1925-02-25

COPYRIGHT ACT AMENDMENT SPECIAL COMMITTEE

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the special committee appointed on Thursday, February 19, to consider and report upon Bill No. 2, to amend and make operative certain provisions of the Copyright Act, 1921, be composed of the following members:	Messieurs. Chevrier, Healy, Hocken,
Hoey, Irvine, Ladner, Lewis, McKay, Prevost, Raymond, and Rinfret.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	With whom was the contract made by the Canadian National Railways for the construction of a golf course at Jasiper?
2.	What has been the cost to date of this golf course, including liabilities outstanding and unpaid?
3.	Is it a fact that considerable of the material provided and work done has been destroyed by wind and other causes, and if so, what is the estimated amount of the loss so sustained?
4.	What was the expense of the seed purchased and from what company was it purchased?
5.	Is it a fact that the seed has been largely blown away?

Questions


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	No contract made for construction.
2.	$124,290.47.
3.	No.
4.	$4,895.82. Steele Briggs Company, Limited, Winnipeg.
5.	No.


MINAKI GOLF COURSE
Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1. With whom was the contract made by the Canadian National Railways for the construction of a golf course at Minaki north of Kenora on the Canadian National Railways?
2. What has been the cost to date of this golf course, including liabilities outstanding and unpaid?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Messrs. Riley & Reid.
2.	$94,631.41.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	What number of emigrants have come to Canada during 1923 and 1924 respectively?
2.	From what country of origin did they come, and
in what provinces were they settled?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	1923, Calendar year, 137,320; 1924, Calendar year, 124,450.
2.
B p* " Nationality	1923									
N.S.	N.B.	P.E.I.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	Y.T.African, South	4	6	28	12	1	2	Albanian	5	1	Armenian	6	87	306	3	1	Australian	2	1	17	19	19	4	Austrian	3	1	11	LQ	?8	Belgian	16	8	161	977	11 q	40	33	14	Bermudian	3	1	Brazilian	Bulgarian	15	15	117	3	8	4	1	Chilian	Chinese	3	5	64	153	25	96	67	398	Cuban	1	Czecho-Slovak	13	45	1	547	577	558	104	68	21	Dutch	[DOT]	1	1	92	353	104	55	169	23	East Indian	1	29	Egyptian	1	1	1	Esthonian	1	7	14	1	2	2	6	Finnish	6	4	586	4,797	41	51	80	454	French	18	3	1	125	93	26	27	14	17	German	15	3	55	250	129	535	244	27	Great Britain and Ireland-	English	700	258	29	3,635	19,165	6 266	1 613	1 572	2 545	Irish	54	33	3	1,299	4,269	1,763	'310	'243	'256	1Scotch	247	145	4	3,339	13,485	4,395	798	1,304	1,389	1Welsh	34	8	1	98	434	208	63	94	46	3Creek	8	1	37	173	29	16	24	6	Hebrew-	Hebrew, Is.E.S	2	10	313	203	263	15	13	20	" Austrian	" German	1	1	1	" Polish	5	2	2	347	693	73	29	35	21	" Russian	i	5	678	332	248	98	58	6	Hungarian	15	1	15	9	113	9	Italian	294	8	2	834	3 507	291	147	517	462	Jamaican	4	19	1	Japanese	1	3	1	18	381	Jugo-Slav	12	11	64	335	110	124	24	34	Latvian	2	1	2	5	2	Lettish	1	2	i	2	
Totals
6
97
1,368
163
1
1,934
30
33
6,019
1,258
35,783
8,231
25,107
294
	3
1,207
1,426
6,062
404
12

e

6	63	20	87	15	10	3	2048	6	3	25	2	1	453	20	115	9	1	3	1511	13	17	20	403,545	343	1	365	815	16	7	28	20	5,1401	3	8	5	4	10	311	4	541	64	452	1.442	1,023	630	465	40	4,15719	8	153	275	160	247	97	6	9654	4	284	63	93	2,342	46	16	2,852Scandinavian-	16	72	207	204	179	100	225	22	1,0251	22	3	266	10	273	198	274	354	188	365	2	1,67012	11	391	825	646	351	242	817	3,29514	21	2	2	3917	1	414	143	747	99	79	27	1,52721	9	88	89	4	17	7	2355	5	1021	118	125	502	46	4	8161	2	23	40	6	5	7	17	1011	3	2	6West Indian	5	3	10	19	1	385,155	1,101	47	15,229	54,762	18,114	8,983	6,060	7,555	7	117,013" from U.S.A	...	314	483	66	3,014	6,231	1,328	3,164	3,774	1,895	38	20,307Total immigration	5,469	1,584	113	18,243	60,993	19,442	12,147	9,834	9,450	45	137,320
[Mr. Robb.I
5 Nationality so o	1924										
N.S.	N.B.	P.E.I.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	Y.T.	Totalscr " African, South	1	26	42	6	3	4	15	Albanian	1	1	Armenian	4	3	52	273	4	1	1	Australian	5	5	15	38	7	6	15	80	Austrian	5	1	17	25	22	21	Belgian	18	17	227	1,036	97	55	45	9	1,504Bermudian	Brazilian	1	Bulgarian	2	4	45	49	36	31	Chilian	3	Chinese	1	1	1	Cuban	Czecho-Slovak	3	2	72	624	1 922	134	99	Dutch	26	3	1	171	850	'357	120	252	East Indian	2	47	Egyptian	1	1	1	Esthonian	4	8	1	3	21	28	Finnish	61	44	955	4,313	56	50	104	540	French	5	3	187	73	14	24	28	17	German	10	1	60	718	276	956	501	38	2,560Great Britain and Ireland-	English	429	356	11	3,558	115,766	1,824	1,846	1,958	2,525	3	28,276Irish	218	206	5	2,732	5,594	618	491	528	268	Scotch	175	200	7	2! 597	9,706	1,097	782	1,445	1,295	1	17!305Welsh	14	13	146	644	86	66	176	126	1 271Greek	3	4	52	110	9	7	19	ii	215Hebrew-	Hebrew, N.E.S	17	1	399	309	97	29	14	25	891" Austrian	1	2	3" German	1	1	210	5	194	535	49	15	16	4	828" Russian	22	28	1,697	926	472	231	190	138	3 704Hungarian	27	2	2	180	488	327	72	9	1 107Italian	51	53	490	1,518	243	26	127	168	2*676Jamaican	4	4	1	0Japanese	3	1	2	18	486	Jugo-Slav	5	5	20	426	1 291	217	49	70	Latvian	3	2	6	6	i	18Lettish	1	1	2Lithuanian	7	64	16	33	12	19	4	Luxemburg	38	4	2	20	3	3	70Maltese	1	28	29Mexican	Negro	10	i	10	13	34Newfoundland	1,121	53	2	209	204	2	10	6	22	1.629
New Zealand	
_ Persian	
jS Polish	
Portuguese	
Roumanian	
Russian	
Scandinavian-
Danish	
Icelandic	
Norwegian	
Swedish	
Spanish	
Swiss	
Syrian	
Turkish	
Ukrainian	
U.S.A. Citizens, via ocean ports.
Venezuelan	
West Indian	
Immigration, via ocean ports. " from U.S.A	
Total Immigration.
1
39
24
1
2,632
2,732

56

15
1,145
1,386
16
147
162
376
384
372
5
10
16,018
2,132
18,150
3
1
155
2
641
90
37 10
18
47,115
5,046
52., 161


'797 204 32 375 12,773 13,677 7 708 ,639 3 228 27 12,634 2,324 14,958 503 448 337 57 7,946 3,527 11,473 51 39 9 589 5 15 7,828 2,010 9,838 28 121 2,908 2,471 5,545 2,066 48 3,216 2,550 758 43 49 127 108,122 16,328 124,450 M SJ P3
[Stage Direction]
<3
w
*1
s
Ot
[Stage Direction]
s
[Stage Direction]


Questiont

Mr. NEILL:: 1.	How many Chinese have entered Canada during the calendar year 1924?
2.	Of those entering, how many came as: (a) members of the diplomatic service and their servants; (b) Canadian or naturalized Chinamen returning to Canada from a visit abroad; (c) merchants; (d) students; (e) under section 9, chapter 38, of the Chinese Immigration Act, 1923?
3.	How many Japanese landed in Canada according
to Canadian government returns during the calendar year 1924 ?	;
4.	From what ports did they leave?
5.	At what ports did they land?
6.	How were they classified as to: (a) occupation; (b) sex?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 
LABOUR DEPARTMENT-CAPE BRETON REPRESENTATIVE
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	Who is the representative of the Labour Department in Cape Breton?
2.	Is he in the employ of the British Empire Steel Corporation, or of any of its subsiduaries?


