I do not know that I shall
have another opportunity of saying what I wish. to say about the department, so I take the opportunity now.
What has impressed me very much since I have been here is the conspicuous difference between the organization in the Department of Finance and the organization in some of the other departments. Take, for instance, the Department of Agriculture, where those in charge of the different branches are specialists in their respective fields. We admit the need of securing the services of experts in these several departments. But in the Department of Finance we have, so far as I can find out, no man who has any general knowledge of economics, who has given any special study to the questions that ought to be well known and thoroughly considered in that department. I am sorry to have to make any personal reflections, but the Deputy Minister of Finance, who, I understand, has been acting as secretary of the Treasury board, has been before the Banking and Commerce committee on two or three occasions, and I have also discussed matters with him privately. As I said, I am sorry to make any personal reflections, but I do consider that he is totally unqualified to advise in regard to the many matters which must come before that department, and the minister himself cannot be expected to have gone into a number of these technical matters such as must necessarily be considered by the department. I want to suggest most emphatically to the minister and to the House
that in the Department of Finance there ought to be at least one good economist, one good specialist who has had a thorough training, theoretical and practical, in this particular line, to act in an advisory capacity.
I think it is positively shameful that there is nobody apart from the present deputy minister, whose excellent qualifications in other directions I am free to admit, but who has no qualifications in this particular direction; and I want earnestly to appeal to the minister to face the situation and apply the same common sense we have applied in our other departments, where we have the good sense to make use of the services of those who have given years of study to their respective specialties.
Take another department by way of comparison, the Department of the Interior-the Mines branch for instance. What folly would it be to appoint a book-keeper to look after our Mines branch! And yet we have nobody in the Department of Finance, as far as I can find out except those who have knowledge of technical routine, nobody who has the qualifications that are needed. Let me suggest to the minister and to the House the sort of man we need in the Department of Finance. We need a man of the qualifications of our Dominion statistician, and we need him very ibadly in the Department of Finance. Again I earnestly submit to the minister and to the House that unless there is some reorganization in that department, I foresee that we shall get no further ahead, but we shall still continue to follow in a lot of the foolish old ruts we have been travelling in the past. The hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) has already mentioned how difficult it is in governmental matters to get out of a rut. If we have got into ruts in any department, we have certainly got into ruts in that particular department. Let me give an example. The question arose in the Banking and Commerce committee last year as to whether or not the advisability of varying the interest rate on the advances under the Finance Act had ever been considered, and the deputy minister admitted it had not. I asked him if he had ever thought of it; he had not-had the matter ever been discussed or thought of by the Treasury board? No. Apparently this question, which is in my judgment a vital matter, had never received any consideration at all. Now, if we had a thoroughly competent economist attached to the department, the country might be saved thousands and
Supply-Finance

thousands, if not millions, of dollars a year, and we might be in a position to make some real progress. It is all the more necessary because we are face to face with a lot of very serious financial problems. Recommendations have been made by some members of this House from time to time during the last few years in regard to what might be called new methods of finance. The Acting Minister (Mr. Robb) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) (before him have in general ridiculed these suggestions. I am not going to say now that all of the suggestions are wise and practical, but I do submit to the minister that there ought to be some effort made to study them. We should not simiply dismiss them scornfully with a contemptuous wave of the hand, as though they were unworthy of consideration. It is quite possible that we may discover very valuable help and very great assistance in connection with our financing in some of these newer methods, but as I said there is absolutely nobody in the Department of Finance, so far as I can find out, who is at all competent to investigate these particular matters. I appeal, in conclusion, to the minister to consider the propriety of appointing, or attaching to the department in an advisory capacity, a man who has some such qualifications as the present Dominion Statistician.


James Alexander Robb: I should like to say at once
that I have no pretensions to having the financial qualifications of my hon. friend from Brant (Mr. Good), nor am I prepared to discuss the Department of Agriculture with him, because I am told that he is just as good an agriculturist as he is an economist. But I wish to repeat again what I said a few moments ago: From my experience within the department, in my judgment the present Deputy Minister of Finance is an excellent public servant, and I hope he will remain in the service for many years. We have associated with the department many other excellent officers, men of wide experience, who take as keen an interest in the affairs of the country as if they were their own. I recognize the abilities of the Dominion Statistician. I was in that department for some years, and I know that he is a good officer. I have no doubt also that there are many good officers throughout many of the departments, but, looking over the accounts as they come before me and scrutinizing them through the Treasury board. I am bound to say that some of the departments to which my hon. friend has referred I do not look up to as departments of economy.


William Charles Good: The minister really cannot
have understood me properly. I do not wish to reflect, and I am not reflecting upon the integrity, ability, or certain other qualifications of the deputy minister, but I submit this: that the minister himself would never ask him to give an opinion on a matter of mineralogy or on a matter of medical or surgical science; he has not studied those matters. I am not blaming him. But in financial matters nowadays, particularly under present conditions in Canada, we need the advice of men of a different type from those we have. I am not saying anything against the deputy minister in his capacity as a faithful executive officer, but I do say that, so far as I can find out, he has not the qualifications that are necessary to give sound advice in many matters of urgent importance.


Arthur Meighen: Would the hon. member describe the kind of man he has in mind that would be needed for the department? I hope he will do so without too plainly referring to himself or myself.


William Charles Good: I may say very frankly that I certainly have no ambitions, or qualifications either so far as that is concerned; I never dreamed of anything of that kind. But may I state this to the minister and the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) : a couple of years ago I discussed this matter with two government officials who occupy very prominent positions in the service at the present time, and who, by reason of their previous training, were, I think, competent to give an opinion on this point, and both of them-I do not want to mention their names because their opinions were given to me in confidence- expressed themselves very strongly in regard to this particular situation. As I say they are men of the highest standing in the government service, so I am not relying wholly on my own opinion.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Would my hon.
friend say what the training of these officials was without giving their names?


William Charles Good: That might lead to their
identification. I think perhaps I have said enough.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps the minister has received by this time some particulars as to where the money was applied last year.


James Alexander Robb: I have not that before me yet but I will get my right hon. friend a statement.


Arthur Meighen: For this evening?

Supply-Finance


James Alexander Robb: I should like to get these votes cleaned up before six o'clock and go on with another department.


Arthur Meighen: Before eight o'clock
then?


James Alexander Robb: I do not think I can; I will give it to my right hon. friend to-morrow.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister have some estimates under which we can discuss this matter?


James Alexander Robb: Of the Finance department? I am not sure, but if not we can discuss it in connection withj any * other department that I am interested in.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Expenses in connection with the negotiation of treaties, $20,000.
Arthur Meighen: Is this to pay the expenses of the minister?


James Alexander Robb: This item, to provide for expenses in connection with the negotiation of treaties, was first included in the estimates for 1922-23, and at that time with the cattle embargo conference. The expenditure in 1922-23 was $8,264.83. In 1923-24 there was no expenditure. Up to February 20, 1925, the expenditure was $2,579.06.


Arthur Meighen: What about all those
trips round the world in the negotiation of treaties? They cannot be included.


James Alexander Robb: My right hon. friend will find a return of my expenses in the Auditor General's department, I believe they will compare very favourably with his own travelling expenses when he was Prime Minister.


Arthur Meighen: They will not be any
less.


James Alexander Robb: Do not be too sure about that.


Arthur Meighen: I guarantee it right now. However, I was not speaking of the amount of the expenses, I was saying that they cannot be included in this item.


James Alexander Robb: They are not in this item.


Arthur Meighen: What has this to do with the negotiation of treaties, which has been largely a matter of voyaging?


James Alexander Robb: My right hon. friend will
observe that in 1923-24 there was no expenditure. In 1922-23 there was an expenditure of $8,264.83. I have not the details but my right hon. friend will remember that the Minister of Finance in that year negotiated a
treaty with France and, I think, with Italy, but I am not sure whether the expenses on that occasion are included in the amount or not. As to the expenditure up to February 20, 1925, of $2,579.06, I do not know what it represents.


Arthur Meighen: I should like to know
first what portion of the expenses this covers. It does not cover the entertainment of the treaty makers; that is in the one before. What could it cover?


James Alexander Robb: This does not include all but
I am told some of this expense was incurred by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in going down to Washington. I am not very sure-I should not like to be quoted as saying it-whether part of the expenses of the gentleman who went to the West Indies is charged here, but I will get full details for my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: That is what I would like to know-what this covers; and what jaunts are in mind this year.


James Alexander Robb: I will get that information
for my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Ross is still at sea is
he?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, I am told he is likely to land at Sydney on the thirteenth. If he goes by rail, he will be in Melbourne before the sixteenth.


Arthur Meighen: Is that the reason why
the government are trying to hurry the session -so that there will be no chance of getting the Australian treaty through?


James Alexander Robb: I will be glad to hear that
there is any prospect of getting it through.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister say the trip of Mr. Ross is included under this item?


James Alexander Robb: I would not think so. He is
an officer of the department and his expenses are charged up to the department.


Arthur Meighen: So are the expenses of
the Minister of Justice. For the life of me I do not know what can be included in this item. It is a new item, it was put in by this government.


James Alexander Robb: Yes. It was first included in
the estimates for 1922-23.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Has the minister had
representations from numerous firms in Canada urging that the Australian treaty should be ratified?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.
Supply-Finance


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I have had a number
of letters myself from men in New Brunswick who had quite a large trade with Australia and they say that, due to the suspension of this treaty or the uncertainty about it, no one in that dominion will do business with them. They are waiting to know what the terms of the treaty will be, expecting there is a possibility of better terms.


James Alexander Robb: That is good news.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Well, it might be
better. At the present time they say the business they did have is entirely suspended; that no one will order goods from Canada because they are waiting to get the benefit of this treaty. I think it is urgent that the matter be hastened as much as possible.


James Alexander Robb: I agree with my hon. friend.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I should not like to
accept the idea the leader of the opposition has advanced that this session would be over before anything would be done about it. If that is likely, is it possible for the government to negotiate this treaty during the recess? Or must it be ratified by parliament?


James Alexander Robb: I would not commit myself as to that.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Because if not, parliament might give the government whatever authority is necessary to negotiate this treaty.


James Alexander Robb: I have nothing to add to the
statement made by the Prime Minister. I do not think it is wise to state anything further.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I should like to get information as to the authority of the government to negotiate a treaty when the House is not in session. I think we passed an act two years ago authorizing the government to negotiate a reciprocity agreement with the United States if the opportunity ever offered. I should like to urge the government very strongly, if this Australian treaty is not consummated and ready for ratification before the House prorogues, to bring down a bill and obtain authority to ratify this treaty, such treaty to be submitted to parliament at its next session for confirmation if necessary; at any rate, that the government should have authority to deal with this treaty when the negotiations have been completed by its representative who is now in Australia.


Arthur Meighen: Why does the hon. member want an assurance that the government will pass and sign the treaty when he does not know what is in it?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I presume that our
government would not negotiate a treaty that would be to the disadvantage of Canada. The representations I have from business men in New Brunswick, amongst them the canners of fish are that the terms as proposed would give Canadian business great advantages in Australia.


Arthur Meighen: I cannot find what they are.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I have not been able to either. I do not know what these people have in mind. In their letters to me they indicate they did have an idea that it would be of great value to their in'.erests. If there is anything we can do to assist business in Canada by a treaty or otherwise, it is our duty to do it.


Arthur Meighen: I have not as great faith as the apostle of Israel to my left-


Mr. CAHILL:: My hon. friend is almost
alone in Canada in that respect.	[DOT]


Arthur Meighen: I almost have a feeling
I would like to be alone when I see the hon. member approadhing. The speech of the hon. member to my left (Mr. Caldwell) exemplifies about what everybody in Canada knows about this treaty. Business men seem to be able to make a guess. They are permit' ed by the government to make a guess with impunity. Australia is permitted to publish what it believes to be the treaty. The United States representatives are permitted to send to- their government what they believe to be the treaty. In fact everybody is permitted to do what he likes and to know what he likes about the treaty except the parliament of Canada; but the constitution would -crash if this government gave the least intimation to hon. members of the House as to what is in the treaty. Not only have we not the right to know what is in ;he treaty that this government is about either to execute or abandon but we are not permitted to know what the object of the present mission of Mr. Ross is. We are told, or it is intimated to us at least, that the government is not satisfied with some clause about Australia requiring goods that get the preference from us to be 75 per cent manufactured in Canada. This is as far as anybody will go in the way of letting parliament know what is the reason for the delay or what is the object of the Ross mission. But anyone who reviews the terms of the treaty and the facts of the actual trade of Canada knows that that clause has mighty little significance,-I do not say it has none but

Supply-Finance
it has very little, for the simple reason that the goods we sell are made more than 75 per cent in our own country. Will the minister say now whether there is any other objec' in Mr. Ross' visit, save to review this one clause and adjust it satisfactorily? Has there been some proposal given Mr. Ross to transmit to Australia, altering the alleged treaty in some other way? Are those terms thar are advertised by the plenipotentiaries of other countries as the terms of the treaty really the terms of it? If so, is there some particular besides the one the hon. gentleman has referred to that the government is not satisfied with? If there are any people in this world, I would think, who had the right to know what was in this treaty at this stage, i: is surely the representatives of the people of Canada. Are these one-time, sometime apostles of the rights of parliament, of the true underlying principles of democracy, these decriers of autocracy, these people who would; restore responsible government,-are these to be those who hide and continue to hide the essential elements of a really important treaty from the parliament of Canada long after the parliaments of other countries have been advised? Is the minister prepared to accept that as the situation and allow parliament to be dissolved and the treaty to be still at sea when we come home after the fourth session?


James Alexander Robb: I do not think any good purpose can be served by discussing this matter. I am sure my right hon. Mend is as anxious as I am to have a favourable trade agreement with the sister dominion of Australia. I am satisfied of this, because men with whom he himself was closely associated, made an attempt on two different occasions to make such an agreement.


Arthur Meighen: Just one.


James Alexander Robb: Sir Mackenzie Bowell and Sir George Poster?


Arthur Meighen: That was before my time.


James Alexander Robb: I am frank to say this: That
there are those in Australia and there are those-well I would not say in Canada, but there are those on this continent-who are not anxious this trade agreement should be consummated.


Arthur Meighen: In Canada, did the minister say?


James Alexander Robb: I do not think any good
purpose can be served by a discussion of the matter, and I do not wish to be drawn into such a discussion.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I received a letter from a certain business man in New Brunswick about a month ago. He said that in conversation with a member of the manufacturers' association, that gentleman said to him that the reason this treaty was not ratified was on account of the opposition of the Progressives in this parliament. In reply to him I said there had been no opposition by anybody, because no treaty had been submitted to the House, and it was pretty hard to say whether we would support it or not until we heard what it was. I wonder just how the member of the manufacturers' association got that impression. The minister said he would hesitate about saying that there were people in Canada who might be opposed to the treaty; and so far as I am personally concerned I wish to disclaim any opposition to the treaty until I know what is in it, and I do not wish to be under the imputation that I am against it, as has been suggested by the member of the manufacturers' association.


James Alexander Robb: I am sorry if I have created
the inference that it was representative of the people in the House of Commons that might be opposed to it; that was not what I had in mind at all. But there are certain strong interests, both in Australia and in the continent of America, that are doing the best they can to create divisions, and I do not think any good purpose can be served by a further discussion at this moment.


Arthur Meighen: What portion of the
continent of America does the minister refer to?


James Alexander Robb: I would rather not go any
further.


Arthur Meighen: In Canada?


James Alexander Robb: I am not going to discuss it.


Mr. POWER:: Wrangel island?


George Newcombe Gordon: Six o'clock-


Arthur Meighen: This is important enough to miss a dinner over it.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the item carry?


Arthur Meighen: No, stands.
Item stands.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
Supply-Finance

After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


James Alexander Robb: Before recess the leader of
the opposition (Mr. Meighen) asked for information with reference to certain exenditures between the years 1922 and 1925 in connection with this vote. The following expenditures were made in connection with the negotiation of treaties in 1922-23:
French, Belgian and Italian treaties-
Right Hon. W. S. Fielding	 $4,434 00
J. A. Russell	 1,797 37
R. B. Viets	 2,033 46

Mr. Viets acted as private secretary and legal adviser.
In 1923-24 there were no expenditures. In 1924-25 they were as follows:
Trade Arrangement with Spain-
Hon. E. Lapointe	 $1,680 00
Mr. W. McL. Clarke	 2,015 31

Mr. Clarke is our trade agent at Milan, in Italy, and this expenditure was incurred in connection with a trade arrangement which we have been completing with Spain.


Robert James Manion: I understand that before
six o'clock we were discussing the Australian treaty. Can the minister tells us what progress has been made in that direction?


James Alexander Robb: I cannot give any information in that regard at present.


Mr. LEADER:: What progress has the government made in the matter of treaty negotiations with the United States? I believe there is a standing offer from this government to the United States, made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding).


James Alexander Robb: The United States has not responded as favourably as we desired, but we are not without hope that a more favourable attitude will be assumed in Washington towards Canada.


Arthur Meighen: How favourably have
they responded?


James Alexander Robb: Well, not as far as we would
wish.


Arthur Meighen: Will my hon. friend indicate just what they have done in the way of response ?


James Alexander Robb: No, I could not.
.


Arthur Meighen: I did not think he
could.


Harry Leader: Have the government
renewed their activities in that regard?


Mr. JACOBS:: When we appoint an envoy at Washington he will probably make things go a little more rapidly.


Arthur Meighen: Would it not be wise
on the part of the Acting Minister of Finance or the government to make some gesture in order to satisfy hon. gentlemen to my left? They do not need to make any to satisfy themselves.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is not the appointment of
an envoy a gesture?


Arthur Meighen: Mostly so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to the National Battlefields Commission-
(a)	For expenses of administration	
$ 6,000(b)	For maintenance of the National Battlefields Park	
30,000(c)	For maintenance of Martello towers,numbers 2 and 4	
1,000(d)	For new works in the park	
142,000
Robert James Manion: What is being done by
the commission?


James Alexander Robb: The National Battlefields
Commission has been in existence for a number of years. The money is paid over to the commission by way of grants. It was constituted in 1908 by act of parliament. The object was to preserve the battlefields of Quebec. The commissioners were empowered to acquire land and to receive and expend money, whether appropriated by parliament or contributed by individuals. The Minister of Finance was authorized to pay from the consolidated fund the sum of $300,000 for the purpose set forth in the act. This grant, together with amounts received from public subscriptions, was sufficient to meet all charges up to and including the fiscal year, 1911-12. Subsequently it has been necessary to vote and pay over to the commission the following amounts: 1912-13, $116,500; 1913-14, $145,000; 1914-15,	$143,000;	1915-16,	$118,100;	1916-17,$34,160;	1917-18,	$52,100;	1918-19,	$39,550;1919-20,	$36,450;	1920-21,	$41,450;	1921-22,$51,600;	1922-23,	$42,000;	1923-24,	$41,600;
1924-25, $47,000. The chairman is Sir George Garneau, the secretary, C. E. Gauvin.


Robert James Manion: Are these moneys spent
entirely in the province of Quebec?


James Alexander Robb: On the battlefield of Quebec
where Wolfe and Montcalm fought.

Supply-Finance


Mr. BROWN:: Is the vote limited to that
one particular battlefield1?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, by act of parliament.


Arthur Edward Ross: What are the
Martello towers, Nos. 2 and 4?


James Alexander Robb: They must be somewhere
along the ramparts of Quebec. I am not sure whether they are near Wolfe's Cove or not.


Arthur Edward Ross: It means that the
towers are part of the battlefield?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


John Livingstone Brown: Was all the appropriation
spent last year?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


John Livingstone Brown: I am thoroughly in sympathy with the purpose of the vote, but it seems to me a very large sum of money for that one particular place.


James Alexander Robb: It is very much smaller than
it- used to be.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant in aid of the Canadian General Council of the Eoy Scouts Association, $15,000.
Robert James Manion: Will the minister give us
some details?


James Alexander Robb: The Canadian General Council of the Boy Scouts Association aids in a general way the objects of the movement in Canada. The officers are: chief scout, Baron Byng of Vimy; chief commissioner, Dr. James W. Robertson; assistant chief commissioner, John A. Stiles; dominion secretary, Gerald Brown; hon. treasurer, D. M. Finnie From 1914-15 up to 1921-22 they were given 85,000 a year. Since 1922-23 they have received $15,000 a year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Contribution to aid in carrying on the work of the Royal Astronomical Society, $2,000.
Arthur Meighen: Why is this vote? We have our own two observatories.