Hon. Mr. MURDOCK:: 1.	The department has no representative in Cape Breton other than the correspondent to the Labour Gazette?
2.	No information.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	How many prosecutions have been held under the Combines Investigation Act from the passing of this act to date?
2.	What are the names of the trusts and combines proceeded against, and the action which resulted?


Hon. Mr. MURDOCK:: 1.	No prosecutions have under the Combines Investigation Act 1923 taken place. It is, however, understood that one action has been taken by the Attorney General of British Columbia on information resulting from inquiry under this act.
2.	Investigation requested and inquiry instituted into alleged combine (a) Fruit Distribution; (b) Coal Dealers; (c) Marketing of Potato Crop.

Questions
Interim report on alleged Fruit Combine was laid on table of the House February 23. Further action not determined.
Report on alleged coal dealers' combine will, it is expected, be laid on the table of the House within a few days.
Inquiry into alleged combine in potato crop marketing not yet completed.


Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Haw many applications have been made to date under the Combines Investigation Act?
2.	If any, by whom and when commenced?
3.	Has a registrar been appointed? If so, who, and what is his salary?
4.	Has the Department of Labour or any minister or officer of the crown made any request for investigation into any alleged combine during years 1922, 1923, 1924 and 1925? If so, what?
5.	If any investigation has been held, what is the finding and what action has been taken in each case?
6.	What is the total cost or expenditure to date under the Combines Investigation Act from date of its passage to date?


Hon. Mr. MURDOCK:: 1.	Applications made in accordance with section 5 of act, three.
2.	The three applications referred to in answer to No. 1 were made in accordance with the statute in each case by six persons. British subjects, resident in Canada, of the full age of twenty-one years. It is not in the public interest to publish the names of the applicants. For date commenced, see under No. 5.
3.	Yes, Harry Hereford, who was appointed to the department by the Civil Service Commission in 1918 and who is classified as an industrial engineer, was on August 25, 1923, appointed under section 4 of the act to be registrar. From the date of his appointment to March 31, 1924, he received the salary attached to his classified position at the rate of $3,480 per annum; for the year ending March 31, 1925, he is being paid, in addition to the salary attached to his classified position, at the rate of $1,000 per annum, as provided in the estimates.
4.	Not understood.
5.	(a) Alleged combine in the distribution of fruit and vegetables in western Canada. Formal application was received June 13, 1924. The commissioner made an interim report on February 18, 1925, which was laid on the table of the House February 23, 1925.
(b) Alleged combine among the coal dealers at Winnipeg and other places. Formal application was received October 18, 1924, and commissioner aj pointed to investigate October 23, 1924. The commissioner has just rendered his report but the exhibits and transcript of evidence have not yet been received.
S3i
(c)	Alleged combine in connection with the marketing of the New Brunswick potato crop. Formal application received December 4, 1924, and investigation commenced December 14, 1924, and still proceeding; no report has yet been made.
In each of the above cases representations had been made prior to the formal application for investigation, and as a result the registrar had, in accordance with the act, instituted preliminary enquiries. These preliminary enquiries were commenced by the registrar as follows:-(a) February 22, 1924; (b) October 8, 1924; (c) November 14, 1924.
(d)	Other investigations of a preliminary nature have been made as a result of informal complaints, but (a), (b) and (e) listed above are all the investigations that have been, or are being held as a result of applications made in accordance with section 5 of the act.
6.	$20,987.03.



DEPUTY MINISTERS

Mr. DOUCET:: How many deputy ministers are there at present and what are their names and salaries?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: Department of Agriculture, Dr. Grisdale, $7,500 and house; Department of Customs and Excise, R. R. Farrow, $8,000; Department of Finance, J. C. Saunders, $10,000; Department of the Interior, W. W. Cory, $8,000; Department of Justice, W. Stuart Edwards, $10,000; Department of Labour, H. H. Ward, $6,000; Department of Marine and Fisheries, A. Johnson, $8,000; Department of National Defence, G. J. Desbarats, $8,000; Department of Mines, Charles Camsell, $6,000; Department of Post Office, L. J. Gaboury, $8,000; Department of Privy Council, E. J. Lemaire, $6,000; Department of Public Works, J. B. Hunter, $8,000; Department of Railways and Canals, Graham A. Bell, $10,000; Department Secretary of State, Thomas Mulvey, $8,000; Department of Trade and Commerce, F. C. T. O'Hara, $8,000; Department of Immigration and Colonization, W. J. Egan, $8,000; Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, N.
F.	Parkinson, $6,000; Department of Health, Dr. J. A. Amyot, $6,000; Department of External Affairs, Sir Joseph Pope, $8,000; Department of Public Printing and Stationery,
F.	A. Acland, $8,000; Department of Insurance,
G.	D. Finlayson, $10,000; Department of Indian Affairs, Duncan C. Scott, $8,000.
Questions



KENOGAMI POST OFFICE

Mr. SAVARD:: What was the revenue of the post office at Kenogami, Quebec, during each of the years 1922, 1923 and 1924?


Hon. Mr. MURPHY:: Year ended	31st	March,	1922..	..	$4,730 64Year ended	31st	March,	1923..	..	5,537 32Year ended	31st	March,	1924..	..	6,715 02



DAIRY INDUSTRY ACT CONVICTIONS

Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1. How many convictions have been secured for infractions, under the Dairy Industry Act of 1914, in each of the years 1923 and 1924?
2.	What are the names, occupations and place of business of the individuals or firms against whom convictions have been registered ?
3.	What was the amount of the fine or fines imposed
in each case ?
4.	What was the nature of the offence committed in each instance, and the nature of material used in adulteration and the percentage used?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	Calendar year 1923, 47; calendar year 1924, 89.
2,	3 and 4.



CALENDAR YEAR 1923

[Stage Direction]
Defendant's Name	Occupation	Place of Business	Fine Imposed	Nature of Offence	Per cent water in excess of 16 or per cent foreign fat
			$ 10		
			10	tt w * it	
			10		16
it tt	10	6-29tt it	10	tt	103tt tt	10	It	20710	tt	20	10	tt It	John O'Neill...	50	Offering for sale oleomargarine	not in original package.	tt	10	Short weight prints	Butter manufacturer	
tt it	10	1010	it	0-9it tt	10	tt	1-9tt if	10	tt	2-52ft tt	10	tt	IXit if	10	tt	11tt tt	Short weight prints	it tt	10	2-42tt It	10	2-510	tt	3-76tt If	10	tt tt	10	Excess water	1-6tt tt	10	u	3-76tt tt	10	tt	1-5tt tt	20	Short weight prints	T Cyr	tt It	10	3-38tt tt	10	it	8-20tt tt	10	tt	1-3ft tt	10	tt	1*4tt tt	10	Short weight prints	tt It	10	Excess water	104tt tt	10	1-28tt tt	10	t*	1-9tt tt	10	tt	1-9tt tt	10	tt	3-4420	Inferior curd in centre of cheese	E, Pomerleay	Butter " ....	Touffee de Pins, Que	10	Excess water	1-3
£
ft)
Oi
[Stage Direction]
Cn

[Stage Direction]
Defendant's Name	Occupation	Place of Business	Fine Imposed	Nature of Offence	Per cent water in excess of 16 or per cent, foreign fat
			$ 10		5-3
ll <i	10	a	1-3it it	10	a	11a tt	50	a a	15	a " tt'	tt a	10	tt a	a a	10	2-3a a	10	10it u	10	n	3-40Markdale Creamery Co	it it	Markdale, Ont	10	Short weight prints

[Stage Direction]
Cardston Creamery Association
Wm. Landreville	
Wilfrid Roy	
Dunham Creamery	
H. Jutras	
J. B. Jackson Co., Ltd	
Kincardine Creamery	
Philie & Turgeon	
Mayfair Creamery Co., Ltd___
Jos. Longpre	
Georges A. Crepeau	
Willow Grove Creamery	
A.Jean	
Z. Bergeron	
Camille Chaput	
Urcher Brault	
Normandin Freres	
Geo. H. Leveille	
A. Richard	
S. Archambault	
A. Dupras	
S. Archambault	
M. Schnarch	
Doria Theroux	
P. St. Cyr	
A. Poupart & Co., I td	
Butter manufacturer....	Cardston, Alta	
a it	St. Jean de Matha, Que	
tt ii	Dunham, Que	
« ti	St. Wenceslas, Que	
ii tt	Simcoe, Ont	
tt tt	Kincardine, Ont	
it tt	Valleyfield, Que	
ti it	Calgary, Alta	
tt tt	St. Esprit, Que	
tt tt	Mascouche, Que	
tt tt	Mitchell, Ont	
it tt	Riviere Noire, Que	
tt tt	Mandeville, Que	
it tt	Petit Bois d'Auray, I.anoraie	
tt tt	St. Jean de Matha, Que	
	
Butter manufacturer....	Ste. Anne des Plaines, Que	
it it	Pont Rouge, Que	
it tt	Montreal, Que	
tt tt	tt
	tt
Butter manufacturer		Ste. Aime, Que	
" "	Champlain, Que	
tt tt	Montreal, Que	
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
25
200
300
10
200
Excess water,
tt
tt
Short weight prints Excess water	
it
Short weight prints. Excess water	
a
a
Short weight prints	
it	it
Foreign fat	
it
it
Selling butter adulterated with foreign fat.
Excess water	
Short weight prints	
Foreign fat	
316
1-	4 6-4
2-	2
1-	7
2-	9
0-	98 2-98
1-	2 5-2 20 1-5 1-42 91
35 to 40 20 to 25 30 to 04 30 to 40
15 to 20
[Stage Direction]
Rahall Bros.. Nathan Schin
Merchants
Merchant.
Frog Lake, Alta Montreal, Que...
M. Schnarch	
Jos. Beaudouin	
Jos. Beaudouin	
Jos. Beaudouin	
A. Poupart Co. Ltd	
Romeo Vincent	
A. Poupart Co. Ltd	
H. Gervais	
Hagersville Creamery	
Sanitary Dairy Ltd	
Graham Creamery Co. Ltd Rahall Bros	
[Stage Direction]
Butter manufacturer
[Stage Direction]


Merchant	
Butter manufacturer
[Stage Direction]
Merchant	
Butter manufacturer
[Stage Direction]
«
Merchant	
it
Cabane Ronde, Que ((
it
Montreal, Que	
ii
it
Hagersville, Ont - St. Catharines, Ont.
Alexandria, Ont	
Frog Lake, Alta
[Stage Direction]
A. Blais	
J. Longpre	
J. Raymond	
A. Caumartin	
S. Brault	
A. Plante	
W. Boulanger	
P. Joly	
Mount Royal Creamery Co,
Tara Creamery	
Lamb ton Creamery	
Lambton Creamery	
R. Turbide	
Butter manufacturer
. Thetford Mines, Que	
. St. Esprit	
. Ste. Marie Salome, Que...
. St. Cuthbert, Que	
. St. Alexis, Que	
. Sault St. Lin, Que	
. L'Avenir, Que	
. Ste. Elizabeth, Que	
. Montreal, Que	
. Hagersville, Ont	
. Petrolia, Ont	
Cheese manufacturer...
Lac au Saumon, Que
W. Beaudoin	
Shawville Creamery	
Stratford Dairy Co. Ltd...
S.	Caulfield & Sons	
Nault & Dery	
E. Roberge	
W. Talbot	
T.	Lessier	
A. Lapalme	
H. Lapalme	
Arundel Butter & Cheese Co A. Frappier	
A. Frappier	
A. Frappier	
A. Frappier	
A. Frappier	
A. Frappier	
A. Dupras	
Butter manufacturer
[Stage Direction]
a
Merchants and butter manufacturers.
Butter manufacturer
[Stage Direction]
a
St. Didace, Que	
Shawville, Que	
Stratford, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Riviere Desert, Que	
St. Come Liniere, Que....
St. Georges West, Que
[Stage Direction]
Valcourt, Que	
St. Hugues, Que	
St. Paul Abbotsford, Que.
Arundel, Que	
Sorel, Que	
a
[Stage Direction]
a
a
[Stage Direction]
a
a
... Montreal, Que,
200 200	Renovating butter	
Selling butter adulterated by	30 to 40200	foreign fat. tt << tt	40 to 50200	tt it it	15 to 20200	a tt u	15 to 20200	it tt a	15 to 20200	u u it	20 to 25200	U U It	20 to 25200	it it it	70 to 80200	tt it it	20 to 3010 10 10	Short Weight Prints	
it tt Excess water	11010 10	Having renovated butter in possession for sale. Excess water	2-6425	u	2-9325	tt	2-0810	tt	50710	tt	2-3610	tt	30410	tt	1-5510	tt	7-6810	u	1-2210	tt	1-220 20	Short weight prints. Excess water	1110 10	Inferior curd in centre of cheese. Excess water	1-510	"	2-1410	tt	7-710	it	1120	tt	2010	it	1-410	it	1010	tt	11410	tt	1010	it	1-9810	"	1-2200	Selling butter adulterated	10 to 15Suspended	with foreign fat. u u u	10 to 15sentence.	tt tt u	10 to 15«	a u tt	10 to 15**	a u tt	25 to 30tt	u tt tt	25 to 30200	tt tt a	25 to 30
*. Motherwell.]
CALENDAR YEAR 1924-Con.
Defendant's Name
Occupation
Place of Business
A. Gem me	
Dunham Creamery
A. Beauvais	
A. Poupart & Co...
Butter manufacturer
St. Alphonse de Granby, Quo
Dunham, Que	
St. Bruno de Guigues, Que... Montreal, Que	
A. Poupart & Co
J. H. Leblanc___
Jean Goyette....
Jos. Cote	
R. Perron	
A. Dupras	
Chas. Fortin...
L. Desrosiers....
A. Dubeau	
A. Trudel	
0. Richard	
L. Gevry	
E. Frappier....
.. Batiscan, Que	
.. St. Thecle, Que	
.. Becancourt, Que	
.. Ste. Gertrude, Que	
.. Montreal, Que	
.. St. Victor de Tring, Que....
.. St. Damien, Que	
«
.. St. Viateur, Que	
.. St. Norbert, Que	
.. St. Cecile de Milton, Que....
,. St. Bonaventure de Upton, Que
Fine
Imposed
20
200
10
10
10
10
10
15
Nature of Offence
Per cent water in excess of 16 or per cent foreign fat
Excess water.
Selling butter adulterated with Joreign fat.
Excess water	
6-17
2-	9 25 to 30
[Stage Direction]
3-	56 1-2
1-5 1-96 3-2 118 118 1-48 5-4 2 06
[Stage Direction]
520	COMMONS
Questions

Questions as Orders

Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	How many tons of coal were supplied to the Odonak convent, in the Abenakis village, county of Yamaaka, Quebec, during the years 1921-22, 1922-23, 1923-24 and 1924-25?
2.	Who were the contractors for each of the above mentioned years and what price was paid per ton?
3.	How many cords of wood were supplied to said convent for the above mentioned years?
4.	Who w'ere the contractors for each of the above yeans and what price was paid per cord?