James Alexander Robb: This vote has been in the estimates since 1910-11. The society is for the purpose of stimulating and encouraging the study of astronomical subjects. The vote is for the publication of the journal and handbook and for public meetings. Revenue is derived from grants by the Dominion and provincial governments and by the city of Toronto and the University of Toronto. There is a further revenue from the fees of members.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, the other evening we had votes for the Dominion observatory at Ottawa and the Victoria observatory, and we were given to understand that a large percentage of the money was for the issue of publications. Is there not a possibility of duplication here, if both the observatories and this society are carrying on similiar work? As the right hon. leader of the opposition said, the United States with its large population has only two observatories.


James Alexander Robb: This is a very small vote, and the society receives some assistance from the provincial governments as well as from the city of Toronto and the University of Toronto.


Arthur Meighen: What provincial governments? Do all of them subscribe?


James Alexander Robb: I could not tell my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: Does it say provincial
government or governments?


James Alexander Robb: Provincial governments.


Arthur Meighen: Has the minister any account of the accomplishments of the society?


James Alexander Robb: No; there may be in the
library.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, with the little information at our disposal at the moment, I am not prepared to suggest the striking out of this vote, but in view of the amount of money which is already being spent by the government on astronomical work, I submit that we are scarcely justified as a committee in going much further without fuller information. What is the nature of the work being performed? And just why is this sum voted? Can any scientific society come to the administration and ask for two or three thousand dollars and get it without giving some reasons? If there are any reasons, what are they?


James Alexander Robb: If we made grants to all the societies that applied to us the supply bill would be much larger than it is. I cannot give my hon. friend any further information.
Item agreed.
Grant to the Royal Society of Canada, $8,000.


Edward Joseph Garland: In view of the amendments to the Criminal Code introduced the other evening by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), I presume it might be well to amend this vote by striking out the word "Royal."
Supply-Finance


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member's information is a little scant. This society was organized with the full approval, both as to name and purpose, of Her Majesty the Queen at that time. I would strongly recommend to the member for Bow River that he attend some of its sessions and not only listen to the addresses, but read its literature. In that I am not intending to pay any compliment to myself.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Canadian Academy of Arts, $2,500.
Arthur Meighen: This is new to me.


James Alexander Robb: It has been in the estimates
since 1910-11. The object is to promote interest in the fine arts. The members of the academy give their services gratuitously. Free classes are held at large centres throughout the Dominion. Grants are made to the Toronto and other large exhibitions. The president is G. Home Russell; vice president, Henry Sproatt; secretary, E. Dyonnett; treasurer, C. W. Simpson.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister know any of them?


James Alexander Robb: No, I have not that pleasure. From 1910-11 to 1912-13 they received $2,000 a year, but in 1913-14 the government of the day increased their grant to $5,000 and this continued until 1916-17. In 1917-18 it was reduced to $2,500 and they were paid that amount until 1920-21. In 1921-22 they were given $7,500 and in 1924-25 the grant was reduced to $2,500.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to the Inter-parliamentary Union for Peace. $400.
Edward Joseph Garland: What are
the activities of this organization with respect to peace?


James Alexander Robb: This amount has been voted
annually since 1914-15. The secretary is Mr. Charles Lange, with headquarters at Geneva. They have been paid $200 each year.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is
the work they are doing?


James Alexander Robb: They have annual meetings,
and so on.


Mr. HOEY:: Are they associated with the
League of Nations?


James Alexander Robb: I could hot say.


Arthur Meighen: Why is * the amount
doubled this year?


James Alexander Robb: My recollection is that this
year they meet in Washington and I think it is expected that they will come to Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The $200 is to entertain them here, is it?


James Alexander Robb: No, I think there is another grant for that.


William Charles Good: It seems rather ridiculous to be spending $400 on organization for peace When we are spending about $12,000,000 on preparations for war, or on so-called defence. If there was anything worth while in this organization I would be prepared to support a much larger grant. We ought to know something more about it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil Government-Insurance-salaries, $80,350; contingencies, $61,000.
Mr. MAN'ION: Why the increase?
James Alexander Robb: The increase is due to one promotion, senior actuary to chief actuary, A. D. Watson, $675; one promotion, senior actuarial examiner to chief examiner, W. H. Gilliland, $675; one promotion, statistical clerk to senior statistical clerk, H. A. Urquhart, $360; statutory increases, $2,130; one clerk additional, $960. That accounts for the increase.


Arthur Meighen: This is the department where the minister strolls around and goes into nearly every business in the country. I see in the details that the salary of the Superintendent of Insurance is now raised to $10,000 a year.


James Alexander Robb: It has been at that figure for some time. The cost of the administration of this office is paid by the insurance companies.


Arthur Meighen: 
Robert James Manion: No it was made last year, I think, or the year before, because I remember receiving circulars opposing it. The increase may not have been from $5,000 to

Supply-Finance
$10,000; at any rate it was made $10,000 at that time. I have nothing to say against Mr. Finlayson in any shape or form, but this does seem a pretty heavy salary in view of the fact that most of our deputies receive $6,000 to $8,000.


James Alexander Robb: My recollection is that the
increase was made at the request of the people who pay the expenses, the insurance companies themselves. Mr. Finlayson is a most excellent officer, and when you compare the salaries that are paid to managers of insurance companies with the salary that Mr. Finlayson receives, I think we have him at a very reasonable rate. Mr. Finlayson was not appointed by this government, but by my predecessor Sir Thomas White, and I recall that the last time I met Sir Thomas White he told me he considered Mr. Finlayson one of the best officers in the department.


Robert James Manion: I was not attempting in
any way to criticize Mr. Finlayson. I have no reason to have anything else but respect for him. But I notice at page 85 of the Estimates of 1924, that is two years ago, the Superintendent of Insurance was granted $1,000 additional to his salary. Can the minister tell me what Mr. Finlayson's salary was in 1924?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Arthur Meighen: If the minister will look, he will find that two years ago he increased what the statute allowed, from $5,000 to $6,000. by the simple expedient of a vote in the estimates. This last year, not content with that increase, he put through a vote of $5;000, replacing the $1,000 increase, and making the salary $10,000, or twice the amount the statute allowed. That has continued this year. As to Mr. Finlayson's ability I have not the least doubt in the world. He is not only a resourceful man, but he is an exceedingly determined and self-willed man.


James Alexander Robb: Is not that a pretty good
type to have in the department?


Arthur Meighen: It is, but like everything else it requires restraint.


James Alexander Robb: We all require that.


Arthur Meighen: I do not see it applied
very much, though.


Samuel William Jacobs: Some require a rope.


Arthur Meighen: A rope would not do
much harm here. I am sure I have given the history of it correctly. Now this excuse about the insurance companies wanting him
paid this much because they pay it, is just so much air, so much froth and eyewash. Insurance companies, of course, have a large scale of salaries, and the men in that business have not very much difficulty in getting them. It is all passed on. But a little excess passed on to the public is reflected in a pretty big way in the central office.. I suppose they like working in with the department, but the fact is that the public has got to pay it. It all comes down ultimately to the public; they have to pay the money. I do not know any reason in the world why a man carrying out the provisions of a statute, even though I think it has been unnecessarily enlarged, in the way of a supervisor, with no duty of making any money, no responsibility of making a real commercial success of it, differing in that way wholly from the responsibility that is centered on the head of an individual business, should get in a class like this and thereby contribute to raising the whole level of salaries in the country, when the country is going back, as it undoubtedly is, one hundred million dollars a year. If there is any method in the world of preventing any further increase in the general scale in any way at all, it ought to be done; it has got to be done. But I do not know when the opposite tendency was more accentuated than it has been this last two or three years. I do not doubt the ministers could point to some importunity to which they have not yielded, but they would have difficulty, I think. One deputy minister after another came in first, under one classification; then they got in under another classification, because there were some left out of the first, until finally the whole of them got intend drew $8,000. Those immediately under them are creeping into close approach, and the superintendent of insurance sets a grand example when he goes up to $10,000. This is all fine for everybody except the taxpayer of Canada.


Mr. BAXTER:: I would like to call the
minister's attention to the fact that a salary of $10,000 is equal to the salary of any judicial position in Canada with the exception of the salaries on the bench of the Supreme Court of Canada. It is therefore rather extraordinary in the line of salaries. I have a very great admiration for the ability as well as the persistency of the gen'leman who is receiving the salary, but I want to emphasize, if I may, the fact that it is the practice cf governments throughout the country to think that in some way they escape criticism, or in fact escape responsibility, by devolving upon some groups or associations a part
Supply-Finance

of the public charge. I know in the provinces i is a common thing to say: Oh well, we have imposed such and such a tax upon people in a certain line of business; therefore the public does not bear it, and it is no expenditure on the part of the government. The same thing is being said here. It is not healthy. We cannot expect any charge to be put upon any department of business without having that charge reflected in the cost of that business to the people. If you take insurance, while it is competitive in a sense, we all know the rates are absolutely fixed, and necessarily fixedi, by agreement between the companies. Therefore, every penny that you add to the cost of administering the insurance system as a whole must be reflected in the rates charged the people for their insurance. It is not much use to talk about the high ccst of living when by one little step after another we do everything in our power to enhance the cost of the different things that go to make up a living.


Edward Joseph Garland: Has the
minister received any reports from the Inspector General of Banks this year?


James Alexander Robb: That does not come under
this vote, but I may say that I have received a number of reports from him. I receive reports from him every week.


Robert James Manion: In further reference to
Mr. Finlayson's salary, just to set the matter right I sent out to the library for the statutes, and I find that by chapter 29 of 7-8 Edward VII:
The Governor in Council may appoint an officer to be called the Superintendent of Insurance. . . . and such officer shall be paid suc(J salary, not exceeding five thousand dollars per annum, as the Governor in Council, may, from time to time, fix and determine.
That is his original salary was not to exceed $5,000. It does not say it has to be up to $5,000, but it must not exceed that figure. So since 1908 this man's salary has doubled. I would be the last to protest against paying to a decent extent any civil servant, but we must not forget that when we are paying a civil servant a salary of $10,000, that is as good as S15.000 a year to a professional man. Take a doctor, or a lawyer, more particularly, because a lawyer has mere expense. He would have to earn $15,000, which is a pretty fair income in Canada for the ordinary lawyer .or doctor, to make $10,000 a year net. I only mention this in a general way so far as I am concerned, but I wish to associate myself with the others who have protested against any general increase of salaries at this time, when we should be endeavouring to cut them 
down instead of increasing them. If in 190a we could get a man for $5,000 while the cost of living may have risen it has not increased to the extent of justifying the doubling of a man's salary.


William Charles Good: In regard to this particular
officer, my own feeling is that Mr. Finlayson is entitled to as much salary as the other deputy ministers, but I do deplore very much the increases in the salaries of the deputy ministers that have taken place in the last three years. I do not see any justification for it. I have spoken on this matter in previous years. I think it has been a great mistake to have had such large and rapid increases in the salaries of deputy ministers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the expenses of work in the interest of fire prevention to be carried on by the Department of Insurance, $10,000.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I should like to know just what is being done in connection with this vote? In some of the provinces it has become the custom now to have a local officer appointed to investigate the causes of fire. It has been done in my own province, and I think the results are good. I should like to know in a general way just how this money is spent, through whom, and the genera! character of the expenditure?


James Alexander Robb: This vote is for fire prevention purposes. The amount is $10,000 as compared with $12,000 for 1924-25. The vote includes the salary of Mr. J. Grove Smith $4,800 and of Miss B. N. Grafton senior clerk-stenographer, $1,440. The expenditure for 1921-22 was $10,680.51; for 1922-23 $18,287.37; and for 1923-24, $11,380.70. The expenses during the current fiscal year were:	salaries
$6,164.67, travelling $1,059.09. printing $1,737.55, sundries $463.67; total $9,549.49.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I wonder if the minister
realizes that, listening to him as well as I could, I have got the idea that this vote costs the country a little less than $10,000 this year; that it consisted in salaries to Mr. A., Miss B. and some other people, and some travelling expenses. After that explanation I am left just as much in the dark as ever as to what those people do. I do not doubt that some people got salaries, but I want to know, if I can, and if the minister has the information, in what practical way these people are doing anything that results in any benefit to the country. I assume they are doing something, but I want to know what it is.

Supply-Finance


James Alexander Robb: Mr. J. Grove Smith is sent
about investigating fires, wherever they take place, and giving lectures urging people to do what they can to prevent fires. In a word he is carrying on fire prevention work. I understand that in addition to that the officials have had under consideration for some, time- and they claim they will complete the work this year-some experiments in connection with fireproof roofing. The idea is to demonstrate to the people how best to prevent fires; and those who desire it can get information as to the proper construction in order to get the lowest insurance rates.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I am getting a little more
interested. I think I remember now hearing something about the fireproof material last year. It surely cannot take very long to determine the qualities of that material. Some of these investigations remind me a good deal of something that happened down in my home town some years ago. There had been extensive dredging done by Canada. Then some people drove piling into the sloping bank. Then they put a wharf on top of the piling and were preparing to put a warehouse on top of the wharf in the full faith that the laws of nature would be suspended in favour of the port of St. John. They were not, however, and the whole thing toppled over into the water. Then they brought engineers in-very skilled men standing high in their profession. One of them took some mud and put it in a tea cup with some water and stirred it round in order to determine what the cause of the accident was. Any longshoreman, or any person of ordinary observation would have told him the cause of what had 'happened. I think if some of these Laurier matches that are supplied around this House were properly scratched and applied to a bit of so-called fireproof material, it would resolve the question in a very few seconds as to whether it was fireproof or not. So far as that goes the minister's explanation has really not impressed me to any extent, except with the idea that somebody is getting a salary, or that several people are to do something that I do not see has yet resulted in any particular benefit. Now, lectures are being delivered. Are these lectures delivered to insurance companies or to the general -public, and if so, at what points are they given and what is the net result of them?
I know what is 'being done in my own province with the money that is being spent there for fire protection. I know the fire marshal.
I know that he holds investigations. I know that he makes reports as to the causes of " 266
fire, and I know that he institutes prosecutions. I am only speaking as a member of the public; I have no special source of information apart from the newspapers. But the minister who asks for this vote has not yet told me a single definite thing that is being done by these people. This is a small amount, it is true, but it seems to me it is something someone has started, and in another form is adding to the high cost of living without giving the slightest bit of benefit. I am driven to that conclusion for the want of any better explanation.


James Alexander Robb: I have not the details of all the activities of this gentleman during the year. If my hon. friend would get the report of the Department of Insurance he might find something there; but when he said that I have not yet impressed him I wonder if I can impress him with this talk: this work was started in 1921 and we have reduced the expenditure from $18,287.37 to $9,549.49. I wonder if that impresses my hon. friend?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why not abolish it altogether?


James Alexander Robb: I suggested that myself.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would agree with you.


James Alexander Robb: I made inquiry when this
question came up before the Treasury board and asked why this expenditure should be made. It was represented to me that this man was doing some good work, and they wanted him kept in office at least until they had completed the investigation into fireproofing material which was under way and which is taken care of by another vote, to be reached in a few minutes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is not this officer one of the staff that was shelved from the Conservation Commission?


James Alexander Robb: I could not say.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think if the minister investigates the history of this official he will find that he was one of the former staff of the Conservation Commission. As far as I can learn nearly every one of those gentlemen has been provided for in some other branch of the service. I think the minister's impulse when he made his inquiry before the Treasury board was a proper one. As far as investigation into fires is concerned, that is being conducted now by the Board of Underwriters in every province. In the province of New Brunswick, as my hon. friend

Supply-Finance

(Mr. Baxter) pointed out, they have appointed fire marshals, who make a very searching inquiry into every fire that occurs in that province, in many instances there have been prosecutions, and in some cases convictions, following their activities. That I think is the greatest deterrent of fire that we can have in the shape of legislation, and it really is a work that should be done by the provinces, being a matter purely of civil rights. I suggest to the minister to strike out this vote.


James Alexander Robb: I would not like to strike it out now, but I am glad to have this criticism, because it is not.far out, from my own observation, when it came before the Treasury board. I do not know Grove Smith. I only met him once in Vancouver just after the great fire in British Columbia. I recall that he had been sent up there to go into that matter and see if he could not stir up enthusiasm to have something done to prevent these fires.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then probably his work
has been of some value. What is the minister's opinion as to the activities of the provincial governments in this matter? With the exception of certain portions of the country, these lands are owned by provincial governments and they are very much alive to the question of fire protection and have spent a good deal of money. I do not think there is the slightest criticism of these expenditures, provided the money is well expended, and I would suggest having this item eliminated.


James Alexander Robb: Not this trip.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: This practice started in
1921, and the suggestion was that it was done by the predecessors of the present government.


James Alexander Robb: Oh, no.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I do not care about that, because I think they were capable of making mistakes, and I think perhaps this is one. If the present government does not make any more serious mistakes I do not object. But the minister will note every year there are millions of dollars worth of practically irreplaceable material in the natural resources of the country going up in smoke. The provinces that are interested in timber are doing a great deal. They have not been able- and perhaps no one ever will be-to cope successfully with this destruction by fire, but fMr. HansonJ
this amount of money is too small to save even the dwelling houses or the timber. It would be far better to turn this money into another channel, put more with it and do something to save our natural resources. In other words if we are spending the money, spend. enough to do some good.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the expenses of a technical investigation under the supervision of the Department of Insurance into the merits of the various forms of roof coverings from the standpoint of fire protection, $8,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I thought the last vote
covered this.


James Alexander Robb: No. The last item was to provide for watching this matter for the department. This work is carried on in the laboratory in McGill University under the direction of Professor French, Mr. Mackay and Mr. Johnson. Mr. J. Grove Smith is the link between the department and this work.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I suppose the first vote we passed was to pay for the man who held the match and scratched it, and this is to pay the man who looked at the result. As a matter of commonsense, can it be contended that it takes more than two successive 9 p.m.. years to find out about every roof covering we have in this country, and that it costs $8,000 odd to find out what will burn and what will not burn. I sympathize with the minister. He has had this thing loaded upon him. It is part of the precedent, and he can never get rid of it.


James Alexander Robb: I think this will be the last
year.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I hope it will be.


James Alexander Robb: I am sure it will be.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many years has this
vote been running?


James Alexander Robb: The record I have does not
go back any further than the previous year, when the amount was $8,500. It is down to $8,000 now. This is only the second year for this grant.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Immigration, contingencies and general expenses, including grants to immigration and colonization societies or associations as may be authorized by the Governor in Council, $1,350,000.
Ernest Lapointe: I move that vote 63
for immigration contingencies be reduced by $70,000.

Supply-Immigration


Samuel William Jacobs: What is the reason for this
untoward action on the part of the government?


Ernest Lapointe: Virtue.


Samuel William Jacobs: I suppose that is why the
Minister of Justice was asked to move it.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: We hear a great deal of
talk about immigration. Could we have some brief explanation as to what societies are doing this work, and what results they are producing?


James Alexander Robb: I will come to that under
another vote.
Mr. HANSO'N:	I think we should have a
general statement from the minister as to the activities of the past year and the prospects for the future. There is a great deal of criticism of this department with regard to its activities and lack of results.


James Alexander Robb: The reduction of $70,000 is
the result of a decrease of ninety-six in the number of temporary employees throughout our immigration service, whose salaries have been paid out of this vote for a number of years. In 1924-25 we had 170 temporary employees and for 1925-26 we have reduced this number to seventy-four only, or a decrease of ninety-six. There are 82 positions which will be permanent appointments. This permanent reorganization has been effected with the approval of the Civil Service Commission. To cover the salaries of these eighty-two the amount of $50,000 will be provided for in the supplementary estimates for 1925-26 under the heading of immigration outside service salaries. The net result of this reorganization will therefore be: (a) A net reduction of fourteen in the number of our outside service employees; (b) a net decrease or saving of $20,000 in salaries.


Mr. LEWIS:: What was the reason of the
$229,000 reduction last year?


James Alexander Robb: We are getting along with less money. That is the reason.


Arthur John Lewis: Is that the only reason you
can give?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: How many immigrants
were brought in during the last fiscal year?


James Alexander Robb: In 1924-25 there were 111,362
and the year before 148,560.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is a very marked
falling off in immigration into this country. I take it that this total includes not only immigrants from Europe but also those from 266i	:
the United States. We are voting each year a large sum of money for immigration purposes and the results are extremely disappointing. The minister should be prepared to make a general statement covering the whole field of activities of the department when he asks parliament to pass a vote of this kind. The government is asking for a blank cheque of some $1,350,000 to be disposed of by order in council just as it may see fit, and that is rather a large order in these days. The minister therefore owes it to himself as well as to the House and the country to give some more satisfactory explanation than we have so far received. As a matter of fact we have not yet had any explanation. What is the policy of the government?