Hon. Mr. MURPHY (for the Minister of the Interior):: 1.	1921-22, 30 coal tons; 1922-23 28i coal tons; 1923-24, 38 coal tons; 1924-25, 38 coal tons.
2.	1921-22, Shooner & Co., $14.80 per ton; 1922-23, D. A. Laperriere, $15.25 per ton (chestnut), $15.00 (egg); 1923-24, D. & A. Laperriere, $16.00 per ton; 1924-25, D. & A. Laperriere, $14.50 per ton.
3.	1921-22, 2S wood cords; 1922-23, 271 wood cords; 1923-24, 28 wood cords; 1924-25, accounts not yet received.
4.	1921-22, Henri Niquet, hardwood $7 per cord, Shooner & Co., slabs $3 per cord;
1922- 23, D. &. A. Laperriere, hardwood $7 per cord, Shooner & Co., slabs $2.50 per cord;
1923- 24, D. & A. Laperriere, hardwood $7 per cord, Paul Comtois, hardwood $7 per cord, Shooner & Co., slabs $4 per cord; 1924-25, to date, accounts not received.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. STEWART (Humboldt):: 1.	Are district superintendents, employed by the Post Office Department, furnished with lists of publications authorized to carry mail service advertisements?
2.	If so, who compiles these lists, and on what basis are they formed?
3.	If such lists exist, what publications are so authorized for use in the province of Saskatchewan?


NEWSPAPER POSTAL REVENUE
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What was the gross postal revenue derived from newspapers for the last two years of record?
2.	What is the estimated expenditure for the same year, as far as can be arrived at, in so far as newspapers are concerned, and what bulk of the mail do newspapers make up?
3.	What is the average daily weight of newspapers carried in the mails and the estimated deficit to the country in delivery of newspapers in the mails?



PRIVATE MEMBERS' DAYS

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Shaw:
That, in the opinion of this House, one full day a week for the whole session should be set aside for private members, on which day notices of motion shall have precedence over other business.
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (West Calgary): In view of the fact that the House proposes to appoint a committee for the purpose of revising the rules, I am prepared to drop this resolution in the expectation that the matter referred to therein will be considered by the committee.
Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant):: May I, in
view of what the hon. member for West Calgary has said, move an amendment in accordance with the suggestion which he has just made? I think it would embody his views and he is not permitted to move an amendment.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I will read the motion if the hon. member will move his amendment.
Moved by Mr. Shaw:
That, in the opinion of this House, one full day a week for the whole session should be set aside for private members, on which day notices of motion shall have precedence over other business.
In my judgment, the motion ignores rule No. 25, which provides that there shall be two days a week, Mondays and Wednesdays, for private members. But, if I correctly interpret the words used, the hon. gentleman has in mind that the government shall [DOT] be asked not to take away this privilege, but to have at least one day a week during the whole session allowed for private members' business. Is that the meaning?


Mr. SHAW:: That is the intention. I
agree with your Honour that the resolution is not very well worded.


William Charles Good: I move in amendment:
That all the words after " House " in the second line be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
The question of providing more adequate opportunities for private members be referred to the special committee which by resolution of this House, is to consider the question of revising the rules.
I should like, if I may, to say a few words in connection with this amendment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Charles Good: If it is the desire of the House that whatever I have to say should be stated to the committee, I am willing to wait.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Hewitt Bostock: Carried by unanimous
consent.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Motion as amended agreed to.


Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the estimates should be referred to select committees before being submitted to the committee of the Whole.
Scrutiny of Estimates

He said: In presenting this motion I may remark that I was prompted chiefly by two reasons. In the first place, I had in view a possible economy of the time of the House, and secondly, I hoped that we might effect some economy in expenditures. About a year ago there were published in the Ottawa Citizen several letters from a former member of this House, Mr. Davis of Neepawa, Manitoba, advocating a committee of parliament on estimates. I will not take the time of the House quoting extensively from these articles, but in the second one, dealing with the cost of public services, he refers to what has been done in Great Britain. He says:
In Great Britain reform is also proposed. It takes a different line, and as our practice is founded on theirs, it is germane to our conditions. There it arises out of the recommendation made by the select committee on national expenditure in 1902. That proposal was for a standing committee on estimates in the House. It was tried out in 1912, 1913 and 1914, and further elaborated and recommended by the select committee of 1917 so ably headed by Mr. Herbert Samuel.
I shall now quote briefly from another article by Mr. Davis on the work of this committee:
After a trial in the imperial house the committee on estimates, as an institution, disclosed one weakness; as it could sit only during a session, it was found that it could not get through the work. In 1912 it settled its procedure and reported on the office of works; in 1913 its work was on the navy estimates only; in 1914 its W'ork was on the war office estimates, and it reported only the evidence taken because the outbreak of war made its findings valueless. The Samuel committee recommended that the estimates committee should be assisted by an officer of the House to be appointed for the purpose, with the title of "Examiner of Estimates."
Further on Mr. Davis says:
Thirdly, the convention that the government must consider every adverse motion carried in committee of supply, as a vote of want of confidence, shouid yield to coalition sense. There can be no financial or economical judgment exercised, if every criticism is mert by a demand for a political decision. Under this convention the government can always evade financial criticism by calling on its supporters to vote through its proposal. These supporters, although convinced of the soundness of the criticism, will rather accept an extravagance of many thousands of dollars than vote their party out of power. Only when the government's policy is really challenged, should an adverse vote following upon the estimates committee's report, be construed as a vote of want of confidence. In this way alone can an unfettered economical judgment be obtained.
I drafted this resolution last year before I left the House and if I were preparing it today I would make the suggested change a little more sweeping than is proposed here. I think possibly the time to cut down estimates is before they are printed and given to the House, and it might be advisable for
[Mr. Coote.J
us to have a committee on estimates who would go over the estimates of the deputy ministers before they were printed and submitted to parliament.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Would there not be a difficulty, in that the estimates would then run a very great risk of being made public before they had got to parliament at adl? One of the difficulties which the government and ministers have is in trying to keep the estimates secret before they are printed. The reason for that desire is quite obvious. Has the hon. member given any thought to the idea that a committee dealing with the deputies might lend itself to the estimates becoming public, so that they would then be liable to change before coming to the House? Not only might there be a reduction-and I am not objecting to that, for it is the object of my hon. friend's resolution-but there would be everlasting pressure on the committee to have the estimates increased in many ways.


George Gibson Coote: I must admit that I have not given a great deal of thought to that aspect of the subject, and 'possibly there is a valid objection there. However, I want to impress upon parliament at this moment the necessity for carefully examining our expenditures. We have been told repeatedly that two-thirds of the expenditures of this country are uncontrollable, and if that is the case it shows all the more necessity for exercising every possible care in the keeping dlown of all controllable expenditures. I should like to read-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I am unable to hear what the hon. gentleman is saying, and I would ask all hon. members on both sides of the House in justice to him as well as to others to be silent.


George Gibson Coote: I shall now read from a short editorial taken from the Ottawa Citizen:
The House of Commons is supposed, in theory, to control public expenditure. In actual (practice, it is a very blind control. False economy is practised generally without saving the country anything, while extravagant expenditures slip past session after session. As Mr. Fred L. Davis, a former member of parliament, says, " Every administration has extolled economy and practised extravagance."
The House of Commons is incapable of exercising effective control of national expenditure, because parliament is rarely given the necessary information in time to be of any aid to constructive criticism. The Auditor General's report, as it is tabled in the House, is of very little value to parliament, excepting for post-mortem purposes. The public accounts committee is rarely ever heard of, excepting when some particularly outrageous raid has been made on the public treasury. It is almost impossible for any

Scrutiny of Estimates
private member to delve through the complicated mass of accounts so that they can be effectively checked up during the session.
The time to regulate public expenditure is before the money is voted and not after it is spent. Parliament should have sufficient information whe*n the estimates are before the House to make it possible for members to give more intelligent consideration to routine costs as well as to proposed new expenditures.
The procedure outlined in this resolution, Mr. Speaker, has already been adopted in regard to the estimates of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, and I believe it has worked very well. I do not see why it would not work equally well with respect to the estimates of at least some of our other departments. Take, for instance, the agricultural estimates,-I select this particular department because recently in this House we have had an example of how difficult it is to get information which is of value to the committee; nearly a whole afternoon and evening were taken up discussing the one item of dairying, under which it was proposed to expend $230,000. I do not so much begrudge the time consumed in discussing this particular item, but I do believe that the time devoted to it was not nearly so well spent as it might have been. Several members will ask the minister questions at the same time, the minister must consult his deputy who sits in front of him, the deputy looks through his books to find the answers, and by that time possibly three or four other members have put further questions. Naturally the minister answers those questions which he prefers to answer, and sometimes he does not get a chance to answer all the questions which he is quite willing to deal with. After going through this procedure for an hour or two, members get tired and leave the chamber because they are not able to obtain intelligent answers to their questions. Very often the information desired is not available. But if these estimates were handed over to a small select committee, the dairy commissioner could be called and the members of the committee could obtain from him the information they desired and they would be in a position to decide whether the expenditure was necessary or advisable; or possibly they would show him how the money could be better spent, or better results obtained from its expenditure. This procedure might be applied to the estimates of many other departments. I have purposely taken the Department of Agriculture because a year ago we had a very good example of how little information we sometimes get after spending hours and hours in committee of the Whole on one item. On the occasion I have in mind we were
discussing the Health of Animals Branch and we spent practically two sittings in dealing with one item of $10,000, and after 11.30 at night we discussed the practical work in connection with that vote-the Health of Animals branch. I believe the total vote at that time for the branch was $2,000,000, but nearly all our time was devoted to the discussion of the one item of $10,000, the remainder of the vote going through at midnight at the request of the minister, who said in effect "We have sat so long on this item and got nothing done; please let it go through". I think that instance is typical of what happened last session in the discussion of the estimates of several other departments. I believe that economies might be effected if the method I now propose were adopted.
Some objection might be taken to my resolution because of the fact that it would require the formation of more committees. But we have now a number of select standing committees of the House, and I think it would be practical to refer to those committees the estimates of most of our departments. The standing committee on Agriculture and Colonization might very properly deal with the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Immigration and Colonization, the Department of Indian Affairs, the Department of the Interior and the Soldier Settlement board. The select standing committee on Railways and Canals might be given the estimates of the Department of Public Works to report on. The select standing committee on Mines, Forests and Water Powers might be the proper body to consider the estimates of the Department of Marine and Fisheries and the Mines department. The select standing committee on Banking and Commerce might very well deal with the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, the Department of Customs and Excise, and perhaps the Post Office Department. The select standing committee on Public Accounts has done practically nothing for the last two sessions, and I think it might very well be asked to take up the estimates of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment, Pensions, National Defence and certain miscellaneous items. It seems to me that such a committee might well be instructed to inquire into the matter of the redemption of our public debt which, I believe, is one of the most important and difficult questions that this parliament has to deal with. We are raising money each year to pay interest on our national debt, and not only are we not making any provision for retirement of the debt, but we are actually adding to it almost every year.
Scrutiny of Estimates

I think, Mr. Speaker, it would be a much more effective way of dealing with our estimates if, as this resolution suggests, they were submitted to the select standing committees of the House to be inquired into and reported upon. That would not preclude discussion of any items in committee of the Whole, but as most of the details in relation to expenditure under these estimates would be thoroughly discussed in the select standing committees, it would be only on comparatively rare occasions that there would be any very lengthy discussion in committee of the Whole on matters of detail. Of course, matters of policy would likely have to be discussed sometimes at considerable length. I hope this resolution will receive favourable consideration at the hands of the government, for I feel certain it would result in a saving of time and of money, if the government adopted the common sense view of accepting recommendations by any of the select standing committees for cutting down of certain estimates. I believe it would be much easier to cut down estimates in a select committee than in committee of the whole House.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the observations of my hon. friend from Maoleod (Mr. Coote) must convince hon. members that he takes his duties seriously and has made a careful study of the methods of handling business in this House. With some parts of his speech I quite agree. More than sixteen years' experience in this House has taught me that all parliaments are about the same; we waste hours and days wrangling over academic questions, sometimes over votes for one to five or ten thousand dollars, and in the last days of the session we allow millions to go through without very much consideration. But I would not like the idea to go out that under the Canadian parliamentary system-the British system-there is not a careful scrutiny of the estimates to be submitted to parliament. I have had fairly friendly relations with ministers under different governments, Conservative as well as Liberal, and I imagine the procedure is about the same all the way through: a minister has sometimes more trouble in getting his estimates through the council1 chamber than he has in getting them passed in the House. Under our system the estimates are first very carefully prepared in the departments, and I think every hon. gentleman will admit that when they are brought down there is disappointment to someone; items are left out that hon. members from some parts of Canada have strongly 
urged upon the department. Then they are scrutinized by the minister of the department. I do not know what the method of the previous government was, but I know that the Treasury board, a committee of the cabinet, spent about a month over these estimates-brought in the deputies, sometimes brought in the assistants to the deputies in various departments; and the Treasury board had to be convinced that this money was necessary before the items were passed. Then after they passed the Treasury board they came to the council chamber, really a committee of this parliament, where they were submitted1 to a very close examination. So that our estimates are fairly well adjusted before they are printed and submitted to parliament.
Following that idea, under our system we have the committee on Public Accounts, which makes a very close scrutiny of expenditure. We have, therefore, ample safeguards -safeguards in the preparation of the estimates, safeguards in the watching of the expenditure made under those estimates. But I repeat that we do waste time in academic debates and in long discussions of small items, while sometimes large items are allowed to go through without much consideration. If the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) would be prepared to amend his resolution along the following lines, it would meet with the approval of the government, and, I hope with the approval of the House:
That the resolution be amended by inserting in the second line thereof, after the word " House," the words " the desirability of having," and by deleting from the second line thereof the words, " should be," and by adding to the resolution the words:	*' should be
referred to the special committee to be appointed to consider jointly with His Honour the Speaker the advisability of revising the rules of the House."
As amended the resolution would read:
That, in the opinion of this House, the desirability of having the estimates referred to select committees before being submitted to the committee of the Whole should be referred to the special committee to be appointed to consider jointly with His Honour the Speaker the advisability of revising the rules of the House.
If my hon. friend will agree to that amendment the government will offer no opposition.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand that the
amendment is moved by the hon. minister?


James Alexander Robb: I thought perhaps my hon.
friend (Mr. Coote) would like to amend it along these lines.


George Gibson Coote: I understand that I would
not be allowed to amend my own resolution but. I would have no objection to such an amendment.

Scrutiny of Estimates


James Alexander Robb: I would move it, then.


Mr. BRISTOL:: Does that refer to one
sub-committee?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Edmund James Bristol: In that case some members might be well informed on one branch and others on another, and you would have that one committee handling the whole business of the country in that fashion.


James Alexander Robb: A resolution was adopted by
the House on Monday that a committee of the House should consider certain proposed amendments to the rules, and this matter is referred to that committee.


Edmund James Bristol: I understand that. A
semi-legal or semi-business committee might be very useful for considering the rules of the House, but would it be useful for the rest of what you are proposing?


James Alexander Robb: The committee would submit its report.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I do not propose to discuss the resolution, but to express my admiration of the accommodating disposition of the hon. member (Mr. Coote) who moved the original motion and who has now expressed a willingness to accept an amendment which has exactly the same effect as though a line were struck through his whole motion. If motions are to be put on the order paper and when the House is prepared to discuss them amendments are made that simply mean the applying of a chemical to the printed page and wiping out the ink-well, it is trifling with parliament. If this motion as amended passes it leaves everything exactly where at was, exactly as if the motion had never been put on the order paper, because the whole of the rules are already submitted to this committee. The committee now is charged with the responsibility of offering to the House amendments which it recommends, amendments by way of excision, alteration or addition. I had thought the hon. member (Mr. Coote) was desirous of obtaining an expression of opinion on the part of parliament on a very important alteration of the whole system of submitting estimates. Parliament cannot express an opinion if the resolution is accepted as amended.