James Alexander Robb: To be frank, the policy of
the government is to secure quality rather than quantity. We are careful in the admission of citizens to bring in such people as we believe will remain in Canada, and we are more particularly interested in the type of people who will settle on the land and stay there. We are also endeavouring as far as possible to bring in families. When you bring -in a single man who has no ties he has no anchor to keep him on the land and he is more apt to drift away. This is not so in the case of the family unit, and for this reason we endeavour to bring in families. The difficulties to-day are greater than those that had to be met some years ago. In the first place, Canada has no free lands to offer as she had at that time, when we were prepared to give 160 acres to anyone who would settle. We have not that free land to-day, although land is available at reasonable prices. These are some of the difficulties so far as Canada itself is concerned. And in the United Kingdom and elsewhere on the continent the people have not as much money as they had before and consequently are unable to travel. The conditions are worse in Europe now than they- have ever been before, and they are worse than they are in Canada. The governments of those countries are not anxious to part with the agricultural type that we require. Then the cost of transportation is higher; it costs a family of five $580 to come to Canada to-day. This of course is a considerable drain on the capital with which the immigrant starts out. A few years ago the same family could come to Canada for $165. These are some of the difficulties which the department is actively engaged in overcoming. The number of immigrants coming in from the United States is however larger than heretofore; I refer to the agri
Supply-Immigration

cultural type. Favourable prices for the products of the farm will do more to induce the people to come into the country than all the missionary lecturers whom you could send abroad could accomplish. The people will go where they see an opportunity to improve their position in life. I am bound to say that there has been a good deal of adverse criticism of this country disseminated by the press of other countries. We are receiving letters every day from Canadians both at home and abroad who want to know why we do not take some steps to stop the propaganda, particularly in the press of the United States, against this country. We are doing all we can to counteract such criticism and we are getting more favourable publicity now. But we may as well admit frankly that Canada has received very unfavourable advertising from "whispers of death" and the lamentations of Jeremiahs out of office published in Canadian newspapers and magazines and reproduced in the press of the Old World. And every member of parliament who gets up in this House and puts on the records of parliament criticism adverse to this country is helping to injure Canada. It is well to criticize a government, but there is a limit. There is a difference between criticizing the government and running down your country, and Canada is suffering from that sort of thing just now. However, I believe that conditions are improving in this respect and there is less of this sort of thing now than two years ago or so. I am not without hopes that if we can secure more reasonable transportation rates *there will foe a tide of immigration to the *land which will produce revenues for the railways; because every man who produces agricultural commodities adds to the business available for the railways. The policy of the government is to have a selective type of immigration, more particularly of people who will go on the land and remain there.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister's statement is an absolute confession of failure on the part of the government to put into effect any policy of immigration that would produce' results. The figures he has given to-night speak more eloquently than any words I could utter of that failure. We find a decrease of 37,198 as compared with the year before. Let me tell the minister that no one in this corner of the House has been running down the fair name of Canada. We have not decried the country but rather have we tried to stand behind it. What we have said is that the country is cursed with an inefficient government on the treasury benches.

Mr. ROBB; My hon. friend protests too much.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister cannot point to any words of mine that are derogatory of this country. We have simply pointed out that an inefficient government is now in office, and the minister's statement to-night is a sufficient indication that after four years in office the government has absolutely failed in the direction of immigration. The minister speaks of a selected type of immigrant. That might be all right if there was not such a crying need for population in this country. I suggest to the minister that any white man or white woman willing to work ought to be welcome. We need them.


Edward Joseph Garland: What for?


Richard Burpee Hanson: To fill up the vacant spaces, to do the work of this country.


Mr. PARENT:: How many jobs can you
give them?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon member for
Quebec West (Mr. Parent) can make his own speech when the time arrives.


Georges Parent: I will, right after you finish.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The results so far show an absolute failure on the part of the government to measure up to the requirements of the times. The railways of this country are doing ten times as much as the government in immigration work, and I suspect that there is a tremendous lot of duplication of effort by the railway agencies and the government. The minister ought to co-ordinate the work of these agencies with the activities of his own department so that we may have effective results. Canada is a good country-there are lots of opportunities here for people who are willing to work. The difficulty to-day is that many people do not want to work. That class is not needed here. But it ought not to be difficult for Canada to get immigrants in competition with Australia. From what I can read I gather that the sister dominion is outstripping us at every turn. I am aware that there has been a certain amount of propaganda against Canada. I happened to have the privilege of reading a couple of letters that appeared recently in the Yorkshire Post, written ostensibly from Canada, and I understood that the government was endeavouring to ascertain their authorship. I wonder if they have succeeded in tracing the origin of this propaganda. It seemed to me that the fair name of the Dominion has been defamed, and that it should be the business of the department to trace the propaganda to its source and, if possible, stamp it out.

Supply-Immigration


Mr. CHURCH:: Mr. Chairman, when this
vote was up about a month ago I was told by the very courteous and fair minister (Mr. Robb) that the House would later on be given an opportunity to discuss the whole question of what I wanted then to discuss-migration within the empire. This is the second if not the first largest problem Canada has to solve, yet during the past four and a half months we have devoted only about two and a half hours to its discussion. What is wrong with Canada? How are we to account for the small growth of our population during the past twenty years? These two questions are on everybody's lips in the Mother Country today. Australia is catching up with us and will soon be ahead in this respect. Indeed, it has been predicted by a prominent cabinet minister of Great Britain that within the next seventy-five years Australia will have a population of one hundred million if not surpassing the United States. The trouble with this country is that during probably the last twenty-five years we have followed the policy of laissez faire and let well enough alone in immigration, and the estimates for the current year for immigration are comparatively about the same as they were a quarter of a century ago.
The greatest problem of the British Empire to-day is to redistribute its population. Many returned soldiers among the two and a half million out of work who are to-day receiving doles in England would make the very best class of settlers in the overseas dominions. I agree with the resolution which has been passed by many of the church organizations throughout the country. At the recent synod of the, Anglican church of Canada, His Grace the Primate of Canada supported this resolution, which was carried:
That this council expresses its very strong conviction that at the present juncture a decided preference should be given to immigrants from the British Isles.
I believe that the opinion throughout Canada to-day is that these British immigrants who are our own kith and kin, make the very finest settlers, and I am confident that we would get many more of them if there was less red tape in the administration of the depialrtmejntA On this ipoint the following article in the Empire Magazine for February by Mr. Obed Smith is interesting:
Then again the system has become overburdened with red-tape. The recruiting sergeant in the field cannot sign on a man without first consulting the war office. I know of a case, a splendid farmer candidate in Scotland who has been kept waiting since September having his case investigated at Ottawa. In the meantime he cannot give notice on the farm he is occupying. He may be lost through delay.
Is it by accident or design that during the past few years the proportion of British to other immigrants has been roughly about 35 or 45 per cent to 65 or 55?
If the figures you quote are accurate, I should say it is not by design. The highest years' figure I remember was before the war about 400,000. Of them 150,000 were from Great Britain. At present immigration is declining steadily, 1924 less than 1923, and 1925, so far, less than corresponding months last year. Great apathy is shown. Of the three million pounds set aside by Great Britain for assistance in overseas settlement only four hundred thousand have been claimed by all the Dominions together. That is certainy not getting together in the right spirit to fill the waste spaces.
Cannot more be done in the way of community settlement? It seems to me that the greatest obstacle to settling people from thickly populated areas in large open spaces is the loneliness of the life.
I have always contended that the Homesteading Act was wrong in compelling homesteaders to reside on part of their holdings. They would be much happier in small communities on land set apart for that purpose, houses within easy reach, a small store or two, a blacksmith shop, a wireless set and some attempt to bring about a community spirit. It would go a long way to alleviate the trials of the western settler. It was such community co-operation which made the Doukhobor settlements so prosperous.
Suppose I am an English country-born man, with a family, and have scraped together 50 or 100 pounds, wbat can I get in Canada for it?
You must first make application to the London office. Then someone is sent out to interview you and your wife and members of your family. Particulars are sent to Ottawa, and if approved, you are sent to the part of Canada you are deemed most suitable to. You are given a farm for which you must pay in 25 years. You will be found some chickens and a cow perhaps, and will be expected to hire out to get some local knowledge of farming. Your wife and family meantime will exist on the farm allotted to you. You will also be given a loan by the government.
And if the farm is not consdered suitable by me?
Then you can go somewhere else, but at your own expense.
Does not the system seem rather vague and discouraging to the settler, even if he is willing to work?
You cannot give him too much preference, else you are up against the farmers' sons already settled and wishing to take up land about him.
I want to refer to what has been said by some leaders of thought in this country with regard to this subject. The Prime Minister of Canada recently stated:
If we cease our efforts to fill those great wast8 spaces with working and productive units, Canada is destined to lag behind and fail to realize what should be her future.
The late Lord Shaughnessy said:
That the vital importance of Canada's future lay in a sound, sane immigration policy, to be promulgated immediately and to be carried out with intelligence and vigour.
His successor, my distinguished Canadian friend, Mr. E. W. Beatty, president of the. Canadian Pacific Railway Company, said last January:
Seasonal or other unemployment should not have a direct influence on such a national question as immigration. One of the surest ways to avoid unemployment would be the presence in the country of more productive units, whose necessities would mean greater consumption, more activity, and therefore more employment.
Supply-Immigration

ferent parts of the empire. It shows how our votes rose by small amounts from $1,300,000 to $1,500,000, $1,800,000 and $2,000,000 last year; and that has been only slightly increased this year. Out of four hundred millions for Canada's government only two millions have been spent on immigration this year. I had intended to speak in the debate a month ago but the minister has very generously given me an opportunity of laying these few facts before the House on this occasion, by one who desires to see our great empire grow and expand. Nearly all of our ancestors came from the British isles.


James Alexander Robb: I like the spirit of my hon.
friend from North Toronto (Mr. Church). I am bound to say I think it would be better for Canada if all the members of parliament, no matter how much they might criticize the government, would lose no opportunity of saying a good word for their own country and point out, as my hon. friend from North Toronto says, that there are opportunities here for those who are willing to work, opportunities equal to any that are to be found in our sister Dominions.
Mr. hon. friend has quoted some figures regarding the migration of Britishers from British Isles to the several overseas Dominions, and has expressed regret that the number going to Australia, New Zealand and South Africa is far beyond the number of those coming to Canada. But let me point out that the conditions are somewhat different. For instance, in the case of married families going to Australia, two-thirds of the passage is paid, one-tturd by the government of the United Kingdom, and one-third by the government of Australia, and for domestics going to Australia, the whole fare is paid. Those conditions do not apply to Canada.


Edward Joseph Garland: What are
the conditions here?


James Alexander Robb: We make advances by way
of loans, and the money is afterwards refunded?	-


Edward Joseph Garland: Did not
the British government, under the British Umpire Settlement Act advance the total cost of passages for immigrants so far as Canada was concerned?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: What was
the arrangement?


James Alexander Robb: 
Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Why not do something towards getting immigrants on the land when we get them here?


Robert James Manion: The minister has stated
that for the year mentioned 63,016 passengers came to Canada and 38,599 went to Australia. Well, I venture to make the assertion that out of the 38,599 that went to Australia a much larger proportion of them will remain in Australia than remained in Canada after they came here.


Samuel William Jacobs: Where could those who
*went to Australia go?


Robert James Manion: That, perhaps, affords a
partial explanation; but the difficulty in the case of Canada is to keep the immigrants here after they arrive. I know that in the summer, when I was at home, at different times I was inundated with requests from British born citizens-the very finest type of citizens that a country could have-asking me for certificates of health to permit them to go to the United States.


Mr. HEALY:: Was that after your speech
on the budget?


Robert James Manion: No, it was not after my
speech on the budget. My hon. friend, though, has profited by it. He knows that if he made a speech he would drive them out altogether.


Charles Gavan Power: They are coming across in
thousands now.


Robert James Manion: They are not immigrants,
they are only transients.


Samuel William Jacobs: They are crossing for irrigation purposes.


Robert James Manion: They do not need to go
as far as Windsor for irrigation purposes; they can get irrigation in such sections even as Ottawa I understand. But the point I was trying to make is that we should endeavour, as well as we can, to hold immigrants here when we get them, and I suggest that the government should make greater efforts than in the past to cure the unemployment condition here in order to keep them in the country.


James Murdock: Does my hon. friend
know-I think this can be verified by the records if we had a little time-that the net increase in population in Australia last year was about 5,000? In other words there was emigration from Australia too which offset the immigration so as to cause a net gain of 5,000. I think I can get the data and figures from my office to prove that statement to my hon. friend.


Robert James Manion: What was the net decrease in Canada?


James Murdock: My hon. friends opposite have argued that point to their satisfaction on several occasions, although I think their figures were a little off colour.


Mr. IRVINE:: I do not think it will make much difference what any of us has to say on this question of immigration. We have discussed it- at some length not only this year but in previous years. I am quite sure that even if I were to offer some advice to the minister he would not take it-


James Alexander Robb: Do not be too sure.


William Irvine: And if he did take it perhaps it would not solve the immigration problem to his satisfaction. I notice that the government, through the minister, is very anxious to blame every one else but themselves for a result for which they are more responsible than any other person or group of persons in the dominion. I wish to follow the example of the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) in repudiating the charge, that I have said anything in this House, or anywhere else against the good name of Canada. I do not think it would make much difference if I did, providing that there were no real grounds for adverse criticism1. On the other hand, we are asked by the minister to speak a good word for our country. I think the good things in Canada do not need advertising. That is true of all countries. I think the country about the goodness of which people have to be howling all the time is not a very good country. If we have to stand here and protest our goodness it is unlikely that w,e shall produce a very great effect on anybody else. Surely the government can distinguish-I am sure the people outside can-between the criticism which we offer against the policy of the government as it affects the economic life of the nation, and criticism of Canada as a nation having regard to the resources of the country and the desirability of this Dominion as a home for immigrants under ordinary cir-
Supply-Immigration

cumstances. There is surely a very wide distinction between those two questions, >and I do not think the Minister of Immigration can find one single instance on Hansard or anywhere else where I have even suggested that Canada was not indeed a very great country, a very rich country, and a very excellent country in which to live. We all are aware of the extent of our territory. The actual natural wealth of the country is a subject for poetical eloquence, and I notice often hon gentlemen opposite indulge in it. Certainly we have immeasurable wealth; there is no doubt about that; and there is lots of room We are all aware that if we had a family of five on every half section in western Canada we would, by that very fact, very materially improve all public services and reduce their cost. We know perfectly well that if we could increase the population of Canada by another nine millions next year we would cut in half the per capita debt of the country and by increase in traffic be able to reduce freight rates. These would all be desirable things and would probably result were our population so increased. We are all aware of these things, and we know that Canada can accommodate very many more *millions of people than we have in the country at present. These are all common facts and everybody knows them. There is no need to state them, but when we have said all that, it is surely a very serious commentary on the administration that we cannot hold nine million of people and keep them well fed in a country so vast, so rich in resources and so good. That is the commentary and I lay it at the door of the Minister of Immigration and his government. That is the criticism I make.


Albert Frederick Healy: What is the remedy?


William Irvine: The remedy, and one which my hon. friend would not like to follow, is partly to secure a new government. I told my hon. friend ait the ov.lset that if I offered some advice it would not be accepted. But that is part of the advice I would give now -either a new government or else a good deal more wisdom and initiative in the government we have. So far as that is concerned, I am not particular about throwing out this government or any other government. What I want to see is intelligent action, I do not care which government takes such action. I want to point out that we are not getting the best for the money we are expending on immigration, and in making that comment I want it to be clearly understood again that I am not speaking against immigration under

all conditions. I am only speaking against immigration under the specific conditions in which we are placed at the present time. I consider that we are not getting the best for the money we are expending on immigration. The first reason for that is that we no sooner bring these people into the country than they go out. Surely that is not a good investment. Will the minister say that these people went out because the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) made a speech in this House? Will he say they went out because some other hon. member made a speech in this House? He will not say that. He will say they went out-if he states what he actually knows in his heart-because this administration failed to find work and sustenance for them after bringing them in. That is why they went out. If the problem of finding work for Canadian citizens is beyond the government, let them say so and we will stop criticizing. If it is outside the sphere of politics, make it known to the people of Canada, but if it can reasonably be done by any government why does this government not do it? These people are going out. Why is the government finding it difficult to keep them in Canada? Let us suppose that 10,000 people who went from Canada to the United States last year, wrote 10,000 letters to their friends in Great Britain and said to them, "We came to Canada; we were there for so many weeks, we got nothing to do, funds became short and we moved into the United States. We have now work to perform, and we would advise you, if you are going to cross the Atlantic, to come this way." That is something like the letters which would be written. Does the minister blame the hon. member for Bow River for that? Is that blame not more befitting the government?


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister has not blamed the hon. member for Bow River this year; he might do so.


William Irvine: I had an idea that he had it in his mind that that was the man who ought to be blamed.


James Alexander Robb: That is the most unkindest cut of all.


William Irvine: I do not know of any hon.
member who is more fearlessly honest in his portrayal of western life than the hon. member for Bow River.
I would not blame any hon. member in this connection. Hon. members have simply stated the facts in regard to the situation.
The next reason why we are not getting the best for the money is that apparently the

Supply-Immigration
minister is having a difficult task in inducing people from Great Britain to come here, after what they have heard from the people who have gone to the United States. You cannot blame any member of this House or anybody else for that. Does the minister think that hon. members of this House are talking just to hear their voices?-although many of them no doubt like that very much. After about six months we get tired of even that. Those of us who oppose the immigration policy of the government are not so anxious to hear our voices. We really think there is something in what we are saying. I have in my hand, for instance, a poster published by the Unemployed Association of Canada, and this Unemployed Association has sent this all over the British Empire and perhaps, over the entire world for all I know. They state here that they are undertaking to collect certain statistics, and if they secure these statistics and send them out I would not be surprised if nobody came to Canada at all next year. This may be a very unpatriotic thing to do, but they are doing it, and why?


Mr. McBRIDE:: Because they are no good.


William Irvine: The noble Daniel from the western mountains tells us they are no good.


Edward Joseph Garland: He is the gentleman with the big income tax.


William Irvine: He has settled the matter. That is very much like what the government does. The government says the people from Great Britain who will not come here at our call are the people we do not want. The people who come here and get tired are neople who are no good and do not want to work. Seemingly no people are any good, because we cannot get any of them to come here or to stay.	*


Samuel William Jacobs: I do not want to prick my hon. friend's argument-


William Irvine: Which one and with what?


Samuel William Jacobs: With actual facts.


William Irvine: Has the hon. member got one fact?


Samuel William Jacobs: I want to tell the hon.
member that under the laws that exist in the United States no one who comes from Great Britain can go there except under their quota or two per cent law. The only people who are admitted are Canadian bom citizens; so that those people who go there are Canadian born and their places are taken by those who come from Europe.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is an underground
railway running strongly all through the country. If my hon. friend doubts me I will have him come down to New Brunswick and I will show him the route.


William Irvine: I do not think the illuminating argument of the hon. gentleman illuminates anything but the kind of reasoning by which the immigration policy of this country has been fostered. It matters not to me whether it is a Canadian born who goes out or not. Does it improve matters if a Canadian bom citizen leaves his bed and home to the incoming immigrant? Taking stock at the finish we find that after spending millions of money, we have just the same or approximately the same population as at the beginning. As many have gone out as have come in. That is not a very profitable policy for us to follow.
But let me just quote this poster to indicate to the Minister of Immigration-I have no doubt he knows it already-that there are some people in this country who are not satisfied, and we may presume at least that they are not altogether lunatics or lazy like my hon. friend from Cariboo insists that they are. They have intelligence and they know what they want. This is what they say:
Manifesto of the Unemployed Workers of Canada re the *	Press and Immigration
Whereas, in view of the campaign of slander and misrepresentation by the press of the number and position of the workers unable to get employment; which campaign is echoed and supported by many of our public and official men;
And whereas, there are one million unemployed workers in Canada;
Therefore be it resolved that this organization of 900 unemployed workers of the city of Edmonton will, by marking said passages as they appear in the press, and forwarding them to our class-conscious brethren in the old countries from which we came, and by other means do all in our power to prevent immigration to this country, so long a3 such conditions shall continue to exist;
And further, that a copy of this resolution be sent to the National Council of Unemployed in Toronto, and as many other organizations as possible, requesting action;
And still further, that a correspondence bureau be established between organizations in different parts of Canada, for the purpose of collecting statistics relating to unemployment, assignments, business failures, banking conditions, mortgage foreclosures, tax sales, number of farms abandoned, population statistics, and other vital facts for the benefit of the prospective immigrants and investors;
And further still, that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the press, and public bodies; and that this campaign be not launched unless sympathetic consideration of the problems of the unemployed workers be wi thheld;
And lastly, that this manifesto be translated into foreign languages and printed.
Supply-Immigration


James Alexander Robb: What is the date of that resolution?


William Irvine: It bears no date.


James Alexander Robb: I was wondering whether it
coincided with the date on which, a delegation waited upon Premier Greenfield of Alberta requesting work. He found work for them and only seven or eight would take it, and he told them to get out because there was nothing to keep them in Edmonton if they were not willing to work.


William Irvine: I am not sure whether the date of this resolution synchronizes with the event to which the minister refers. But in any case the suggestion the minister advances that there is no unemployment is too utterly unreasonable to merit a reply. It is so ridiculous that I refuse to take up the time of the committee discussing it. It is true no doubt that here and there you will find men who, for mental or physical reasons, are unable to work. But that fact does not explain the general unemployment situation. Now, I want to make it clear that this circular is the kind of thing that is preventing the minister's immigration policy from being a success; and the thing to do is not to stop these people from sending resolutions of this sort away but to alter the conditions that make such resolutions necessary. That is where the responsibility falls on the minister and on the government.
I believe that the money which it is proposed to spend this year on immigration could be of far greater service to Canada if it were expended in Nova Scotia. The minister cannot prevent the situation in Nova Scotia from becoming known not only throughout the British Empire but throughout the world at large; nor can the minister blame any individual member of this House for the propaganda which is being broadcast in that connection. That sore has been festering for many years and every member of 'the House knows the 'gravity of the situation as it exists to-day. Still nothing is being done. I maintain therefore that if the government would spend this amount or half of it in Nova Scotia to get the industry of that part of the country going and to enable the men to co-operate with their employers in the production of coal and steel, it would be a far better advertisement for this country, in the eyes of people who might be inclined to cotme here, than sending out some missionary, as the minister says, to Glasgow or London or anywhere else to try to inveigle people into coming here.

I am willing to admit that the economic conditions in Canada to-day are no worse than they are in Great Britain or that obtain in many countries; but granting that does not help the unemployment any. It seems to me rather a shame to allow any family of five poor working people to pay $580 to cross the Atlantic from Glasgow or London when perhaps they have nothing to do when they come here. I should like to know what the initial investment would amount to for a family of five going on the land in Canada. When you take into consideration their fares, the house in which they must live, the price of the land, the price of implements, and provisions for the first year's grub, and what interest is being charged. I do, not doubt that these people and their children will be kept busy as long as they live, paying interest to those who lend them the necessary money with which to start. These are the conditions under which immigrants are coming in. I need not weary the committee with a recital of the facts which they already know as well as I do, if not better. In reviewing the situation, looking at our vast natural resources, our plant and equipment, and the capacity for producing wealth, I am reminded of the old superstitious lines of doggerel which declare that "every prospect pleases and only man is vile." I disagree with that as philosophy, but I agree with it as applied to the present administration. I do not mean to suggest of course that the administration is vile in the sense intended in this line; but considering the manner in which it has disregarded its responsibility in this matter the lines are apropos. There are opportunities for the development of our vast natural resources and of building a nation of happy and prosperous citizens, but the government i3 not taking advantage of these opportunities. I would offer a suggestion to the minister, and I do so only because I believe that he has a spark of genius if only he would allow himself to put it to some use, The very best thing that Canada could do to attract immigrants from any part of the world would be to give full scope to the genius of real statesmanship and to compel a country as rich in resources as this is to yield more than a bare living to nine millions of a population.


Donald Sutherland: Notwithstanding
what the minister (Mr. Robb) has said, I believe there are a good many people in this Dominion who still have confidence that there is a bright future in store for Canada. I know that a great many build those hopes on the great natural resources of our country and

Supply-Immigration
the expectation of a great influx of immigration from other countries to fill up the vacant spaces and utilize the equipment which we have provided at a great cost for a population much larger than that we now have. But I am afraid that the government itself is not very hopeful so far as the near future is concerned. There is no question that the cost of government in this country, federal, provincial, municipal and otherwise, has increased enormously during the past few years, and it is a grievous burden on the people. There is in connection with immigration a duplication, the aggregate result of which ought to show better results if we were getting anything like value for the money expended. I am not sure what policy the government has in mind. At the last session of parliament a committee of the House was appointed to consider the question of old age pensions, and I have almost come to the conclusion, in view of the fact that there is a reduction of $300,000 in this item, that the government intends to adopt a system of old age pensions in Canada as an inducement to people to come here and in this way hold them here. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company last ' year, according to their financial statement, spent $758,510 on colonization and immigration work. The Canadian National Railways spent $770,454 for the same purpose. In fact, this other branch of government increased its expenditure by nearly $400,000 over the previous year. Some of the provincial governments are also doing a great deal of work along this line. There must be something absolutely and radically wrong or better results would follow. The fault does not rest with the country, notwithstanding the criticism of the minister. I do not think there is anyone who will not stand up and stoutly maintain that Canada possesses natural resources unequalled, or at least unsurpassed, by any other country in the world.


James Alexander Robb: Hear, hear.


Donald Sutherland: I do not think the
sun shines upon a country that offers greater natural inducements for the willing worker than does this Dominion. But with all our great natural advantages we are labouring under certain artificial handicaps that must be removed before we will have a satisfactory condition of affairs. The minister referred to the efforts put forth to induce immigrants to go on the land and to keep them there. Why all this anxiety about confining them to the land? It would be much better to have these people employed in our own cities than
to have them employed in the industrial centres in foreign countries manufacturing goods for our consumption and use. It is well known that the great exodus from our rural districts is chiefly into our towns and cities. And it is quite natural that the people should go where they find the best opportunities. You may talk until you are blind, but you cannot convince those who know better than you do that they are making a mistake. They know what they are doing. Our people are intelligent, and there is no use preaching the doctrine, "Oh, you are foolish, you will do much better on the land than you will in the urban centres." That doctrine has been preached so long that it is now threadbare. I repeat, there is something radically wrong, or conditions such as we now have would not prevail.
Reference has been made to emigration to Australia. Australia is in a different position to Canada. They are not living alongside the most energetic and progressive nation in the world, a nation that has adopted a fiscal policy which is bound to have a tremendous influence upon the course this Dominion is compelled to take. We cannot escape that influence if we wished to, and we might much better realize that now and deal with an imperative necessity as at any other time. In the main our fiscal policy will always be dictated by that of our great neighbours to the south of us. We know full well that many of the best of our people have crossed the line during the past few years, and are now residents of the United States. The greatest loss we have sustained since the Great war has been this exodus of native-born Canadians to the United States.
I admit that it is necessary to establish proper safeguards against the entry of an undesirable class of people, people who congregate in our big cities and who neither know how to work, nor intend to do honest labour. We have altogether too many of that class at present. But a reduction of $300,000 in these estimates is rather significant in view of the fact that it is so seldom that we find a reduction of any consequence in any of the other estimates. Why have not the government applied the pruning knife to a lot of this deadwood that might well be cut out? For two at least of the items that were passed a few minutes ago the minister stated he did not believe there was any justification; yet they were passed.


James Alexander Robb: But my hon. friend will at
least give me credit for having reduced the estimates of the Department of Finance by $70,000?
Supply-Immigration


Donald Sutherland: On the whole the reductions made are very slight, and I think by the time the supplementary estimates are brought down it will be found that those reductions have been more than offset. Now, we have a system that to my mind is rather disturbing; that is, we have a privileged class which is continually increasing in number. I refer to those engaged in the civil service of this country. I do not intend to cast the slightest reflection upon the ability of those people, because if there is any class in the Dominion which has my heartfelt sympathy it is the civil service. Many young people entertain the idea that if they can only become attached to the civil service they are going to be happy for the rest of their days, and immediately they succeed they find that their initiative is destroyed, there is but little opportunity for expansion, or development, and finally they become reconciled to the situation and say, "Oh, well, what's the use? We may just as well drift along with the crowd." The hours of labour for the civil service have been fixed within certain limits; the rate of wages has also been fixed. Since the Canadian National Railways came under this category there has been an enormous addition to the civil service. An increase of over 100,000 with this result. If you are living in the country and wish to do some business in shipping on a Saturday afternoon, you will find after one o'clock that the freight office is locked up and the agents and clerks are having a holiday while you may be desirous of shipping stock; it may be as is the custom- so it will be on the market early the following week. The fixation of the hours of labour and wages is only one of the difficulties with which we are confronted, difficulties that are having a depressing influence on agriculture. How can our farmers compete with other countries when they are so handicapped? And yet they have to compete against the surplus of the world in the home market. We hear the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) and others say, "Oh, we must keep up the rate of wages to the high standard at which it has been for a long time." Yet we are expected to compete with other countries where the scale of wages is very low indeed. This naturally necessitates our having some protection against outside competition, and it is the absence of adequate protection under which our manufacturers are labouring at the present time.
But this handicap is not confined to the manufacturers only. To my mind those engaged in agriculture are suffering just as much
	j
on this account as any other class. Consequently when the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Robb) states that his government are endeavouring to induce immigrants to go on the land, let me point out that the government ought to do something to enable those people to continue on the land after they settle there. It is only a few days ago in connection with the dumping clause in the tariff that the minister pointed out that, about a year ago, owing to a surplus of butter in the New York market the price dropped very low, and they dumped thirty or forty carloads of that surplus on the Montreal market, with the result that the price immediately went up again in the United States. But did he point out the effect that had on the market in this Dominion? No, he stopped there. To make the story complete, he should have pointed out the depressing influence the export of that surplus from a country with a high protective tariff had on the Canadian market. In order that the price in the United States should be maintained it was disposed of in this country. That is a fair example of a practice which is doing more to injure this Dominion to-day than anything else that can be mentioned. The United States is a highly protected country. They endeavour to maintain and so regulate their markets as to afford a profitable price; if they have a surplus of any kind they get rid of it somewhere, and apparently the easiest way to get rid of it is to ship it to Canada. They are continually doing that; it has been going on for years. Let me give some figures with regard to our imports of some commodities grown on the farm during the years 1920 to 1924 inclusive. In pork products alone during those years we imported 293,292,716 pounds, largely from the United States.


Samuel William Jacobs: I rise to a point of order- not because the hon. gentleman is giving the committee pork figures, but because his remarks are out of order on the immigration
estimates.


George Newcombe Gordon: I think the hon. member is discussing the question from the point of view of the agriculturist and is giving reasons why he thinks there is no need for more agriculturists in this country. At least I think that is what he is trying to bring out.


Donald Sutherland: I was endeavouring to show the folly of bringing people here and allowing imports to come in under such unfair conditions as to prevent them from making the livelihood that they can make in other countries where such practices are not permitted.

Supply-Immigration


George Newcombe Gordon: Of course that does not entitle the hon. member to make a tariff speech. He may-as I think he is trying to do-draw an inference by reference to these facts to show that immigration of a certain class should not be encouraged.


Donald Sutherland: I was endeavouring to show the unfair competition with which these people are confronted after they come here, and to emphasize the fact that no effort is being made by this government to see that they are in a position to enable them to conduct their business in such a way that they can carry on profitably.


James Alexander Robb: The hon. member desires that there shall be work for all, not only on the farms, but in the towns. Is it not a fact that the pork to which he refers was imported to give work to the bacon factories, and that the bacon manufactured from it was exported?


Donald Sutherland: Not at all. Of
these pork products 48,832,000 pounds was lard, and that could hardly have been imported for manufacture and subsequent export. But since the grading of hogs has come into effect in this country there is apparently no lard in a Canadian hog, so they have to bring it in from the United; States, and the tariff is so low that that is the source of supply at the present time. But we are also at the same time large exporters of pork products; we exported 666,769,000 pounds, which shows that we are in a position not only to produce enough for home consumption, but to export a large quantity in addition. That being so why not give the Canadian market to the Canadian farmer. The minister two or three years ago went over to Australia to negotiate a treaty with that country, and as a result of his efforts, and the efforts, I presume, of those who succeeded him, a treaty was arranged a year ago. Was any attempt made to safeguard in that treaty the interests of those engaged in agriculture? On the contrary, on fourteen out of sixteen different points, agriculture suffered. It is true the treaty has not been presented to parliament, but the treaty was made and signed and announced by the government of Australia subject to ratification by the parliament of Canada. We exported 71,000,000 pounds of butter during that five-year period and we imported 15,000,000 pounds. I suppose in the main to relieve some protected country the consignment the minister referred to came in in that way; the great bulk of the butter which is imported into this country comes in under those conditions. The same is true
with regard to eggs; and by the way, under the Australian treaty the tariff on eggs is reduced to one cent per dozen.


Samuel William Jacobs: I must again rise to a point of order, and I hope you will agree with me this time, Mr. Chairman.


George Newcombe Gordon: No, I think the argument of the hon. member is along the same line as he was pursuing before. As I understand it, he contends that depression in agriculture is caused by certain conditions whick could be corrected, and that is the ground for his argument that no more agriculturists should be admitted.


Donald Sutherland: I would not be surprised at my hon. friend objecting to the pork industry being referred to, but when it comes to eggs, surely he should not object.


Samuel William Jacobs: They are closely associated
with ham.


Donald Sutherland: Ou^imports of eggs were 35,788,000 dozen and our exports were 23,453.955 dozen. You can understand the demoralizing effect of a surplus of eggs and apples coming into this country from the United States, you can understand what the dumping of these commodities into Canada at certain periods of the year means to our people. I suppose the minister would object to the word "dumping" in that case because they do not come under the Dumping Act. Well, it may be legitimate business but it is not allowed in the United States, but the point is the demoralizing effect on this particular industry. Our seasons are from two to six weeks later than in the United States, and we have long, severe winters here which entail excessive cost in the production of butter and cheese as compared with the cost of production in countries like Australia and New Zealand where the cattle run out the year around. But the government say, "Our policy is to reduce the cost of living; we must keep the price of everything down below what it is in some other countries and our working people will get the benefit." This is the encouragement which the minister is offering to agriculturists to come to this country, the inducement he is offering to those who are on the land to stay there. Keep down the cost of living; keep wages up at the peak; put as many in the civil service as you can, establish a short day, ensure them a livelihood, and provide and old age pension for everybody who will not work. What a policy for a government to adopt in this age. Why not combine about three of the present departments of govern-
Supply-Immigration


James Alexander Robb: We are not increasing the
vote, we are decreasing it.


Donald Sutherland: I am not in favour
of increasing it under present conditions, as was argued by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church). People are finding fault with this country but the country is all right. It is the government we have in this country to-day that is all wrong.


An hon. MEMBER:: Tell that to someone else.


Donald Sutherland: I have said this
before. I have criticized not only this government but previous governments for their shortcomings in many respects.


James Alexander Robb: I recall that.


Donald Sutherland: But we were never
in such desperate straits as we are to-day having to meet a burden in connection with our national debt which is increasing at the rate of something like $100,000,000 per year. There is only one place for us to end up if this continues. If it was a private individual he would be in the hands of the sheriff; but I do not know who would make foreclosure in the case of a government that is pursuing such a reckless policy as this one is. We cannot go on as we are going-that is absolutely certain. It may be that we will require a Mussolini, or some dictator, to take control of matters and put them on a business basis; but just as sure as the sun rises in the morning, this policy cannot continue* without absolute ruin overtaking us. We are going behind at the rate of $100,000,000 per year without any serious

Supply-Immigration

attempt being made by the government to meet this condition and to curtail expenses. On the contrary there is a most lavish expenditure going on in the various departments of the government which should not be allowed.


Thomas George McBride: When the hon. member
who has just resumed his seat was speaking, I could not help thinking of an old saying that "so long as a boiler can blow off steam it is safe". But a boiler blowing off steam never does any good; it just makes a noise and nobody pays any heed to it. The hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) made a remark -I do not know that it is worth taking notice of considering the personality of the gentleman who uttered it-that I was rather lazy in doing my work in the House. I think there is not another hon. member in this House, outside of that hon. gentleman, who would have so little regard for himself as to make a statement of that kind. I have been a member for four years and during those four sessions there have only been five occasions when I have not been in my seat either in the afternoon or in the evening, when the House was opened. I think that is at least an indication that I am attending to my duties and looking after the interests of the people who sent me here.
A great deal has been said about people leaving Canada, 'but I do not intend to take up much of the time of the House in dealing with this matter. When I pick up a newspaper and read such things and then listen to what is said here, it sets me thinking. The other day I came across a copy of the Vernon News. It has been a Tory paper ever since it was started, and therefore I think we can rely upon what it says. A certain man who had spent six months in California, upon returning to Canada made this statement:
The lure of the south should be forgotten for it is largely a myth.
He stated that while it is true that wages are fairly high in the country to the south, it is equally true that the cost of living is high also. Many workmen are out of employment, indeed many are in destitute circumstances; and then he advises people who are inclined to go to the south to think seriously before taking that step, and he winds up by saying "Canada is far ahead of California". I turn to another paper and I read that "in Philadelphia last year there were 155 murders and 176 people committed suicide. Is that an indication of prosperity in the States?


Mr. NEILL:: It would suggest that the undertakers were prosperous!
(Mr. Sutherland.]


Thomas George McBride: That may be. Then I turn
to what President Coolidge says. He states that there is eight times as much crime in the United States to-day as there is in Great Britain. And yet we hear a lot about the numbei; of people who are out of employment in the Mother Country. Surely we should pay some attention to what the press of the United States says. Then I turn to another paper- a good Conservative paper too-and it speaks of two1 spinning mills being started in Vancouver that are going to employ 150 people. I read in the same paper that in the month of May in Vancouver there were 670 permits taken out to build houses at a valuation of $2,929,385. Does that look as if this country is going to ruin? If it does why should they build these houses.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: It is the same in Montreal.


Thomas George McBride: Then I read in the Financial Times that this country is entering upon a wave of prosperity that it has not experienced for years, and I think that that statement is correct. Bearing these facts in mind why should the time of this House be taken up day after day, and week after week, in trying to hold Canada up to ridicule, and to condemn the members of the government and the country for political reasons. That is why this propaganda is being carried on and for no other purposes. Is that why we are sent down here and paid salaries for? Is that what the people of Canada want us to consume the time of the House with? If it is, I do not want to come back.


Donald Sutherland: You had better speak for yourself.	.


Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton):: I should like to have a statement from the minister regarding the colonization associations which are getting or likely to get grants this year.


James Alexander Robb: There is a grant to the Salvation Army of $25,000, and to the Scottish Emigration Aid Society of $5,000, and under the heading " unforeseen " an amount of $5,000 making a total of $35,000.


Robert James Manion: What is being done for
these immigrants on their arrival in the country to endeavour to direct them in the right way towards getting on the land either in the western prairie provinces, in northern Ontario-for example-or in Quebec, or in the Maritime provinces? What efforts are being made by the department to look after them after their arrival in this country?

Supply-Immigration


James Alexander Robb: There is pretty complete
direction work carried on now from all parts of Canada, not only by the officers of the department, but outside of them. There are throughout this country interested people in different communities who do everything they can to help the newcomer to get settled. There is excellent cooperation between the department and the citizens already in the country.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Do the officers of the Soldiers Settlement Board help in any way?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, they help very materially.


Robert James Manion: I think one of the troubles has been, not only at the present time but in the past-and I am not particularly offering any criticism of this government in regard ot it, but of all governments-that there has been too much tendency when immigrants came to this country to give them no attention after they got here, but simply to let them look out for themselves, so to speak. I think that in the future we should all, whatever government is in power, make a greater endeavour than in the past to give proper attention to people who are coming here, from foreign lands particularly, but even to people coming from the British Isles. These people are coming to a new country, and1 it is difficult for them to acclimatize themselves, if they ore absolutely neglected by the government. I remember well a letter written some years ago by a good Liberal friend of the present government, Mr. John King-


James Alexander Robb: I know him very well.


Robert James Manion: The minister remembers
him. He is a very estimable gentleman.


James Alexander Robb: Indeed he is.


Robert James Manion: He wrote a letter to the
Quebec Telegraph in which he suggested a method of looking after the immigrants after their arrival along the lines of lending them small amounts of money to be paid back gradually. After they had cleared a certain number of acres of land they were to be loaned a small amount, and after they had Cleared a further quantity of land they were to be loaned a further amount. I do not remember the details but the principle was that some assistance was to be given them by the government of the day to look after them after their arrival in this country. I am not advocating the details of the scheme
11 p.m. as proposed by him-in fact I do not remember them well enough-but I believe the principle is right, that we should give greater attention to these people and not depend so much as we have 2674
in the past upon voluntary organizations to look after strangers coming to our shores. Indeed, I think it is altogether likely that if in the past we had given more attention to the people on their arrival in Canada we would have held more than we have been able to hold. I think the government should give serious consideration to the question of having their immigrants looked after in that regard, and possibly also in the way advocated by Mr. John King in this country. The minister is familiar with his proposition as he is nodding his head.