William Charles Good: Can parliament not express
its opinion after the committee brings in its report?


Arthur Meighen: It can, but it could do
that without this resolution being here at all; that is what I am trying to show. As
soon as the chemical of the minister is applied, with the consent of the mover, we are in precisely the same position as if the motion had never been on the order paper.


George Perry Graham: Not exactly, Mr. Speaker.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister suggest, before I give up the floor, where the difference is?


George Perry Graham: I would rather speak a
few minutes.


Arthur Meighen: He would rather suggest it after? Well, I do not wonder.


George Perry Graham: Any time.


Arthur Meighen: The whole rules are before the committee now. So far as the committee is concerned it is charged with the wisdom of making a change, in accordance with the suggestion of the original motion. It was charged with that before we came to the House to-day-charged with it by the motion adopted on Monday. It is again charged with it if the amendment of the minister is accepted, so What is the difference?


Mr. HOEY:: Does not this constitute a
special reference?


Arthur Meighen: The whole of the rules are referred anyway. You do not add to the committee's powers or duties by making a special reference. You may call its attention to something, but everything is before the committee now; in a word you are no further ahead by making a special reference. What is done is simply to clear the motion away from parliament; it is thrown out of the door; not negatived, not accepted, but it has just quietly passed away, and discussion on the motion as it is now accepted is worthless. Will anybody suggest to me what is the value of discussing whether it is desirable to refer something to a committee which has that thing already before it? How can one discuss an amendment in that shape? For myself, I cannot discuss something unless I can get my teeth into it and see a meaning in it. I leave the discussion to hon. members who are not so circumscribed.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):	I would not like my
right hon. friend to put his teeth into it before he knows what it is. That would be prematurely testing, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) would say. As a matter of fact, if my right hon. friend's contention is sound, we need not refer anything in this House to a committee at all. If we are going to say that it is taking the matter away
Scrutiny of Estimates

from parliament when we refer anything to a committee, then why refer a private bill to a committee? My right hon. friend said that it was taking it away from parliament and treating this resolution as if it had never existed1.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly.


George Perry Graham: I maintain that if that be the case we might as well do away with all committees. A question comes before parliament and is referred to a committee. There is some discussion in the House, perhaps a good deal, sometimes very little, and then it is referred to a committee, for what purpose? For the purpose of going into details which you cannot get either in committee of the Whole House, or in the House itself.


Mr. HOCKEN:: But it is not referred to
a committee twice. This is being referred twice.


George Perry Graham: Oh, no. I am afraid my hon. friend is getting mixed.


Arthur Meighen: The minister is mixed.


George Perry Graham: Not at all. There was
a resolution to refer the question of the desirability of a revision of the rules to a committee, and now this particular resolution is referred to that committee for particular discussion in the committee. If this House did not take that action, the committee might say:	We are not going to deal with this at
all.


Arthur Meighen: It has no right to say it.


George Perry Graham: But if this amendment is accepted by the House, the committee is instructed to make special investigation into the question of whether or not we ought to submit the estimates to a committee. It perhaps does not bring in anything new, but it does place particular stress on a particular subject. Before that committee, details of information can be secured that we cannot get in the House. There may be much to be said in favour of referring the estimates to a committee; there may be much to be said against that practice. There is the experience of a partial reference at least to a committee in the Imperial parliament, and there is the experience in the United States of what they call the Budget commission. These things can all be brought before a committee in detail, and what this vote means is that the House sitting as the House with the Speaker in the chair is not going to attempt to decide whether the estimates ought to go to a committee or not,

but we are going to ask the committee that is to revise the rules, if revision be found necessary to pay particular attention to this one question, which perhaps is one of the greatest questions that will come before it.


Mr. CLARK:: Will that committee be
obliged to pay particular attention only to those things that are specially referred to it by this House?


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


George Perry Graham: Not necessarily, but those things that are debated here and voted on by the House will surely receive very marked attention by the committee; but that does not deprive the committee of the right to give any other question equally marked attention.


Mr. HERBERT MARLER (St. Lawrence-St. George):: There are some observations I
would like to make respecting this resolution which the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) has brought before the House. Before making those observations I might very candidly say to you, Mr. Speaker, and the other hon. members that it seems to me there is a great lack of interest shown in a very important resolution of this character. No one seems very anxious to debate this particular resolution.


Mr. FORKE:: Give us a chance.


Arthur Meighen: Is not the resolution
out of the road now? It is only the amendment which has been accepted that is before the House.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I may be entirely out of
order. Am I in order, Mr. Speaker?


Hewitt Bostock: Yes.


Herbert Meredith Marler: If I may continue, Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat astonished at the alacrity with which my hon. friend from Macleod accepted the amendment as put before him. This particular resolution, I repeat, is one of very considerable importance.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The resolution appeals to
me in very many ways. Since I have been here, not many years, but a number of years, I have noticed particularly the manner in which estimates were put through this House, not with a lack of consideration from the ministers, because I know the ministers in the cabinet have given the estimates full consideration, but there has been a lack of consideration given by hon. members to the estimates, a lack of knowledge even of the purpose of different expenditures, and at times

Scrutiny of Estimates
there has been a very prolonged discussion on very trivial expenditures indeed, while at other times large amounts are sometimes put through this House with a lack of consideration. Now would not a committee of this description be able to divide the important expenditures from the smaller ones, and ask for such reasonable information relating to the larger expenditures that when the items came before the House we would know precisely what we were voting for? Perhaps it is due entirely to lack of experience on my part, but I am free to admit that on many an occasion votes have passed through this House that I for one have not understood. Perhaps on this side of the House I am looked upon as a black sheep or a yellow dog if I dare to suggest to the minister that I would like certain information on a particular item. It is extremely unpleasant to ask ministers on your own side of the House for particular information. It is a most unheard of action on the part of any member on this side to dare suggest that a certain vote be cut down, or that certain action be taken with regard to it, or dare even to suggest that he should exercise his own intelligence in voting the money of the people. Well, if we are all to take that attitude, what is the use of being members of parliament at all? If my attitude was such, then, as far as I am concerned, my usefulness here is worth very many times less than $4,000. I can assure you of that, Sir, most sincerely. It is regarded by members as an attack, and as many hon. members on this side would say a direct attack, though there might be no such intention, upon a minister of the Crown to suggest that a certain vote should be diminished. It is a different thing for any man on this side of the House to do.
The hon. member for Macleod has brought a substantive resolution before this House which, in my opinion, is well worthy of debate; I think it is worthy of the consideration of hon. members, and that we should be given an opportunity in this House of saying yes or no as to whether we wish this particular matter discussed in this House before the Speaker, and decided on, or whether we want it shelved,-because that is what the amendment means. But hon. members sit quietly in their seats and say: No, we will let this amendment go through; we think the resolution is of no great importance; we think the members' votes in this House are of no particular importance and that the information which should be put before us is of no particular importance at all.


Robert Forke: The hon. member is drawing upon his imagination.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Well, perhaps I am, but if my hon. friend will tell me how I am drawing upon my imagination I shall be infinitely obliged to him; I am seeking information.


Robert Forke: I noticed that the hon.
member himself made half a dozen attempts to speak before he succeeded in getting the floor. That being so, how are the rest of us to get the opportunity of speaking?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I humbly apologize to the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke). I know when he gets on his feet he will agree with me; he always does agree with me on most questions.
Mr. Speaker, the finances of this country at the present time are such that hon. members of this House will have to take the responsibility of saying what payments should be made and what payments should not be made, and the only way they can take that responsibility is with the knowledge of what expenditures are to be made on behalf of the country, and whether those expenditures should or should not be made. I repeat that when estimates come before us for discussion hon. members are not in a position to say whether the expenditures should or should not be made because they have not sufficient knowledge, in many cases, to debate those expenditures intelligently on the floor of the House. I am heartily in favour of this resolution as moved by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), and I say again I regret he has agreed to the amendment.