James Alexander Robb: I am glad my hon. friend
approves of that idea, because the department now is taking every care to welcome the settler, and as far as possible to follow him up and see that he is properly settled. With reference to the policy advocated by Mr. John King of loaning money, and so forth is concerned, I am not prepared to endorse that.


Robert James Manion: I do not believe there is enough effort made-and I have mentioned this in the House before-to settle the bush lands of this country. We have an immense country practically uninhabited between North Bay and the Manitoba boundary. We have a territory 700 miles in length and wide enough to make an area of 300,000 square miles; in fact, large enough to make an area equal to the German Empire and the British Isles combined which have over a hundred million people between them and yet in northern Ontario we have but a population of 150,000. We have some of the finest agricultural land in the world in that district. There are those sections which have been settled, where the people have cut their homes out of the bush, and they have as fine farms as you will find in any section of Ontario or Quebec. I believe the government should do more to encourage immigration to these districts. It has been the policy not only of the government, because they handle the lands in the prairie provinces, but it has been the policy of the different railways, to encourage immigration rather to the prairie provinces, for the reason, from the railway standpoint, that they get a longer haul. It gives them more freight to carry. But for the purpose of bringing freight to the railway, for the purpose of filling in that gap where there is not sufficient traffic for the railway. I think a greater effort should be made by this government, or any other government handling the immigration affairs of the country, to get a type of immigration, as there is a type of immigrant in Europe, anxious to come to bush lands and clear their
Supply-Immigration


Charles Gavan Power: Where will we get that type of man?


Robert James Manion: We have I believe in Europe certain classes who wish to come to that class of land. For example I am told that some of the northern European people, the Finlanders, are people who wish to go on bush lands and cut their homes out of bush lands. We have many Finlanders in my section of the country who make very excellent settlers, providing they are not that extreme kind of Finlander who are a little inclined to be socialistically red and carry it to the extent of red socialism. But there is a type of Finlander than whom there is no better citizen, and quite a lot of them are up in that section of the country. We have a few of them who go to extremes, but after all I do not know that the Finlanders are in a class by themselves in that regard. Of course since my hon. friend asks that question, we have right here in Canada-I am not speaking of immigration in this case-a class of people who prefer bush lands to any other, coming from the province to which my hon. friend belongs, the good odd province of Quebec. When they leave their own province of Quebec they prefer to go to a section where there is bush land rather than to go to ;a prairie section. That is my understanding .and I think I am correct in that. There are [DOT]other classes of European people who prefer bush lands though I cannot name them. I have read of them. Perhaps it is the Norwegians.


George Perry Graham: The Poles?


Robert James Manion: I cannot answer that, I do not know, but there are some other people in Europe who prefer bush lands, and we should make a greater effort to get more of the people to settle on those lands, especially in Ontario and Quebec and the eastern provinces, rather than to get people to settle in the prairie provinces.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is the process followed once an immigrant is landed on Canadian shores?


James Alexander Robb: What type of immigrant does the hon. member refer to-the agriculturist? Generally speaking, the effort has been along the lines advocated by the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River as far as possible, to have them go to the east, in the belief that they will drift westwards. Perhaps the boys will go west. But, when they start out with the idea in their minds that they want to go to Alberta, you cannot make them remain in the east.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does the department assure them that they will have work?


James Alexander Robb: We do not allow them to
come unless we have an assurance that there is going to be work for them.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does the minister say that fifty per cent of the farm labourers who came to Canada had jobs provided for them before they came?


James Alexander Robb: I think there was an understanding that they would get work. I think we had an understanding with the transportation companies who asked for permits for certain numbers. If we had a guarantee that they would get work we gave them permits. Sometimes the companies and sometimes individuals asked for these immigrants. Sometimes we are found fault with for following up and refusing permits, but we discovered that there had been a system of trafficking in permits, and that is why we are careful to follow them up and see that there is no trafficking in the permits, and that the permits are genuine.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am glad the minister has not committed himself further than saying, "I think so"; because I have a distinct recollection of many incidents that have come to my attention of immigrants who have come in during recent years who have not been provided with jobs and who were unable to get them.


James Alexander Robb: We do not . guarantee jobs.


Edward Joseph Garland: I have a
statement in my hand, and I am going to quote this to the minister after his .extraordinary outburst this afternoon against those who would say things that were true about Canada, but which according to him should not be said. I cannot understand that attitude of mind. Here we find this statement:
London, March 9.-In the House of Commons tonight, L. C. Amery, secretary for the colonies, assured Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke, Conservative for East Cardiff, that the Canadian government had guaranteed employment to all persons emigrating to the Dominion under the Empire Settlement Act.
Is that, true or not?


James Alexander Robb: I do not know whether my
hon. friend is quoting from the British Hansard; I have not seen that statement. I think however he will find that the statement he has quoted has reference to the 3,000 British family scheme.

Supply-Immigration


Donald Sutherland: This is a large item and one would naturally expect the minister to outline the policy which the department intends to pursue. The sum of $1,350,000 is a good deal to be disposed of by order in council. This is a comparatively new idea;
I think it was first adopted in relation to the $200,000 estimate for the Canada colonization scheme. What associations does the minister intend to have orders in council passed for the purpose of handing over this money to? If the minister does not indicate the policy he intends to adopt I do not think we are justified in voting this money to be expended by order in council. Some people have the idea that the government still have something in the back of their heads which they have not yet given to parliament. One of their officials in Toronto, I noticed in the Globe of yesterday morning, outlined the policy which it is said the government will pursue and pursue to the end. It is not permissible to refer to statements that have been made in committee of this House and so I shall not transgress the rules in that regard; but there are certain things I should like to quote if I were at liberty to do so. Some years ago about $400,000 was paid out by the government of that time to some company for the purpose of bringing people to this country and we never found out who constituted that company until some of the evidence which was submitted to a committee of the House gave a clear idea as to where a great deal of the money went. Is it the government's intention to hand over this money to some colonization concern such as the North Atlantic Trading Company to handle the business? The government has admitted its inability to deal with it and is now asking us to vote $1,350,000 to be disposed of by order in council in some wny. Surely we are entitled to know how the money is to be spent.


James Alexander Robb: The only grants we are making are $25,000 to the Salvation Army, $5,000 to the Scottish Immigration Aid Society, and $5,000 for unforeseen expenses, or a total of $35,000. If my hon. friend is referring to vote No. 63 the figure he has given is wrong; the amount is $1,210,000.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister a moment ago said that if I had looked up the British Hansard I should have found that Colonel Amery, in the statement which I quoted a short while ago, was referring to the British Empire settlement scheme. That may be true, but the fact is that the statement,
bald as it is, was scattered throughout the British Isles and undoubtedly misled hundreds of prospective emigrants. I hold in my hand another document, a letter published by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in London, the deliberate purpose of which was to offset the misleading and "vindictive effort", as it is put, to discourage British immigration to Canada. I will quote a part of this letter.
Recognising the fact that her duty towards the settler does not terminate when he lands on her shores, the Dominion government has made the most careful and complete arrangements for giving new arrivals something much more than a chance to succeed in their new surroundings.
What are these wonderful opportunities?
The men are given the opportunity for training under competent supervision.
Where are these training schools and where is the competent supervision? They are-
Safe-guarded in regard to the purchase of farms and stock, loans are being advanced under the most advantageous terms, and yet something that looks exceedingly like an organized campaign is being waged at the present time against emigration to the Dominion.
These hostile letters and articles almost invariably refer to conditions in the urban centres. That there is unemployment in Canadian cities and towns is admitted, and is a regrettable fact. It is one that has to be faced every winter, just as it has to be in every town and city in the British Islands, but the Canadian government has never encouraged emigration to its centres of population. Its whole effort has been to secure men and women for the land and to keep them from the congested centres. It is nowhere contended that there is unemployment on the farms, and any man willing and physically able to work can obtain employment there.
I may tell the minister that the whole statement is grossly misleading. The last part of it is partly true, and only dangerously so. We can provide employment for a large number of men on the farms in western Canada, but only during a short season, and the rest of the time they must shift for themselves. I have still another document, some of the immigration propaganda of this government. I am informed that it is distributed at the Wembley exhibition, dn red and black letters the title appears, "Canada the New Homeland''; and on the very first page there is the following sentence, indicative of the psychology of the men who write this sort of stuff:
Canada is situated mainly in the north temperate zone, in the latitudes in which the people of the United Kingdom have been born and brought up.
This is absolutely true, every word of it; but it does not give the unfortunate man who reads it any conception of our climatic conditions. It does not say that we are in the same latitude as a part of Siberia. Now, the weather here has not hurt any of us; certainly it is not hurting me, for I rather enjoy it.
Supply

Immigration


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is just as well off as he was before he came to Canada.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes; but why not tell the truth? Why mislead people? This document goes on to say:
It is a land of homes-the "New Homeland" of the British people-a land where all who are intelligent and industrious may reasonably expect success.
If that is not a gross misstatement of the facts, what is it?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: Do hon.
members sitting on the government side, for political reasons, mean to say that the unfortunate farmers of the west are not industrious or intelligent? Yet after struggling for fifteen years they find themselves under the necessity of asking for amendments to the bankruptcy law.


Samuel William Jacobs: They are not any worse off than the farmers' in any other part of the world.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is not the point. The point is that these statements are a deliberate misrepresentation on the part of this government of the conditions that exist. And I could go further and quote other statements. These statements are made in government propaganda in spite of what is said by the agents of this government itself. I hold in my hand the report of Dr. Tory on agricultural credit, which is worth reading by any hon. member. He cites there exactly what I have believed and stated in this House for many years. This is what he says:
Much is being said to-day about keeping young men on the farm, retaining them on the land in our own country. The truth is that except for the men of the hardy pioneering type, who are able and willing to venture on the virgin soil of the northern areas in Canada, it is almost impossible for men of limited means to get established as farmers.
That is the government's own agent speaking.
A certain number of course inherit from their fathers, but for the great majority of the young men of this generation it costs more to get established as farmers, in both money and energy, in any of the older settled parts of Canada than to enter upon either industrial or professional careers. Without question eastern Canada to-day is losing some of her best rural human stock, sons and daughters of those who pioneered and made this country what it is, people who brought to the country those simple arts of life which helped them to establish their families and their small communities as social units, because they do not see how they can under present conditions establish themselves in a reasonable time in anything like reasonable comfort.
These are the sons and daughters of our Canadian farmers, not the unacclimatized, in-

experienced immigrant labouring under the greatest difficulties. He continues:
It can be stated without fear of successful contradiction that it is not all the lure of the city and the pleasures of town life that attract our young Canadians to the cities and towns. It is, at least in part, because the occupations offered seem to give a more immediate hope of reasonable prosperity.
It is very easy for those living in comparative affluence, like my hon. friend from Cariboo (Mr. McBride), to say that young men should do as their fathers did. The truth is their fathers had no alternative offered of the kind offered by the centres of industry to-day:
What has just been stated applies not only to eastern Canada but to western Canada as well. Land within easy reach of transportation must be paid for some way and it costs money and energy to secure it. To put the above aspect of the matter on no higher basis than that of personal advantage it is in the interest of every business organization, industrial establishment and financial corporation in this country, that a way should be found to offer young people of Canada such a reasonable chance of success in this country that they will desire to establish themselves as farmers.
There is what Dr. Tory says after an investigation made no later than last year. His statement directly and deliberately refutes the propaganda of this government, but the programme continues.


Charles Gavan Power: Will my hon. friend read that statement and the pamphlet again? I cannot follow his argument. It seems to me Dr. Tory simply says what the pamphlet says.


Edward Joseph Garland: Of course, you cannot convince a man against his will, and I am not going to try. I have not the time, for I have a lot to say.


Charles Gavan Power: You always have.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, I have, and I hope that I always try to tell the actual facts. My whole endeavour, Mr. Chairman, ever since I have come to this House has been to try to bring home to this government a realization of the conditions that exist, in the hope that they will take immediate steps to remedy them. I am not one of those who blame the government for the actual conditions that exist. I do not. I will tell the House in a few moments upon whom I b'ame the conditions that exist in western Canada, and it is not wholly upon the government sitting opposite; my hon. friends to my right must take a very considerable share of responsibility in the matter. But before I conclude this little episode with regard to propaganda, I wish to call the minister's attention to the published state-

Supply-Immigration
ment of Mrs. Harrison Bell, a lady who accompanied Miss Margaret Bondfield in her investigational tour of this country last year, chiefly regarding the condition of juvenile immigrants in the Dominion. Last year Mrs. Bell was speaking in the city of Calgary, and is reported as follows in the Calgary Albertan: The use of large, vivid, coloured posters, picturing farms in western Canada as a housewives' delight-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, if those hon. members would listen to me I think possibly they would not continue their ridicule. -


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fortier):: Order.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, the quotation from the Calgary Albertan of Mrs. Harrison Bell's speech in the city of Calgary, is as follows:
The use of large, vivid, coloured posters, picturing farms in western Canada as a housewives' delight, complete with electric washing machines, electric irons and vacuum cleaners, electric milkers, butter makers, etc., as an incentive to prospective immigrants, was strongly attacked by Mrs. Harrison Bell, colleague of Miss Margaret Bondfield, and a member of the Overseas Settlement League, now oa an inspection tour of Canada, when she addressed a public meeting on immigration problems at the Grand theatre last night.
She goes on to say:
Back home in Great Britain they think that all that is necessary on the farms (in Canada) is to turn a switch, and electricity does the rest, and I confess that I was extremely disappointed when I found our in my investigations this year that this is not so. Why, in some of the farming districts I have visited I found they were still living as in primitive days, and that they were compelled to make their own yeast before they could make a batch of bread.


Mr. MARLER:: Do such posters actually exist?


Mr. GARLAND (Bcw River):: Let me
describe one. I have seen them myself even as far back as my own days. We have a highly coloured picture of large size, usually outside some great railway station in Liverpool, Munches: er, Glasgow or London, and this is what it depicts: in the immediate foreground there is a beautifully fenced roadway running from a beautiful home, and parked on it is a fine six-cylinder motor car; walking towards the motor car will be found the stalwart son, presumably of the owner-the alleged owner-of the farm; he is about to step into the car; in the barnyard there is a beautifully dressed young woman, whom we are to imagine is the wife of the owner; she is usually dressed in a coloured gingham dress, and looks very pretty; she is feeding
com off a platter to the finest looking geese, turkeys and chickens that any human being ever saw, and that only an artist could imagine; off to one side is an enormous hip-rooffed barn of a type rarely seen on the prairies, adjoining it is the everpresent silo -everpresent in the picture only. Many of us would like to have such a silo, but unfortunately we have never been able to afford one.


Mr. YIEN:: Will my hon. friend deny that, that is a true picture of many of our Canadian farms?


Edward Joseph Garland: If my hon. friend will possess his irritable soul in patience I will come to that in time.


Thomas Vien: I am irritated only by the
false statement.


Edward Joseph Garland: By the
false statement?


Thomas Vien: By your false statement.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, I ask that the hon. gentleman be requested to withdraw his remark. I have never made a false statement in this House, to my knowledge.


Charles Gavan Power: That you know of


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I ask that you request the hon. gentleman to withdraw his unparliamentary statement.


Thomas Vien: Mr. Chairman, speaking on the point of order, the hon. gentleman affirmed that the picture which he has described was not a true picture of many of our Canadian farms.


Edward Joseph Garland: No such
statement was ever made by me.


Thomas Vien: And my hon. friend tells me
that he resents my temper because of the tone of my remarks. I told him simply that he himself was not truly picturing the conditions in Canada by the statements that he has made. That is the explanation I have to give in respect of my hon. friend's point of order.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, I have never made a false statement in this House. The hon. gentleman opposite has accused me of making a false statement. I say that that is an unparliamentary expression and should be withdrawn.
Supply-Immigration


Hyacinthe-Adélard Fortier: The
hon. member has explained what he meant by "false statement." I think that that explanation should be accepted by the hon. member for Bow River.


Edward Joseph Garland: No, Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept that explanation. The hon. member deliberately charged me with making a false statement. It is unparliamentary to do so. I have never done it


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edward Joseph Garland: I demand
that that .be withdrawn. It is my right.


Thomas Vien: The ruling is given.


Hyacinthe-Adélard Fortier: I must
decISre that the ruling has been given.


Arthur Meighen: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
have no brief for the member for Bow River, but rulings of that sort simply make a farce of parliament.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
_ Mr. MEIGHEN: There is a sense of justice in us all. To rule that an hon. member can explain what he meant by "false statement" and not withdraw the expression is merely to make a travesty of the rules of the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. CANNON:: Order. I rise to a point of order. Your decisions, Mr. Chairman, are not debatable, and the right hon. leader of the opposition is now debating your decision.


Arthur Meighen: They are not speakable. Mr. GANNON:	Not debatable.


Edward Joseph Garland: I have never yet suffered from injustice in this House, and I sincerely hope that on this occasion, Mr. Chairman, you will not compel me to suffer.
I must ask you to reconsider your decision. The charge made by the hon. member was untrue, unparliamentary. I have never made a false statement. I ask that the honour of the House be sustained.


Thomas Vien: I have no objection to saying
this: Instead of "false statement," let me correct that and say that the statements of my hon. friend are incorrect; they do not truly depict the conditions in Canada.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is also inaccurate, Mr. Chairman. I have never painted a false picture, an incorrect picture of this country. The hon. member said that I made a false statement.


Thomas Vien: Incorrect statement.


Edward Joseph Garland: No, .false
statemept. The mere substitution of the word "incorrect" does not remove the implication. I must appeal to you, Sir, and ask that the hon. member withdraw that charge. I have never made an incorrect or false statement with respect to the matters that have been discussed.


Hyacinthe-Adélard Fortier: Would
the hon. member for Bow River please explain the point he is taking?


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon.
member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) stated that I had made a false statement with regard to conditions in this country, or something to that effect. The word "false" was used as applied to me-that I had made a false statement.


Hyacinthe-Adélard Fortier: And then the hon. member for Lotbiniere said that the hon. member had made an incorrect statement; do I understand that?


Edward Joseph Garland: He has just now done so.


Arthur Meighen: He did not withdraw
it.


Edward Joseph Garland: I contend
that the substitution of the word "incorrect" for .the word "false" does not remove the implication, and I ask that the unparliamentary words of the hon. member be withdrawn.


Lucien Cannon: There is no unparliamentary expression.


Hyacinthe-Adélard Fortier: Does the hon. member for Lotbiniere wish to speak to the point of order?


Thomas Vien: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I stated that I resented false statements in respect to Canada, and the hon. gentleman said, "the false statements that you should resent are those made by the Minister of Immigration."


Edward Joseph Garland: Oh, no.
Mr. yiEN:	Well, I want to be corrected
if my affirmation now is not exact. The hon. member said, "the false statements are those made by the Minister of Immigration," or by this government, or something like that.


Edward Joseph Garland: No.


Thomas Vien: Well, what did my hon. friend say?

Supp.y-Immigration


Edward Joseph Garland: My statement was that the propaganda published by them was shown by the evidence of their agent, Dr. Tory, as false, and on other evidence it is branded as false. The hon. member for Lotbiniere then claims that I made a false statement. It is not a matter as between an ordinary member of this House and the government; the hon. member is personally charging me with making a false statement, and I must ask him to withdraw that.


Lucien Cannon: There has been a ruling,
Mr. Chairman. This discussion is altogether out of order. The Chairman has given his decision and that decision is not debatable.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gordon):: There
has been a decision already given?


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Chairman, I hope
you have more respect for your position than to say a decision was given.


George Newcombe Gordon: I was just told by the
Clerk that a decision had been given.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for
Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) was allowed to explain what he meant by "false statement." These words need no explanation. These words are against the rules of the House, and should be withdrawn.


Lucien Cannon: The Chairman gave his
decision and the decision is not debatable, notwithstanding what the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) may say or insinuate. According to the rules of the House, this discussion should cease forthwith.


George Newcombe Gordon: I regret that for the moment I was out of the chamber, having been called out, and therefore did not hear the remarks in question. There is a dispute as to what actually took place; I am sorry I have not the record before me. I understand that the hon. member for Lotbiniere, to some extent, did dispute what the hon. member for Bow River said and it- makes it very difficult for me to reach a conclusion as to what actually passed. If it has been stated that the hon. member for Bow River made a statement on the floor of the House, in this committee, that was false, that is an expression which under the circumstances should be withdrawn, and I trust that the hon. member for Lotbiniere, if that inference can be drawn or taken from his words, will correct that impression before we continue. From the explanations which have been given I am in some confusion as to what actually passed, but I would like to hear from the hon. member for Lotbiniere in explanation of the matter.


Thomas Vien: Mr. Chairman, I have corrected my statement. I resented the statements made by the hon. member as being an incorrect picture of the conditions in Canada to-day. I asked him whether this literature issued by the Department of Immigration did not truly represent the conditions of some of our farms, of many of our Canadian farms, and I said that if there was any incorrect or false statement made it was the one he had made then. On a point of order being raised,
I said I was willing to correct my statement and say that the statement of the hon. member was incorrect; that it did not accurately represent the conditions of Canada to-day. With that explanation I think the committee fully understood that I did not want to charge the hon. member with making a false statement to the committee, which would be unparliamentary, but that I charged him with incorrectly representing the conditions in Canada to-day.


Lucien Cannon: The right hon. leader of
the opposition (Mr. Meighen) has described the decision given by the Chairman as an unspeakable decision. I do not think this committee should proceed further without an apology from the right hon. gentleman for such a statement.


George Newcombe Gordon: I did not hear that.


Lucien Cannon: I could hear it; it was said in the committee. I do not think any member of the House should use such an expression.


George Newcombe Gordon: No; I agree that the
expression is a highly offensive one.


Lucien Cannon: I have no doubt that the
leader of the opposition will immediately apologize.


Edward Joseph Garland: I accept the statement of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) so far as it* is an expression of opinion on his part. I was describing to the House as graphically as my poor efforts could the poster which I have seen myself. A little away to one side of this farm building was a beautiful hip-roofed barn, with the silo. We had reached that stage. Everything, of course, was beautiful spick and span and newly painted. Behind the fence to the back of the House, and running over a beautiful sweep of park land was a crop standing in the stook, and the stooks were so thick as to make one wonder how the artist could have got enough room to paint them all in. It was the sort of crop that one sees in this country once in perhaps ten or fifteen years. Off to one side was standing a splendidly built man in the
Supply-Immigration

stage uniform of Jack Canuck. He had on the broad brimmed sombrero, and the English riding breeches, which are very rarely seen in western Canada. He was wearing an open shirt with the cowboy tie, and to everyone who looked at the picture he was uttering these words, "Monarch of all I survey." Not a word about the mortgage companies, not a word about the banks or his debts to them, not a word about taxes or anything else. The wonderful impression was thrown out upon the minds of all who were unfortunate enough to be receptive, that all they had to do was to come here and within a short space of time, almost as quick as the clicking of your fingers, they would appear like that wonderful gentleman and be the monarch of similar possessions.
That kind of propaganda is condemned by Mrs. Harrison Bell. It is condemned by myself. It is condemned, and must be condemned by every honest-minded man in this country who stands for the good of Canada.


Donald Sutherland: This wonderful gentleman who was standing in the middle of this painting, may I ask if he was one of the egg inspectors of the Minister of Agriculture?


Edward Joseph Garland: May I say, Mr. Chairman, if the government is really serious in this matter-I cannot believe they are-I think they are just talking for political purposes-but if they are really serious they would censor all the very recent publications of the department. They would censor the publication of this report by Doctor Tory, which makes statements both this year and last which exceed the most extravagant statements ever made by any hon. member on this side of the House. In the opening paragraphs of his report last year, he compares current conditions on the farms of Canada with those existing in Germany in 1875-the most desperate conditions that ever existed in agriculture in Germany, when homes were burned, when much was destroyed, and the countryside was destitute. It is like reading a commentary on conditions here. Doctor Tory's report this year is almost as striking as it was last year.
Then we have the report of the National Conference regarding winter employment in Canada, printed at Ottawa, by F. A. Acland, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty It is not my purpose to quote at length from this report, because that has already been done by my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) and myself in the debate on unemployment and immigration. I say that this report should also be censored if the gov-
[Mr. E. J. Garland.1
ernment is not prepared to face the actual facts and conditions rather than covering them up with statements of the kind I have quoted from "Canada, the New Homeland."
The other day, Mr. Chairman, I had the unfortunate experience of meeting three fine, moderately young Scotchman out of employment. They were three of the poor chaps who had come up here from Cape Breton. Let me tell this House their story.
These three men had come to Canada as a result of the propaganda carried on in Scotland by the British Empire Steel Corporation. They had seen advertisements in the Glasgow Herald, and in local papers, urging experienced miners to come to the Cape Breton coal fields, where they would be assured of a job at from five to six dollars a day, with steady work. These three men came here on the strength of that statement. Two of them happened to be married, one had, I think, seven children, and the other ten. The third man was unmarried. After they had been here some time they were encouraged by the company to bring out their families.


Georges Parent: Ten years of age and drawing six dollars a day?


Edward Joseph Garland: What is the man talking about, Mr. Chairman?


Georges Parent: I wanted to ask the hon. member a question. He said that he had met three young Scotchmen who had come to this country, and who were promised six dollars a day for working in the mines. I am asking the age of these young men. I understood the hon. member to say they were ten years of age.


Edward Joseph Garland: There is really no use in making any comment on that question. I say that one of these married men had seven children, another ten, and the third man was unmarried.


An hon. MEMBER:: Was he a Scotchman?


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes. The
two married men were deliberately encouraged by the company to bring their families out here. The men naturally were glad to accept the encouragement, as all men feel rather lonely and gloomy at times when separated from their families. They took advantage of the company's offer to advance them the money required to pay the passage of their families. These two men brought their families out, and undertook that liability to the company. One of them, the father of the seven children, has not yet succeeded in paying off that liability. He has not had enough

Supply-Immigration
work in the two years to enable him to pay *off that debt. The other man had two grown sons who went and worked in the mines with him and who subjected themselves to the reduction of $5 from each pay cheque until they were finally able to pay off their debt to the company amounting to over $600. That debt for transportation has only just been paid off after two years, with three members of the family working in the mines.
The strike came on. They endured conditions just as long as they could, and finally decided it was no use staying in that area, and they left it to find work. The reason why they left it they told very graphically. They had gone up to Sydney, and there they saw an advertisement stating that 800 men and women were wanted in the ibeet fields of Alberta. On that very day they arrived here in Ottawa, the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) rose in this House and read a telegram from one of the representatives of labour in Calgary to the effect that there was no further employment in the beet fields, that this order was filled long ago. Whatever truth there is in that I am not concerned with now. But it was on the strength of that advertisement that these men started west. How they were going to get west they did not know. They were going to try and get a job on the way perhaps. They went from Moncton to Quebec, and on to Montreal, beating their way, with no money in their pockets. Their experiences on this trip were heartrending to anyone who heard them-suspected by everybody, driven around from one place to another, driven from doorways. Let me give you one illustration.
These men had stopped in the shelter of a railway embankment to cook a billy-can of tea. Dusk was falling, and just as soon as they were ready to partake of their tea, along came one of the railway policemen and ordered them off, using abusive language. They ran up the embankment, and as they ran the policeman struck one of them with his baton three times on the back. When they reached the top of the embankment the policeman fired two shots after them with his revolver. That is the sort of treatment they got-these men who were looking for work.
Here is another experience they had. Going into one of the towns along the way, they noticed the ties were on fire, caused by cinders dropped from the engine. They put the fire out, and approaching the town they met a policeman, and told him what they had done. He said to them in language which I cannot repeat in this House "What is the company to you? Do you think I am going to believe a story of that kind? Do you mean to say you expect me to believe you went and put out that fire? What interest have you got in the company?"


Joseph Archambault: Did the hon. member hear the other side of the story?


Edward Joseph Garland: I have heard the stories of the three men and each one was corroborated by the other.


Joseph Archambault: Did you not hear
the other side?


Edward Joseph Garland: I am telling you the story as I heard it. Hon members can put what interpretation they like on it. These are the facts as I have heard them recited by these men. By the way, they spent one weekend in Montreal trying to find a job; they went everywhere, along the docks, the wharves, and elsewhere. There was no work for them. They told us here that there were many unemployed in that city. They came to Ottawa. The first thing they did here was to apply to the employment agency. They were referred by the employment agency to the place where the Metropolitan building is going up and they were told that they might get a job there. When they went there they were informed by the man in charge that they were just the type he was looking for; they were rock facers capable of doing some of .the necessary work. "But", he said, I cannot take you on at this time because there is too much unemployment in the city, and there would be resentment if you were taken on".


Georges Parent: How do you know that?
Mr.' GARLAND (Bow River): I know for this reason when these men came here we secured an interview for them with the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Robb) who sits just below my hon. friend. We also had the Minister of Labour at that interview, and they did their very best to get these men a job. They tried all that day and the next day, and they were to go back at two o'clock. Let me say the only job these men were able to get-after the strongest efforts on the .part of the hon. mdmber for South East Grey (Miss Macphail) who happens to have some friends at Navan-was a job at roadwork. This is the story of three hardy Scotchmen whom the Acting Minister of Finance declared after his interview with them to be men sincerely wanting work. I believe they were myself. I hope they will get work; I wish them wTell. I have given a description of conditions that exist, is this government going to take any steps to remedy them? I am going to give them all
Supply-Immigration

the credit that is coming to them. I congratulate them, so far as the farmers are concerned, upon the bankruptcy legislation they have introduced. I think it was an excellent step. We have urged it for three years and it was overdue. With reference to rural credit legislation, let me say to the Acting Minister of Finance there is no more important legislation needed in this country. If any immigration policy is to be justified we need, and we need it immediately, a fair and generous rural credit enactment.


Georges Parent: For immigration purposes?


Edward Joseph Garland: I do not know what the hon. member is talking about, he is not very intelligent.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


George Newcombe Gordon: I must ask the hon.
member to withdraw that statement. He cannot speak in that way of another hon. member.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is that your ruling, Mr. Chairman?


George Newcombe Gordon: Yes, that is my ruling.


Edward Joseph Garland: Very well, I have pleasure in withdrawing the statement. I wish to quote now this statement from a newspaper:
Montreal, Nov. 29.-Of the 57,367 "visitors" departing from Montreal for a "temporary visit" to the United States during the past five months, 40,197 did r.ot return, according to I. F. Wixcon, United States immigration commissioner, who, in an address here declared that 76 per cent of those crossing the line from this district employed subterfuge to enter and remain in the United .States.
That offsets a good many of the statements that have been made.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does my
hon. friend believe every newspaper article he reads?


Edward Joseph Garland: This statement is made by I. F. Wixcon.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Who is he?


Edward Joseph Garland: The United States Immigration Commissioner.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Do you
know him?


Edward Joseph Garland: I would
take him to be a man of some responsibility.


Joseph Archambault: From what paper are you reading the quotation?


Edward Joseph Garland: One of the Montreal papers.


Joseph Archambault: Which one?


Edward Joseph Garland: I do not
know which one.


Joseph Archambault: Is it from La
Minerve?


Edward Joseph Garland: I wonder
then if the hon. member will believe this statement. This is a memorandum from the Bureau of Statistics secured by myself on 29th April: the importers of settlers' effects into Canada for the year 1923 reached the total value of $6.205,0S5. From the United States they amounted to $4,985,266. For the same fiscal year the total exports of immigrants' effects amounted to $7,971,002. Of that amount $6,635,000 worth went to the United States alone, In 1924 the total imports of settlers' effects was $6,114,702, and for the same year the exports of settlers' effects amounted to $10,795,941. Some difference! In the current fiscal year settlers' effects to the amount of $6,342,517 were brought in; the exports of settlers' effects for the same year amounted to $7,862,105. These few figures tell a story-a large heartrending story. The government, I hope, recognizes what is going on, and I tell them, as I have told them for three years now, that if they would turn their attention to the improvement of conditions in Canada, especially the conditions on the farm, instead wasting money on all sorts of foolish structures-elevators at Quebec, elevators at Halifax, elevators at Prince Rupert-


An hon. MEMBER:: Hudson Bay railway.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, and I will even join my hon. friends with respect to the Hudson Bay railway. I do not think the time is yet ripe for it. With these things under way and our present outflow of immigrants-due to the lack of proper economic conditions-what is one to think when he reads such a statement as I have given to the House? And I may say that they are not mine alone, but those of officials of this government.
In closing I will give two quotations, one from the Vancouver Sun which certainly cannot be taken as being a very extreme paper:
The average Canadian home is to-day like a European war home-half the young people are absent: gone to the United States. Here are the official immigration figures of those who are leaving Canada:


An hon. MEMBER:: Crepe.


Edward Joseph Garland: I draw the attention of the hon. member who made that remark to the fact that crepe indicates death. I am not suggesting for a moment, as the hon. gentleman apparently is, that there

Supply-Immigration
is any death in Canada. But if hon. gentleman opposite proceed with their present policy death is going to visit agricultural Canada. The following emigration figures are quoted from the Vancouver Sun:
1921		 52,929
1922		 62,289
1923		 181,973
1924	(for 6 months only)	 96,825
The despatch goes on.
And these people are not the feeble-minded or the old; they are the healthy, the young, the best blood and brain of this Dominion, who have been born, raised and educated at enormous expense to Canada.
How long will this exodus to the United States continue; how long can this country stand the drain of 200,000 or 300,000 per year of its best young people? Why are those young men and women leaving Canada?
The Ottawa Citizen in another editorial not very long ago said this:
The situation for Canada is far more serious than merely that the young men are "leaving their priceless heritage to the keeping of the older generation". They are leaving Canada entirely, to become citizens of another country. Many thousands of the Canadian men who came back from overseas inspired with a greater love for the homeland, and a zeal to serve Canada in peace as in war, have been driven abroad by the pressure of economic circumstances. They found barriers to opportunity raised against them. Entrenched interests have established themselves as toll-gate keepers who take higher toll than young men are prepared to pay for the privilege of living in this country.
I could go on quoting from many sources as to the conditions that exist.


Thomas Vien: Quote your own case.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am not so puffed up with myself as to imagine that my own case is due to any ability on my part. The fact that I have the distinction of being in this House to speak for these people has only been possible because of the contemptible conditions under which many of my own unfortunate people have had to live in recent years. I have been sent down here by them because those conditions were wrong, so that I might tell the House about them and try and get a remedy. I have in my hand a few other dispatches. Here is one dated April 2, 1925, and reads:
To give one an idea of the extent of the exodus of settlers from the south country, it might be mentioned that on last Friday's train there were seven carloads of settlers' effects, and on Monday's train there were eighteen. It is stated that -there will be eight or ten more carloads on .to-marro-w's train.
I was down here when this happened, but when I read this item from a local correspondent I was shocked. Then I found in the Ottawa Journal on the same day the following:
Large party of immigrants on way to Canada.
Thirty families leave Liverpool under overseas settlement plan to work farms in Dominion.
On the one hand you will find people who have struggled to make a living gcing out by the trainload, and people being brought in by the boat load. They will not stay until economic condi:ions are improved in this country, until rapid and progressive steps are taken by the administration to see to it that the question of unemployment is solved, and the condition of agriculture is solved, and ;hey can do it if they will turn their attention to it with a will, which I would like to see them do.


James Alexander Robb: Having listened to this hardy
annual from my hon. friend, I dc not wish to delay my own estimates by making another speech. I am not going to quote any of the figures of the movement of immigration. They have already been placed on Hansard a number of times by the Minister of Labcur (Mr. Murdock) and I think by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Listening a moment ago to the figures of my hon. friend as to the movement of carloads of settlers' effects, I observe that the records of March, 1924 ecming in from the United States show that there were 158 carloads and in March, 1925 there were 363 carloads. I have here a statement of wealth, cash and effects brought into Canada from the United States and taken from Canada to the United States by settlers during the fiscal years 191213 to 1924-25. My hon. friend quoted something like 814.000,000 brought in-


Edward Joseph Garland: I have no figures whatever for 1912-13.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend quoted that.


Edward Joseph Garland: I have
no figures whatever prior to 1922.


James Alexander Robb: The real figures show that in 1924-25 there were brought in effects to the value of $6,277,122.95.


Edward Joseph Garland: What year?


James Alexander Robb: In 1924-25. Before taking up the question of the climatic conditions, I may say that my hon. friend1 quoted from Mrs. Florence N. Harrison Bell an alleged report of a speech she made in Calgary. I hold in my hand a copy of the Manchester Guardian 14th March, 1925, containing an open letter from the Overseas Settlement Office, signed by Florence N. Harrison Bell and George F. Plant, who accompanied her here. Apparently the Manchester Guardian had published a despatch from Toronto similar, I imagine, to some of the despatches that will go from this House to-night, which may be on the wires now, and perhaps will be published in the British papers to-morrow.
Supply-Immigration

I will not tire the House by reading the whole of their letter. This letter in part reads:
In our report we have made certain recommendations with a view to improving the system under which the children migrate to Canada and, in particular, have recommended that no children under school-leaving age should be assisted to proceed to Canada-a recommendation which has been adopted by the Secretary of State for the Colonies and by the Dominion government. At the same time we found that, generally speaking, the existing arrangements were satisfactory, that the children were regularly inspected and well looked after by the societies responsible for bringing them to Canada, and that the prospects for the boys and girls in Canada are better than they would have been had they remained in the United Kingdom.
Here is another clause in the letter:
The selection of the children is, and always has been, vested entirely in the hands of the Dominion government. It is not to be expected that there should not be a number of failures among these children, but the vast majority have undoubtedly become good Canadian citizens.
My hon. friend who speaks annually on the immigration problem is himself an immigrant. On his own statement he came to this country not as well off as he is to-day. It seems to me his presence in this parliament, the clothes that he wears and the company with whom he associates are evidence that he is not doing too badly in Canada. He comes from Alberta and apparently he has done very well. I want to say that the gentlemen surrounding me and the gentlemen sitting opposite me are in a position to speak for the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec. For the moment we will let the hon. member for Bow River represent, or misrepresent, Alberta if he wishes in this House. I hold in my hand here some of the records and some of the literature. My hon. friend has found fault with the literature sent out and published by the federal government, and if I understand it he claims that we misrepresented the climate, and that we have not told people of the rigorous climate of Canada, that we have submitted a picture of bams and houses that is altogether misleading. I hold in my hand a document banded out by the province of Alberta for distribution at the Wemibley exposition and throughout England. I have not enough copies to pass around the chamber, but hon. gentlemen will notice some of the nice houses and bams which are pictured in this book, and we have a statement headed, ".Climate and weather" which reads:
The climate of Alberta is of very attractive quality, and this quality has a very important bearing on the possibilities of development northward and on industrial and more particularly agricultural activities. The climate of the interior provinces of Canada is described as extreme. The winters are subect to low dips of temperatire and the summers are quite hot. Alberta,

however, by reason of contiguity to the coast province has a rather moderate climate.
That is an official statement sent out by the province of Alberta. Here is another one telling of the opportunities in Alberta. This booklet says:	_
Alberta has a greater diversity of surface than the other prairie provinces. The southern part of the province is level prairie, in which the characteristic vegetation is the bunch grass, with cottonwoods, willow, saskatoons and small shrubby vegetation in the river bottoms, but a width of about sixty miles on the west side and in the southern part of the province consists of foothills and mountains.
That description would seem to indicate that it was one of the best provinces in the Dominion. Here is a picture of one of the dairy bams on the government Alberta farms. Look at the splendid herd of cattle and the fine bam. This is issued by Hon. George Hoadley, Minister of Agriculture in the Progressive government of Alberta. Let me read one sentence from this booklet:
The new province gave promise of becoming one of the brightest, jewels in the crown of empire. Richly endowed by nature with broad and fertile agricultural lands, a wealth of mineral resources, and surpassing beauty of mountain scenery.
And so on. This is what the government of Alberta has to say about that province: this is the type of advertising it sends overseas.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does the
hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland)
support that government?