Robert Forke: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Mar-ler). I am glad to have an opportunity of agreeing with him occasionally, and I concur in his view as to the importance of the resolution which has been moved by my hon. friend (Mr. Coote). If I thought that the amendment was shelving the issue I certainly would not agree to it, but I believe the matter is going to receive serious consideration. If the House passes the amendment I do not think that any committee would for a moment ignore the resolution and refrain from giving it the consideration which its importance deserves.
I have scarcely ever spoken here in regard to expenditure without expressing my dissatisfaction with the present method of criticising the estimates as submitted to us. At the same time it is perhaps rather difficult to suggest
Scrutmy oj Estimates

any change in the present system, or any other course, that would not be open to objection,. I am well aware that the House would never surrender the right of criticising estimates as they come before it, and therefore even after estimates have been passed by a select committee they would still be open for consideration by the House as a whole. I agree with the statement of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George that we have never been in a position to criticise intelligently the estimates that have been sub-4 p.m. mitted to us. I have felt that' again and again, as we sat here hour after hour, and night after night, just wasting time nibbling at these estimates.
The Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) has informed the House exactly how the estimates are prepared, but I must say this: we are always fond of our own offspring, and when ministers have brought down estimates that have been carefully prepared they are not in the frame of mind to see them meddled with very much, and consequently they will defend them to the very last stage. Now, it has often occurred to me that those who could make a really satisfactory reduction in appropriations, particularly those for the civil service, would be the deputy ministers and heads of the different departmental branches. I think I have mentioned once before that when a minister assumes control of a department-containing, perhaps, hundreds of employees and in some oases even thousands -in many instances it is almost impossible for him to familiarize himself with the details of the proposed expenditures and he must, to a very large extent, be at the mercy of the deputy minister or the heads of branches. I cannot but believe, therefore, that if we had a select committee for the purpose of examining into these estimates, departmental officials could be summoned and examined, and in that manner information obtained that we are never in a position to elicit in this House. I attach no particular blame to any of the ministers for defending their estimates, because, as I have already stated, they give those estimates careful consideration before bringing them down and therefore they are not likely to look very kindly upon any severe criticism that may be drawn out in this chamber. There is no doubt of the truth of the statement already made that sometimes we will spend hours upon the consideration of a few thousand dollars while it occasionally happens that as much as a million dollars- and in one instance that I recall as large an amount as $5,000,000

was voted after very little more than one half-hour's COnsidera-IMr, Forke.]
tion. That sort of thing must not continue. Something must be done to limit that state of affairs. I think I am somewhat conservative in a great many of my attitudes, but at the same time I do not believe that because a certain state of affairs has been customary in the past it must continue for all time. We are making changes continually, we are constantly 'adapting ideas and new methods to new conditions; and I think that the time has arrived when some change must be made whereby there may be more efficient criticism of the public expenditures.
I do not know whether any severe criticism can be directed against the government on account of the present system, I am not sufficiently acquainted' with the facts; but I do know that the expenditure of this country is growing, that the people are asking: "Whither are we going?" "What is our present course going to lead to?" Something must be done to curtail the public expenditure, otherwise we shall face disaster. No doubt a large proportion of the public expenditure at present is uncontrollable, but as far as the balance is concerned there is ample margin for the practice of economy and economy must be practised. I could have voted for the resolution as it stood, but seeing that an amendment has been moved and the mover of the resolution has agreed to it I will support the amendment.


Mr. W. F. CARROLL (Cape Breton South and Richmoi d):: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with those who take the ground that it is shelving the resolution to adopt an amendment to refer it to a select committee. I do not think we are debarred from discussing the merits of the resolution at the present time. If such is the case it is news to me.


Hewitt Bostock: The resolution itself is
embodied in the amendment.


William F. Carroll: There cannot be an amendment unless the resolution itself is before the House. Now what happens to the resolution in consequence of the amendment' It goes to a special committee which was appointed the other day. If that committee attends to business it will of necessity consider the resolution and give it special attention. What transpires then? The committee reports to the House, and if t'-at report is not satisfactory it is up to hon. members to discuss it and make it so. There would then be ample opportunity for discussing the resolution, and even under more favourable circumstances because there

Scrutiny oj Estimates
will be greater information available when the resolution returns to the House after having been considered by that committee.
With respect to the matter of the estimates I am not one of those who entertain any fear to ask a minister questions regarding any particular item that I do not understand. If there are hon. members who do not understand items in the estimates-and I am free to say that I am in that class myself occasionally- I think they have only themselves to blame for neglecting to obtain an explanation or the necessary information. There is only one way to properly understand the estimates and that is to study the Auditor General's report for the previous year and thus to grasp the exact nature of the expenditure involved. No hon. member can discuss the estimates intelligently without being a close student of the Auditor General's report for at least the preceding two years. It is open to every hon. member to refer to that book and acquaint himself with the details of public expenditure. I must say that since the advent of the members of the Progressive party more attention has been paid to the Auditor General's report, with special regard to the necessity of particular appropriations, than used to be the case. That is showing a proper spirit and working in the right direction. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) thinks a member should be termed a black sheep who gets up in this House and asks a minister certain questions about estimates.


George Perry Graham: If that is so, there would be plenty of black sheep.


William F. Carroll: If that is so, I am very
black, because whenever there is before the House an estimate in connection with which I have any doubts, I have no hesitation in asking the minister what it means, and I have always received courteous treatment. When I was in opposition, I always received courteous treatment from ministers of the crown who happened to be politically opposed to us at the time. The only item this year that I had any real grievance about was one of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) and he treated me very decently. He did not throw me out of a window or say to me: "Shut up, you black sheep"- or "gutter-snipe." He explained the situation very well from his point of view and I am not saying that he is not right. But the idea that a man who asks a minister questions in regard to estimates is thereby thrown into a class by himself is, to my mind, absolutely absurd.
As regards the point raised by the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) as to large estimates going through without very much consideration, there is a reason for it and the reason is this:	The other day, for instance,
when the Postmaster General (Mr. Murphy) had his estimates before the House, we voted over $1,300,000 of estimates for civil government in that particular department. Why did we go over that so quickly? Because certain expenses are included in that which we must have and which we all know about. There are the expenses of the inside service and the outside service, and it is only when a large increase is made in these items that members begin to ask questions as to the necessity for the increase. If there is a decrease, of course the minister explains it. He may not explain the matter so fully if there is a large increase. The same thing may be said of all the other departments. If, however, for example, the item is for a wharf in Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Nova Scotia costing $1,000-yes. there are wharves and dredging in Manitoba, and the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) need not shake his head.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Very little.


William F. Carroll: There are wharves on the Red river built and maintained by this government. If something of that kind comes before the House and it is new, there is more talk about it than about an estimate of $2,000,000 for civil government appertaining to any department of the government, because it is something new; and our friends on the other side, the Conservatives and the Progressives, if the project is brought forward by a Liberal government, think there may be something mysterious about it, that it may have something to do with elections. I presume that if we were in the place of the opposition we would be as persistent in ferreting out these things as are our hon. friends on the other side of the House. That is simply to show why large votes go through apparently in a hurry, but are really well understood by hon. members who are giving the business of this country any particular attention.
I do not intend to discuss the merits of the main motion of the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote). I have my own ideas about it. It will come back to this House, and we shall be asked, with some direction, to vote upon it. I am not one of those who think we should continue along a certain line of action, because our predecessors in this House thought fit to go along that line. If this

Scrutiny of Estimates

House meets, as it has been doing for the last five or six years, in January or February, and if the government want to get estimates through before the end of the financial year, I would advise the House to go very slowly in appointing new committees to deal with questions of estimates. This committee may be composed of ten, fifteen or twenty-five members, and I do not care how minutely and how much in detail a committee on estimates may go into those estimates in the committee, there will be in this House practically the same discussion on estimates as there is at the present time. If we meet here the first of February, we are going to have a great deal of difficulty, with this committee, in getting through any estimates before 31st March.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Is that true of the special committee on railway estimates last year?