James Alexander Robb: I do not know. Now, I have here a copy o'f The Financial Times of Montreal of May 29, 1925 in which there appears an advertisement over the names of the ministers of the province of Alberta, as follows:
Hon. H. Greenfield, Premier and Minister of Municipal Affairs.
Hon. J. E. Brownlee, Attorney General and Provincial
Secretary.
Hon. R. G. Reid, Provincial Treasurer.
Hon. George Hoadley, Minister of Agriculture and Health.
Hon. Alexander Ross, Minister of Public Works.
Hon. V. W. Smith, Minister of Railways and Telephones.
Hon. Perren Baker. Minister of Education.
Hon. Mrs. Irene Parlby, Minister without portfolio.
This advertisement- is headed:
Province of Alberta-a land of opportunity for settler and investor.
It gives the total value of agricultural products for the year 1924 as $217,757,120.23, and it shows that Alberta's coal production in 1923 amounted to 6,800,000 tons. I will not tire the committee by reading all the columns devoted to an advertisement of Alberta's resources, but the fact is that this is the statement sent out by that province. Now,

Supply-Immigration
does the government of Alberta speak for the province, or does the hon. member for Bow River?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I desire briefly to
refer to one particular aspect of this immigration question, namely, that with regard to child immigration. A year ago this question was discussed in the House and there is no reason why I should now go over the ground then covered. However, since that time the subject has been discussed rather fully following a visit from Miss Margaret Bondfield and investigations by the social workers of this country. These investigations throw some light upon this very important question. As I said last year we ought to look at this matter both from the standpoint of the immigrant child and from that of the welfare of this country. We have recorded a very large number of instances where children have been mistreated in Canada and this would seem to show that the supervision is not as good as it should foe. On the other hand, we have had so many instances of children being brought into Canada who were not suited for immigration that it would indicate that the selection has not been either careful or wise. As I pointed out last year, we are extremely careful about the character of our grain; we try to get the best seed possible. And we are equally careful in the matter of live stock. But we pay much less attention to the character of the girls and boys, the human stock, whom we are importing from the Old Land. I shall quote briefly from a report which has been sent me by the Social Service Council of Canada, an organization on which are represented a large number of churches and social agencies in this country, and which I heard quoted the other day as an authority by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien):
Previous to the visit of Miss Margaret Bondfield, M.P. and a delegation of the overseas settlement committee to Toronto, a further effort was made to ascertain the effect upon Toronto of juvenile immigration. By co-operation of local social service agencies specially interested in child life, an investigation was made by trained workers as to the number of persons in Toronto who came to Canada as child immigrants. Two hundred cases were recorded, twenty-four of whom were included in the records already quoted from the Toronto General Hospital.
The minister a little while ago said that certain members on his side were able to speak for the old province of Ontario. Now, I am quoting here figures taken from statistics collected by social workers in Ontario, which province has received a larger proportion of juvenile immigrants than any other section of Canada. At page 41 of this report there appears a statement with regard to these two hundred cases:
Two hur.dred immigrants residing in Toronto, having reached Canada as child or juvenile immigrants:
Mentality-
Apparently normal	 45
Below normal	 78
Mentally defective	 77
Imbecile from birth (now in Orillia).. ..	3
Financial circumstances-
Desirable citizens	 17
Independent	 65
Dependent	 137
Undesirable	 162
Indifferent	 21
Health and mortality-
Treated for v.d	 64
Known immoral	 134
Married	 64
Broken homes	 25
Illegitimate children	 123
The pamphlet then goes to analyze these figures:
What is the significance of these figures? Certainly not, that all juvenile immigrants are immoral, or defective or dependent. These two hundred cases were collected through agencies or persons chiefly concerned with relief or correction or some other aspect of social service. The two hundred represent, therefore, the percentage of the failure of the system through which they were recruited for Canada, rather than its normal product. The reports of the Superintendent of Juvenile Immigration for Canada and the publications of tho immigrating homes and agencies, as well as earlier sections of this report, have told the other side of the story. Most of us know desirable citizens of Canada who reached these shores as child immigrants. Nor do we consider that statistics on this subject, collected in Toronto, are likely to be characteristic of conditions in cities in other parts of Canada. As many more than two-thirds (74 per cent in 1923 Year Book) of the juvenile immigrants to Canada settle in Ontario, it is altogether likely that Toronto has more than her fair proportion of the failures among her dependent citizens Granting these considerations, your committee is still of the opinion that conditions prevailing in Toronto justify them in thinking that the' success or failure of juvenile immigration should not be judged only by the records of the juvenile immigrants while wards of the immigrating agency. The statistics quoted above show the "dangerous ages" to be just the years when these wards, for the first time, become independent of the home.
They are supported by the evidence of the social workers who visited places in the province where these boys and girls have been placed on farms or in country homes. Again and again they report employers and neighbours as remarking on the foolish use made by these young people of their accumulated wages and their new-found liberty. Many seem to use their freedom to leave the country and taste the pleasures and temptations of the city. In this way the system of juvenile immigration vitally affects city life; and yet, neither the city nor the province, except in Manitoba, has any say in the placement of immigrant children within their borders.
Reference is here made to the province of Manitoba. I may say that the social workers interested in the placement of children in that province have stated to me that they are very much afraid of the incoming of such large numbers of immigrant children, and that in fact some of the immigration agencies have tried to act quite independently of the pro-
Supply-I mmigra tion

vincial authorities in placing these children. This is a very serious state of affairs.
I shall quote a few very brief sentences from the conclusions and recommendations of the Social Service Council of Canada. It seems to me these are very reasonable and should be carefully considered by the government, especially as they are given to the public after the visit of Miss Bondfield and after a great deal of discussion had had taken place about these agencies:
The inspection as now carried out by the federal government and the immigrating agencies is often perfunctory and inadequate. One agency has but one inspector, a man of eighty years of age. More generally, the visits of the inspectors are few and ill-managed, and the inspectors are not always suited to their work.
Again:
The apprentice contract should be standardized for different sexes, ages and types, and be convincingly just for both employer and employee.
Again:
That no immigrant child, even if otherwise satisfactory. should be accepted by the Dominion immigration officials in Britain who has not been subjected to three tests-tuberculin test, Wasserman reaction test, and a psychiatric test.
Again:
That while it is impossible to lay down rigid rules as to the desirable frequency of inspection. (a) No child should be sent to a foster home from an agency until that foster home has been inspected and passed upon by an official duly appointed by the provincial authorities or by the Department of Immigration.
And once again:
That as the demand in Canada is for children to work on farms or in households, only boys and girls of post-school age should be brought to Canada by immigrating agencies.
That last recommendation is, I think, one that was given by Miss Bondfield to the imperial authorities. At this late hour, Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to enlarge upon these recommendations, but I do feel that I ought not to allow this opportunity to pass without very definitely placing these facts and suggestions before the committee and urging that they be given serious consideration by the department. I fancy that we ought to look forward to the years to come when the boys and girls from our own homes will be sufficient to gradually spread our population across the Dominion. I hope that the time will come when, for the sake of Canada, we shall not be forced to bring in young girls and boys to work in our homes and on our farms. In the interests of the immigrant children, although in many respects life in Canada may be superior to life in the slums of Great Britain, I urge that we must have a much better system of inspection than we have had in the past.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Chairman, in answer to
my hon. friend from' Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) I think I placed on record a moment ago the statement of the Hon. Margaret Bondfidd, who visited Canada purposely to look into this question of child immigration. Her report showed that the children had done fairly well in this country, and that, generally speaking, they were well cared for. I am not going into the details of the report issued by the social service workers. One does not like to contradict welfare workers who are animated, no doubt, by a desire to help, but it seems to me that at least before broadcasting such a report they might have consulted the department and received more accurate information. To give my hon. friend an instance of only one inaccuracy, on page four of the report the statement is made, that in the last fifteen years Canada has brought seventy-five thousand juveniles to her shores, and the movement is said to be steadily increasing in volume. The total influx of juvenile children, not including children belonging to parents, for the fifteen years ending March 31, 1924, is not 75,000, but 21,552. The total number of juvenile immigrants brought to Canada since 1868 is just about 80,000. The total of the arrivals for the ten years ending March 31, 1924, is under 10,000, and the total for the previous ten years was almost about 25,000. To get the highest number for any one year, we have to go back to 1905-1906, when 3,264 juvenile immigrants came in, the only time in the history of the movement when it exceeded 3,000 a year.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Might I ask the
minister to comment on the particular statistics which I gave? Does he question those?


James Alexander Robb: I have not looked into them
at all, but if they are no more correct than the one I have noticed, I should not like to waste a busy man's time looking into them.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, there is just one aspect of the child immigration problem that I think this committee might well take into consideration. In Canada, indeed in Ottawa itself, we have a tremendous number of orphan children-our own Canadian children, born of our own Canadian people-anxious for a home. Ladies who have gone down to visit these places have told me that the children will climb on their knees and hug them, so anxious are they for some affection. Now, it occurs to me that while these orphans all over Canada are left dependent largely upon voluntary charity, it is not a very good policy to be

Supply-Immigration
spending taxes on the importation of children from other countries. That is my comment. I think our duty is to our own children first. Instead of looking after them as we should, we leave them largely dependent upon what chance contributions gentle souls throughout the country may be in a position to make.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does not
my hon. friend know that the care of these children in his province is under the direction
of the government he supports, led by Premier 'Greenfield and-not this government?


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes; and
I also know that even in that province we are put to our wits' ends to provide homes for mental defectives, the direct result of the importation of these child immigrants. Now, Mr. Chairman, the minister had a lot of fun out of the few remarks he made after I had finished. I would disabuse his mind of one or two misapprehensions. I agree with him heartily that the propaganda published by the Alberta Department of Agriculture over the name of Mr. Hoadley does no more represent average conditions in Alberta than does his own propaganada.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Will my
hon. friend permit another question? Could he tell this committee if there is any government in this Dominion or anywhere else that he, with his Irish tendency to be " agin " the government would ever support?


Edward Joseph Garland: No, Mr. Chairman. That is the kind of comment I would expect from the hon. gentleman, and it is all I would expect from him. The minister in his argument attempted to make it look as though Mr. Hoadley was speaking for the province of Alberta, and that of course the member for Bow River, although he was quite willing to let him speak for a portion, could not possibly be speaking for the whole of Alberta.


James Alexander Robb: What about the records of
the whole cabinet?


Edward Joseph Garland: Just a
moment, now. I have in my hand, as it so happens, two of the resolutions passed by the annual convention of the United Farmers of Alberta, which is the strongest farmers' organization in Canada, and is going to be stronger as a result of this government's action.


Lucien Cannon: Do not be too sure of
that.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon.
member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) corrects me; he says; "inaction." Inaction is correct. Now, let me paint this picture very clearly for the committee. Mr. Hoadlley spoke to that convention; he spoke to them on immigration. He spoke to the women's section of that convention on immigration. Mrs Parlby spoke to them on immigration. After both these persons, whom my hon. friend has quoted to-night, had spoken, these farmers, gathered together in convention from every section of the .province, knowing the actual conditions as they were, passed these two resolutions. Let me read them. This one was adopted by the annual convention of the United Farm Women of Alberta, held January 20 to 23:
Immigration
Whereas, the financial condition of the country is such as to make us feel that more people should not be encouraged to come here until conditions alter, so that we can render more assistance to those who come in and hold out brightest hopes for the future;
Therefore, be it resolved, that the government be urged to discontinue their present expensive immigration policy and direct their efforts more towards bettering conditions so that the people we already have will wish to stay.
I take my mandate from that convention and not from Mr. Hoadley.


Samuel William Jacobs: Did the hon. member write that resolution himself?


Edward Joseph Garland: No, he had nothing to do with it.


Samuel William Jacobs: Was he present?


Edward Joseph Garland: As a matter of fact, many resolutions were sent out from that convention from countless locals on that very matter. Here was a resolution adopted by the annual convention of the United Farmers of Alberta:
Resolved that this convention-


An hon. MEMBER:: How many were there?


Edward Joseph Garland: So many
that my hon. friend would be delighted to have their number at the next election.


Lucien Cannon: As many in Saskatchewan?


Edward Joseph Garland: Resolved that this convention go on record as being absolutely opposed to the government spending any money for bringing in agricultural implements-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edward Joseph Garland: Quite right; that is exactly what they are. They come in here to be turned into agricultural implements by the administration or the powers that be.

Supply-Immigration


An hon. MEMBER:: Is there any harm in that?


Edward Joseph Garland: If I may
go a little further, Mr. Chairman, I will continue the' reading of the resolution:
-for bringing agricultural immigrants into Alberta until conditions in the province are such that the average farmer at present in the province can make a decent living on an Alberta farm.
Now, the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) has been so delighted with this and has laughed at it so much that he has not heard it all, and the interruptions have been so numerous that I am sure hon. members, or many of them, must have been deprived of the pleasure and profit of hearing just what I said. Permit me, then, to repeat the resolution.


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. member is not entitled to repeat the resolution.


Lucien Cannon: No repetitions, for goodness' sake.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am not permitted to repeat it?


George Newcombe Gordon: No, not permitted to repeat it. Unnecessary repetition is against the rules of the House.


Edward Joseph Garland: I did not think it was unnecessary.


George Newcombe Gordon: I rule that it is unnecessary.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I
appeal to you, then, as Chairman, to preserve a little more order while I am speaking? The order has certainly, in my opinion, been disgraceful; I have not been able to hear even myself at times.


George Newcombe Gordon: Order.
Mr. GAR,LAND (Bow River): Now, with regard to child immigration, again let me say, with all due respect to the remarks of the Minister of Immigration, that I am not altogether satisfied either with the inspection or with the general policy. I hold in my hand a despatch from Toronto dated May 18 of this year. It reads as follows:
Following the inquest here to-day the inquiry into the death of 18-year old Benjamin Berman, whose body was found in Toronto Bay last Thursday, Chief Coroner Graham referred to the apparent sub-normal mental condition of the boy's family, and declared that it was "a sad commentary on this Canada of ours that we have an immigration department that will permit the introduction into Canada of such a type as we have seen before us this afternoon."
I have another, but I do not want to quote it at length, regarding the suicide of some

unfortunate child immigrant, and the following quotation from the Vancouver Sun:
Sixteen-year-old boy came before the Toronto police ccurt this week on a charge of housebreaking. During the course of the trial it developed that the boy's father is an ex-convict and sub-normal in intellect.
One brother is now serving a term in the penitentiary and two others are deaf and dumb.
The five people are probably costing the Dominion of Canada $10,000 or more a year in loss through their depredations, cost of their trials and their keep.
And the sane, healthy people of the Dominion are paying the bill, incurred as it was through the fact that a mentally deficient father was permitted to come into this country.
There are difficulties, I admit, with regard to the checking or ascertaining of the mental condition of adult immigrants who come to Canada, but it is nothing as to the difficulty with regard to these orphan children, these child immigrants. The medical profession-* and I am quite sure the hon member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) will bear me out-will inform the House, if it is asked to, that you can examine the life history of any adult, checking up the life history also of father and grandfather, and make re-sonably sure whether there is any likelihood or any danger of insanity or of the development of any mental defect. Is that not true?


Robert James Manion: Oh, I think so.


Edward Joseph Garland: In the case of these immigrant children, from the very nature of their origin one is justified in suspecting at least that there is mental taint. Where do they come from? Mostly from the orphan homes. In many cases you cannot even trace who their parents were; in many cases their parents are dead-died under extraordinary circumstances. I do not think the best interests of Canada are being served by enfiltrating the whole of our race with the dangerous types which undoubtedly will result from the importation of these child immigrants. The least we can ask is that before they are brought to these shores the strictest possible medical ecxamination be made Of every one of them individually. [DOT] The Minister of Immigration owes at least that much to Canada. I am personally opposed to child immigration. I am not opposed to adult immigration. I would permit any physically and mentally fit man or woman to come to Canada.
Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou) [DOT] Hear, hear.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes. But
I would not spend one dollar of the taxpayers' money to bring them here under the present conditions.

Supply-Immigration


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How did
you get here?


Edward Joseph Garland: I got here
with my own money. I was not helped over on an assisted passage scheme. I did not have my farm financed. I did not have to take up an abandoned soldier settler's land at revalued prices. I came out here and took my chance at pioneering. Now, Mr. Chairman, may I ask that the minister take into serious consideration, more serious than he has indicated to-night, the remarks I have made? I have made them in all sincerity. My only interest is the welfare of Canada. Her welfare is mine. My children have been brought up here. I hope to live here, spend my days here, and die here, and I hope my children will after me, and I resent the ridicule which has come from hon. members on the other side of the House. I frankly object, although I do not think he intended to be discourteous, to the-shall I say?-light manner in which the Minister of Immigration has treated my remarks.	*


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edward Joseph Garland: I have
tried to make them consistent. I have tried to make them a proper picture of average conditions, and I ask that the mil ister will at least consider them.


James Alexander Robb: I shall not refer to child immigration except to remind my hon. friend that I have already placed on record figures to show that the conditions are not what he has represented them to be, either as to numbers or quality. We have also the statement of Miss Margaret Bondfield, who came here especially to look into the conditions, and who reported that these young people were being looked after very well here in Canada.
With reference to that regrettable incident in Toronto which my hon. friend referred to, the morning I read of it in the newspapers I wired to our agent in Toronto to make a report upon it, and I have that report here. I will admit at once that possibly in past years the medical inspection has been rather lax. There was a period in our history when we allowed people to come in here without a medical examination as strict as it is now, but the medical examination now is as strict as it possib!}' can be, and in addition to that, we have a very careful civil examination by our officers. In this particular case our records establish that the boy's father, a Russian Hebrew, arrived at Portland, Maine, on March 8, 1913, and was admitted destined to Toronto. In 1921 he returned to Poland on a visit, returning the same year. On May 23, 1923, 268j.
bis daughter, Gitla, aged seventeen, was admitted, and on September 8, 1923, his son, Benjamin, aged fifteen, was admitted. This is the boy whose death is being investigated. He was destined to the father at 138 Elizabeth street, Toronto, and according to our record passed medical inspection. On February 24, 1924, Mrs. Berman, aged forty-seven, together with her daughters, Ryfka and Nycha, aged twelve and nine years, respectively, were admitted, all destined to the husband and father at Toronto. Our record shows that each member of the family passed medical inspection at the port of entry.


Mr. CLARK:: Would the minister explain why it is necessary for Canada to spend millions of dollars annually to get immigrants, when the United States has millions offering without spending a cent? In fact, they are spending money to keep them out.


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: The United States did spend a lot of money when she wanted immigrants.


James Alexander Robb: Canada is spending money to keep them out as well as the United States. We must control immigration. If my hon. friend is willing that we should wipe out all restrictions and allow the steamship companies to dump on our shores anyone they like, of course we would not need to spend the money.


John Arthur Clark: Why should there be good immigration offering plentifully to the United States, but not to Canada?


James Alexander Robb: The immigration must be
selected.
Mr. LeSUEUR: One of the questions which is important in immigration, and which I at least do not fully understand, is the extent and the details of co-operation between the federal and provincial immigration authorities; and secondly, after the immigrants have arrived here, what machinery have we got to follow them up and assist them, more or less to protect them in the early stages of their stay here?


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friend will look in Hansard to-morrow morning he will discover that I have put on record twice our method of following up immigrants. As regards co-operation with the provincial authorities, we have co-operation, particularly with the province of Ontario. Ontario has a very excellent immigration service overseas, and we co-operate with them fully.


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Chairman, while the hnn. member for Labelle (Mr. Fortier) was
Supply-Immigration

in the chair, he gave a ruling. Although that ruling was not debatable, the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) in relation to that decision used the following words:
I have no brief for the member for Bow River, but rulings of that sort simply make a farce of parliament.
The right hon. leader of the opposition said further:
Your decision is merely to make a travesty of the rules of the House.
And the right hon. leader of the opposition ended up by saying:
Your decisions are not speakable.
I would not call your attention, Sir, to the expressions used if they had not been uttered by a member of the House who is, or should be, of such high standing as the leader of the opposition. First I would call your attention to the fact that the right hon. gentleman had no right to debate the decision. Having done so, he had no right to use the language which he did use. According to the decisions given under rule 16, paragraph 193 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules:
Members using unparliamentary language are promptly called to order and generally satisfy the House with an explanation or an apology. If not they will be dealt with under rule 18 or punished as the House may think fit.


Samuel William Jacobs: The tower is not ready for occupation yet.


Lucien Cannon: Having quoted the expressions used by the right hon. gentleman, and I do not think he will deny having used them, I suggest that right hon. gentleman should apologize to the Chair, and if he refuses to do it, that he be dealt with according to our rules, and in any case that the remarks used by him should be deleted from Hansard.


Arthur Meighen: I was not in when the hon. member started this interlude. I did not know that we' were revamping the proceedings of an hour or two ago. I came to see why the House was sitting so late. I do not know what the hon. member said when he began, but he referred to a remark I made in regard to a decision that was given by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr, Fortier) when he -was occupying the chair temporarily. A decision had been given, to which I took exception. An hon. member opposite remarked it was not debatable, to which I remarked, it was not speakable. Objection was taken, I presume, on the ground that comment cannot be offered on a decision of the Chair. That is right, and if an hon. member proceeds to speak of something that is not debatable, he can be called to order fMr. Cannon.1
and made to cease. But he cannot be made to withdraw unless he makes a remark attributing to another hon. member conduct unbecoming a gentleman. The word " unspeakable " is not such a word as has ever been ruled out of order in this House as attributing conduct unbecoming a gentleman.


Lucien Cannon: In fairness to the right
hon. gentleman, before he came in I was quoting the expressions he had used, which were to the effect that the ruling given by the Chairman was a farce, secondly that it was a travesty, and thirdly that it was not speakable.


Robert James Manion: I consider, Mr. Chairman,
that this whole debate is out of order because according to rule 18 "the Speaker shall decide the point of order," which was the point of order referred to by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) in regard to which certain remarks were made by the right hon. leader of the opposition. Rule 18 says:
The Speaker shall decide the point of order, which decision shall be subject to appeal to the House, but without debate. If there be no appeal, the decision of the Chair shall be final.
You, Sir, about an hour and a half ago gave your decision, and I consider it was final. Under the rule I have cited1 I do not think the hon. member had any right to open up this subject again.


Lucien Cannon: We are not discussing the point, of order decided by the Chairman at that time. I am simply raising the point that the fight hon. leader of the opposition, contrary to his habit, has used veiy strong language, unparliamentary language, and I have no doubt that he will apologize as any hon. member who had done that should.


Arthur Meighen: I have used no language which was unparliamentary at all and therefore cannot be made to withdraw.


Lucien Cannon: I do not think the right
hon. gentleman can contend rightly that calling a decision of the Chair "a farce, a travesty and something unspeakable" is not unparliamentary.


Arthur Meighen: I did not use the words
the hon. member has quoted. I used the word "unspeakable" or the words "not speakable" it is true. I said that a decision of that kind rendered the rules a farce. That language is not unparliamentary.


George Newcombe Gordon: I am sorry that during my absence for a few moments, and while

Supply-Immigration
the hon. member for Label I e (Mr. Fortier) Wats in the chair, this unfortunate incident occurred. I returned to the chamber to find that there was a dispute as to the words that were actually spoken.


Arthur Meighen: By the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien).


George Newcombe Gordon: I understood the right
hon. leader of the opposition had used the expression, wdth respect to a decision the Chairman (Mr. Fortier) had given, that it was "unspeakable." I commented on the fact, and said I thought it was highly offensive for any such reflection to be oast on the Chair. Having given that ruling I do not feel called upon to repeat it at this late stage, but I do feel that the right hon. gentleman should withdraw the statement in fairness to the hon. member for Labelle.


Arthur Meighen: The words that are unparliamentary have been reviewed in the rules over and over again and are to be found in Bourinot?	If it could be shown that the
word "unspeakable" or the words "not speak-able," which I used, can be regarded as unbecoming a gentleman, there would be some point to the objection raised.


George Newcombe Gordon: I should like to deal
with this matter right now. Such a situation having developed, now is the proper time possibly to cite the authority which, apparently, deals with matters of this kind. In "Precedents of Proceedings in the House of Commons" volume 2, at page 234 under the title of "Speaker; his duties in keeping order in the House" I find the following:
It is impossible to lay down any specific rules upon this point or to declare beforehand what expressions are or are not contrary to order; so much depends upon the tone, and manner, and intention of the person speaking: something upon the person to whom they are addressed whether a minister in a responsible station, or a private member not in office;-whether the words are meant to be applied to his public conduct, or to his private character;-the degree of provocation which the member speaking had received from the person he alludes to:	All these considerations must be attended to at the moment, as they are infinitely various and cannot possibly be forseen in such a manner as that precise rules can be adopted with respect to them. When the Speaker observes upon any expression as personal and disorderly and tending to introduce heat and confusion, and this appears to be the general sense of the House, the member offending ought immediately to make an apology and to ask pardon of the House for this breach of their orders, in as large and liberal expressions as possible, so as in such apology to comprehend the person of whom the words were used.
It. is very difficult for me, not having been present, to interpret exactly the position that has developed out of this incident. It
occurred to me, however, that the expression used 'is one not ordinarily used, and if not out of order or if not unparliamentary, has nearly reached the point where it constitutes a reflection on the ruling that the hon. member for Labelle, as Chairman gave.


Arthur Meighen: There was no reflection
on the ruling or the rules of the House, and one cannot be made to withdraw an expression unless it is unparliamentary. The very quotation which you, Mr. Chairman, have made shows that it was not. Nobody would suggest that it had reference to the private character or private conduct of the members, it referred- to a public act, and the quotation makes it very clear that I could not possibly be made to withdraw the expression.


George Newcombe Gordon: I have not asked the
right hon. gentleman to withdraw his statement. I do say, however, that to my mind the expression he used approaches closely to a reflection upon the ruling of the Chair, and no hon. member has any right to reflect upon the ruling of the Chair.


Arthur Meighen: I admit that.


George Newcombe Gordon: My right hon. friend,
in view of his long parliamentary experience should not have indulged in comment of such a nature wi h respect to a junior member who was temporarily occupying the Chair.


Arthur Meighen: I admit that an hon.
member can be called to order for improperly commenting on a ruling of the Chair, but it is a very different thing to ask me to withdraw an expression which is neither ungentlemanly nor unparliamentary.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: I am not asking the
hon. gentleman to do so.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman will you
allow me-


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Robert James Manion: Who said "sit down"?


George Newcombe Gordon: I want this point of
order settled.


Robert James Manion: I certainly object to any
hon. gentleman telling me to sit down.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The remark was not nearly as objectionable as the one that was directed at me across the floor the other day.


Robert James Manion: I raiL.-d a point of order some time ago. I should like to know under what rule a question of order can be brought up an hour and a half after the decision has been given.
Supply-Immigration


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: I should like to inform the hon. member that the question before the committee has been disposed of.


Robert James Manion: All right, if it has been disposed of.


Robert Alexander Hoey: I should like to ask if the government has seriously considered the advisability of coordinating the different immigration agencies as suggested by Sir Henry Thornton in his annual report on the Canadian National Railway; it seems to me that the suggestion was well worthy of consideration.


James Alexander Robb: I did not read Sir Henry
Thornton's report. I did read his statement as reported in the public press which I imagine was the same thing. I should like to say that insofar as possible we are trying to cooperate with the two railways. We recognize that there is duplication particularly overseas, possibly in some places in the United States, but as far as possible we are trying to reduce expenditure and to adopt cooperative measures to the greatest possible extent.


Robert Alexander Hoey: The minister referred to Mr. Smith's retirement. Has his successor in London been appointed?


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Little is now overseas.


Henry Elvins Spencer: How many private immigration agencies outside the Dominion are bringing in immigrants?


James Alexander Robb: I could not tell my hon. friend that. There are many people who constitute themselves agents. There are many people who come to the department from time to time making representations that they are agents. We have no list of the number of such agencies.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I refer to such organizations as land companies, railway companies, and colonization associations.


James Alexander Robb: And my hon. friend might add steamship companies, steamship agents and booking agents. We have no record of the number; they are world-wide in their activities.


Mr. GARDINER:: To how many agencies do the government contribute in bringing immigrants into Canada?


James Alexander Robb: I have already given that information three or four different times. My hon. friend will find it in Hansard.


William Charles Good: Could the minister give us any idea as to the proportion of this vote which is spent for inspection work, that is looking

after the qualifications and characteristics of the immigrants who are applying for entrance, and the amount of money that is spent on attracting immigrants?


James Alexander Robb: I can place on record a statement of the newspaper advertising and the lectures given if the hon. gentleman requires that.


William Charles Good: I was not asking for anything very detailed, but I should like to have some information as to the respective cost of the inspection service on the one hand, and the lectures and advertising and so-called propaganda on the other. The reason I ask for the information is that I regard the inspection service as essential in any case, and I should like to know how much we are spending on that. The other activity seems to be very ill-advised under the circumstances, but until we know the extent of it, it seems a little difficult to criticize intelligently.


James Alexander Robb: I should have to go through the data very carefully. It would require to be analysed in order to get the full list.


William Charles Good: Could the Minister bring that information on a subsequent occasion?


James Alexander Robb: I will try and get it for my hon. friend.


William Charles Good: Perhaps the matter could stand over.


James Alexander Robb: We will have to put this vote through to-night. I will get the information for my hon. friend on a later item if he will ask me about it.


William Charles Good: In connection with another
item of the Immigration department?


James Alexander Robb: Any other immigration item.


Robert Gardiner: What action is the Department of Immigration taking in the case of the British Empire Steel Corporation who brings people in under contract and do not live up to that contract? Is the minister or the department taking any action to see that the contract is fulfilled?


James Alexander Robb: I overlooked answering something on the same question at an earlier stage of the proceedings. I think my hon. friend from Bow- River (Mr. Garland) made a reference to three -very excellent chaps that I saw. Those men represented to us that they came to Canada on the strength of an advertisement inserted in the Glasgow Herald by the British Steel Corporation. The government of Canada has no control over the newspapers in Great Britain, but the government of Great Britain has control, and if that

Supply-Immigration
advertisement was inaccurate, they would have recourse through the government of that country.


Robert Gardiner: I can quite understand
that we would have no control over any advertisement iput in the papers in the Old Country by the British Empire Steel Corporation, but when immigrants are brought into this country practically to work for such an organization as the British Steel Corporation or any other corporation, I should like to know what action the Department of Immigration would take, in case this corporation did not live up to the spirit of their contract.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is asking
rather a broad question, because if by implication the government should follow up all who publish alluring advertisements which are not quite right, and my hon. friend from Bow River is right, then the government of the province of Alberta is equally as culpable as any other body.


Robert Gardiner: The minister has not
.caught the point of my question which is this: Here is an organization that practically to all intents and purposes makes contracts with men in the Old Country to come and work here. The question is this: What action does the Department of Immigration take with organizations or corporations which bring them into this country practically under contract and do not fulfil that contract?


James Alexander Robb: The department are doing all they can. When men come to us with a contract, we do all we can to see that the parties live up to their contract. I will admit that if they do not live up to their contract this week, then, next week we might refuse admission to some person they attempted to bring in, but I do not see how we can go further. As to these three men, on their own statement, apart from not giving them work, the company had nc t been unkind to them, because they advanc d them money, and the men admitted in my office that the company had never pressed them for the return of that money, and they owed the company $580. I said to them, "Have you ever been pressed for this," and they said "No, because we did not have any work."	*


William Irvine: You cannot squeeze blood
out of a stone.


James Alexander Robb: No.


Mr GARDINER:: I know of another case
where a man had been advanced money to
bring his family out here. But that is not the question I desired information about. We. may have corporations or individuals who bring people out by advertisements in other countries, but what action does
1 a.m. the Department of Immigration take, or can it take any action, to see that these contracts are lived up to?


James Alexander Robb: No, but generally speaking
they are not lived up to?


Robert Gardiner: There is no redress if
they are not lived up to?


James Alexander Robb: Just the general law of the
country.


Robert Gardiner: I do not think that is very much protection.


Arthur Edward Ross: What is the routine adopted when a person in the Old Country wishes to come to Canada? To whom does he make application and what routine must he go through?


James Alexander Robb: They may go to a booking
agent or an immigration agent, but in any event the booking agent has the immigration representative over there pass on him, and he gives him a permit. If our officer determines, that the subjects are not physically fit they are refused a permit to go on the ship.


Arthur Edward Ross: Where is the physical examination made?


James Alexander Robb: The final medical examination is made in Quebec or St. John, the port of landing. There is an advisory examination if it is considered necessary?


Arthur Edward Ross: In the Old Country?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: Suppose the two examinations do not tally?


James Alexander Robb: Our Canadian examination
decides it.


Arthur Edward Ross: At Quebec?


James Alexander Robb: Quebec, St. John or Halifax,
the port of landing.


Arthur Edward Ross: Are the booking
agents government officials?


James Alexander Robb: No, the booking agent might
be the railway agent or the steamship agent that sold the tickets.
Supply-Immigration

Mr.. SPENCER: I should like to get from the minister the statement that our problem is more of a colonization problem than one of immigration.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, now.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Particularly if we have
50,000	to 60,000 unemployed in Canada, and I for one refuse to believe that there is any more than a very small percentage of them unemployable. Many have gone off the farm. I have been approached by many of them who are very good farm hands, who have worked on farms for years-family men-but their work is quite uncertain for the entire year, and they have often approached me to see if there was any possible way they could be helped to farm by themselves. Here families are being brought over and started through direct or indirect government aid, they have been very anxious to know if something could not be done for them. These men are altogether better equipped for going farming than those who are being brought here; but on account of their family,-from three to eight of a family in some cases-the work that they have on a farm is very uncertain, and their usual action is to leave the country and go into the towns. I should like to ask the minister if something could not be done for that class of settler who would, if we could keep him, make a very excellent farmer, because they know how to farm, and they have been hired on farms for a good many years?


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friend means a
system of government advances, I say no.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Possibly a sympathetic system of rural credits might help.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Could the minister give the names of any societies or associations who may be carrying on with a view of earning grants to be made pursuant to order in council?


James Alexander Robb: I have already put that on
record.


Robert Gardiner: Why is it necessary to give these organizations money?


James Alexander Robb: Both the Salvation Army and the Scottish Society have been doing good work. The Salvation Army gives after-care for four years to those whom it brings in, and if they are not satisfactory it takes them elsewhere without expense to the country.


John Arthur Clark: Is it contemplated to grant moneys to any other society by order in council?	.


James Alexander Robb: I have nothing in mind.


John Arthur Clark: Why make it necessary to have orders in council for granting moneys to these societies? Why not have these amounts in the estimates so that it would be obvious to whom the money was given?


James Alexander Robb: We are simply following the procedure that has been pursued for the last twenty-five or thirty years.


Robert Gardiner: Has the minister put on Hansard already the various sums given to these organizations in the last fiscal year?


James Alexander Robb: Last year we paid the Salvation Army $25,000, and we made a payment also to the Scottish Society.


Robert Gardiner: Was anything paid to any other organization?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is the minister aware
that the government is really running two immigration departments, one a regular department under the Minister of Immigration, and the other an Immigration and Colonization department in connection with the Canadian National Railway Company, which is of course under the control of the government? Could there not be some co-ordination to eliminate duplication? The cost of immigration in connection with the Canadian National Railways is nearly $800,000 and the vote for immigration and colonization under the department of government at present under review amounts to something over $3,000,000. Is it not possible to harmonize the work by eliminating one of these departments? I am sure there must be some duplication. I have in mind the appointment of Dr. Black, who up to a year or so ago was the deputy minister of this department! He resigned and was immediately appointed to a position in the immigration department of the Canadian National Railways. His salary as Deputy Minister of Immigration was $6,000, but he was such a valuable man that Sir Henry Thornton gobbled him up at $15,000.


George Perry Graham: Ten thousand.


Samuel William Jacobs: Well, $10,000. It would have been a simple matter for us to have asked him to continue to hang his hat and coat in this department instead of giving him $4,000 a year for moving.


Charles Gavan Power: And pay another man to replace him.


Samuel William Jacobs: We have an excellent man in the person of Mr. Egan who is one of the most capable civil servants we have. I cannot

Supply-Immigration
understand why we should retain this other gentleman at $10,000 when we could have had his services at $6,000. And I do not know whether we want him at all. Do we want two departments of immigration, both striving for the same end? The Canadian National Railways are attempting by every possible means to bring people into the country, but there are in the department over which the minister (Mr. Robb) presides rules that prevent him from encroaching on the work of the other department. So there is a merry war between the two. I should like to see one of them eliminated so that we might know where we were going. Sir Henry Thornton in his annual report made the suggestion that in view of the great importance of immigration to the country the government might very well consider the question of naming a commission to deal with the whole immigration problem. He suggested that the commission should be on somewhat similar lines to the railway commission. I am not prepared to say whether this suggestion should be accepted or not. I suppose the object was that the immigration department of the Canadian National Railways and the Department of Immigration under the minister might bring their differences before the commission to have them settled. Whether that was in the mind of Sir Henry Thornton or not I do not know. But it does seem to me that that we might very well consider the question of appointing a standing committee of this House to deal with immigration problems. As I said on the budget, we have departments dealing with fish and fish culture, with mines, forests and all sorts of things, animate and inanimate.


Ernest Lapointe: Insects.


Samuel William Jacobs: The Minister of Justice, forgetting that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) is immediately behind him, suggests insects. We are dealing with these too; we are dealing with bugs, onion maggots and other allied matters through select standing committees. But surely immigration is something that should occupy a sufficiently dignified position to demand from the government similar treatment. If we had had an immigration committee such as I suggest, we should have been deprived of the highly diverting evening we have had to-night, because all these matters could have been referred to that committee. Certainly, the minister would gain a great deal of useful information and assistance through such a committee, and now that his time is so much taken up in the Department of Finance, I am sure we are willing to lend him every
assistance possible. I suggest therefore that the government consider the question of appointing next year a select standing committee on Immigration and Colonization. I could say a great deal more on this question. Indeed, I feel somewhat like the poet-I would that my tongue could utter the thoughts that arise in me. The government is fully aware of my attitude on this question, and nothing that has been done since I have spoken on it has caused me to change my views, nor do I think that anything which the government may do in future will bring about such a change.


Charles A. Stewart: Would you have the member for Bow River on that committee?


Samuel William Jacobs: The member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) would probably do fairly well if he were taken in hand by intelligent people and made to see that after all there is another point of view besides his own. I am free to confess that he impressed me towards the close of his remarks when he said that he had no objection whatever to allowing physically healthy people to come to the country. I must reckon that unto him for righteousness. I did not know that these were his views, and' I am willing to overlook many of the things he said in view of that conclusion. The hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) also said that he would allow every white and healthy person to come to Canada; that would be part of his policy. Now, I find that his leader two or three days ago made a rather different statement in answer to a question put to him by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woods-wortth). At page 3806 I find the following:
Mr. Woodsworth: As long as we have anything like an open door immigration policy, how is the Canadian worker being protected?
Mr. Meighen: Well, I am not in favour of an open door immigration policy, any more than I am in favour of an open door trade policy.
We cannot, I fear, expect very much from the party immediately opposite me.


Robert James Manion: Sureiy my hon. friend is not in favour of an open door immigration policy? That would mean admitting everybody-good, bad or indifferent, healthy or ill.


Samuel William Jacobs: My policy is known both to the House and to the country. The right hon. gentleman went on to explain himself. He said:
Certainly you cannot allow everybody into this country; nobody ever suggested it. The cheapest labour of the world we ought to bar entirely, and we do bar it. I would be the last to suggest that any other policy be adopted.
Supply-1 mmigration


Robert James Manion: He was referring to yellow labour.	.


John Arthur Clark: My recollection of my
leader's speech is that he was referring to oriental labour. Would my hon. friend (Mr. Jacobs) be in favour of an open door immigration from the Orient?


Samuel William Jacobs: Absolutely not. I have
stated time and again that I am in favour of every healthy white person coming to this country. That is my policy. The leader of the opposition did not speak about oriental labour. Before he was interrupted by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg he said:
It is possible to give preference and do so without invading the just rights of the Canadian worker. It must always be a case of Canada first, and until we are ready to stand up and proclaim Canada first, and act Canada first, then we may just as well resign ourselves to this sliding-back process which characterizes our drift to-day.


John Arthur Clark: The leader of the opposition referred to the cheapest labour of the world. And where does that labour come from? It comes from China and Japan.


Samuel William Jacobs: We have not that labour
now.


Mr. CLARKE:: We have it at the coast.


Samuel William Jacobs: Now, there seems to be no party at all which is ready to accept my policy, so I will start a party on my own account and look for recruits. And the first one whom I ^hall recruit into that party is the hon. member for Bow River-on the theory, of any port in a storm. I would start with him as a nucleus and we could secure other equally worthy supporters.


George Perry Graham: In answer to the question whether there are two immigration departments under the government, I would say yes and no. The Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways each have an immigration department, and the government of Canada must take care not to be allied with either. It would not be fair to do that.


Samuel William Jacobs: Why not merge the two
departments under the government?


George Perry Graham: I am coming to that.
These three immigration departments are endeavouring to get closer together and work in greater harmony than they have done before, and there has been a good deal of cooperation with a view to reducing the expenditures under each of the departments and obviating any duplication.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Has the Canadian National
Railway Company an immigration office in London?


George Perry Graham: It has an immigration
ogganization in London which has control of European immigration so far as Canadian Nationjal propaganda is concerned. Each department, I can assure the committee, is doing its best to cut out overlapping and reduce expenses.


William Charles Good: In view of the lateness of the hour, I would suggest that if this particular item were allowed to pass we might be given the assurance that we should be able to discuss the general policy of the department or some other item.


George Newcombe Gordon: Item 64 is reserved
for that purpose.


James Alexander Robb: There will be a small item in the supplementaries, and the discussion might take place under that.


Robert James Manion: I am agreeable to the item for $1,350,000 being adopted, but I do not think that the empire settlement scheme has been discussed. If we were sure of being able to discuss these questions we might let the item pass and go home.


James Alexander Robb: We have discussed items 62,
and 63 and 64 to a large extent.


George Newcombe Gordon: On the understanding
that general questions may be discussed on item 64, is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt items 62 and 63?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Items 62 and 63 agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mir. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 1.25 a.m. (Friday.)
Friday, June 12, 1925