William F. Carroll: Railway estimates, I understand, are put into a category by themselves, especially this year. But it might become true of them too. That is only one estimate; but we have ten, fifteen, twenty departments, and if you divide the departments into their subdivisions, we have perhaps forty or fifty different lines of estimates and we cannot get a report on all those estimates by a committee in time for this House to put them through for the end of the fiscal year.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Does the hon. member forget that the hon. member for Macleod recommended that the estimates for the different departments be referred to different committees?-for instance, that the agricultural estimates be referred to the committee on Agriculture. I admit that one committee would have difficulty in dealing with all the estimates.


William F. Carroll: I did not notice that. I am not making an objection; I am simply throwing out this hint to the House. Supposing all these committees are appointed after the estimates are brought down in this House as they were three or four days ago, how long would it take a committee to get through one set of estimates? It would take them a week or a fortnight, and if they give the estimates the attention which some people think they should receive, it would take them four or five weeks to get through one set of estimates. I am not objecting to the main motion, I am throwing this out as a suggestion. When this committee brings in a report on this particular resolution, we shall have ample opportunity of discussing the merits 
of the substance of the resolution, notwithstanding the fact that there is an amendment to send it to a special committee of this House.


John Arthur Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a great pity that the hon. member who introduced this resolution accepted the amendment, because in the first place this House cannot now express its opinion upon the merits of the resolution as drafted. Second, the acceptance of the amendment means that the committee which has been appointed to revise the rules of this House will not ignore, as the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) says, the amendment, but if this House specially recommends that the committee consider a specific thing, the committee will consider itself limited to consideration of those subjects which have been specially referred to it by this House.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


John Arthur Clark: Because this subject in itself is big enough for one special committee to consider over a period of weeks. In my opinion, a select committee might well be chosen from this House with the idea of improving the business methods that are in vogue here, and unquestionably those methods can be improved. For instance, the length of any session of parliament is largely due to the length of time that we consume in considering estimates. And what do we gain by consideration of the estimates? As the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) says, the estimates are carefully considered by the cabinet before they are printed. But even if they are carefully considered, after they are introduced into the House they must be passed. A member supporting the government may ask a question and may receive a courteous answer, but he dare not oppose the passing of the estimate.


William F. Carroll: Did the hon. gentleman
not hear me opposing an estimate the other day? I dared to do it but did not get any satisfaction.


John Arthur Clark: But there is no such thing as voting against or throwing out the estimate once it has been introduced by the government. Having been introduced, the estimate goes through. Can my hon. friend mention one case of any government since confederation which has fallen on a money vote, or any question of an estimate before the House?


William F. Carroll: What does the hon. member mean by "fallen"?

Scrutiny oj Estimates


John Arthur Clark: I mean the government being defeated in the House.


William F. Carroll: I do not know of any
government that has resigned on that account but I do know of governments, through pressure either on the part of the opposition or on their own side, having reduced estimates.


Arthur Meighen: I remember that myself.


John Arthur Clark: Suppose the opposition
effectively criticised an estimate which was introduced by the government. What chance is there of that estimate being reduced by the government unless the cabinet were afraid that the opposition might be stronger and might vote them out of power? That is the only possibility of a government considering the revision of an estimate. On the question of time consumed, it seems to me obvious that no man can stand for parliament unless he either has sufficient money to make it possible for him to devote his life to this work or is prepared to become a professional politician and use the indemnity for his livelihood.


James Alexander Robb: Or lives in Toronto.


John Arthur Clark: At any rate, he must have
someone who is prepared to carry on his business while he is away. The sessions are so long, and unnecessarily long as a rule, that a young man faces one thing and one thing only-his business will go to the four winds if he continues in public life. Surely it is obvious to the members of this House that there are business methods that can be introduced into parliament that would shorten the session and at the same time enable us to deal effectively with all business problems that come before us. For that reason I regret very much that the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) has accepted the amendment, because in so doing he has effectually made it impossible for the House to express its opinion on the advisability of having the estimates referred to select committees before whom officers could be summoned and thoroughly examined. He has, I say, effectually precluded that system which I am sure would prove better than the farcical method now pursued of asking the minister questions about some matter about which he is absolutely uninformed except the information he can get from his deputy before him, who has in his book certain written answers.


Mr. PUTNAM :: In what way does the hon. member think that the leaving of the estimates to a special committee would expedite the business of the House?
34*


John Arthur Clark: To-day we ask questions of ministers who cannot possibly be fully informed on the subjects in question. No minister can of his own knowledge give such a concise explanation as probably would be accepted by every member in the House.
I do not say that the minister should be fully informed of the questions that arise, because it would be impossible for him to have all the knowledge that is available on the subject. The result is he flounders about and it takes us hours to get the information out of him. Under the present system I might ask a minister some question on a subject which he does not fully understand and I might want to follow it up with further questions. Before I get an opportunity, however, to ask another question members in other parts of the House go on to something else, and finally I have to bring the minister back to the matter I was pursuing before, and in that way time is wasted. Furthermore, under this system there is a tendency to string the thing out, because members unnecessarily play with the minister. If we got down to business, however, in a committee sitting around a table, there would be no occasion for this sort of thing because we should have experts to deal with, men who had made a special study of the particular item under discussion. I have no hesitation, therefore, in saying that the time consumed under such a system would be not more than one-half the time now taken up in considering the estimates. On that point I think it is of particular importance that the members of the House should be given an opportunity of examining and cross-examining the officials, who are necessarily better versed than the minister in the whole subject and could give more satisfactory answers regarding any special item in the estimates.
Mr. FRANCOIS J. PELLETIER (Matane): Unlike my hon. friend (Mr. Clark), who regrets that the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) should have so readily accepted the amendment submitted by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), I agree with the amendment, for these reasons. To begin with, the resolution itself states that in the opinion of this House estimates should be referred to select committees before being submitted to the committee of the W hole. It has been fully explained by the Acting Minister of Finance how the estimates are ^ dealt with; they are carefully studied and scrutinized by the Treasury board and the Privy Council, and when the estimates come before the House they are, to my mind at any rate, simply here to be confirmed. As for submitting, let us
Scrutiny of Estimates

say, the argicultural estimates to the agricultural committee aud the railway estimates to the railway committee, and so on, I think I am quite safe in saying that frequently the members of the committees that now investigate various matters have to send messengers and pages to call the members in in order to have a quorum, only a few remaining to do the work. You know, Mr. Speaker, as well as I do that at week ends a number of our hon. members take time off to go preaching, or to attend political meetings, or prayer meetings, or whatever other meetings they see fit to attend, so that they are absent from Ottawa. As a rule they leave on Friday and do not return until Monday afternoon or Tuesday. Now, supposing the committee met on Fridays, Saturdays or Mondays, and there was no quorum? I fail to see why we should not adopt the amendment, because the committee to be appointed to consider the revision of the rules will certainly have ample time to study this question and give it all the consideration it deserves. Therefore I am absolutely in favour of the amendment, and I do not regret that my hon. friend from Macleod has accepted it.


Mr. ALFRED SPEAKMAN (Red1 Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I am very heartily in favour of the principle embodied1 in the original resolution, not because I believe it would greatly expedite business in the House, for undoubtedly a great deal of discussion would still take place in committee of the Whole, but because it would enable many of us who are comparatively new members to at least understand the business that was passing before us. I may take my own case, and I imagine it is typical of the majority of members. I believe in economy, but in intelligent economy; in other words, I desire to vote for reductions when those reductions can be made without imperilling the public good.
I am a prairie man; save by hearsay, I know nothing for instance, of the problems of the Maritime provinces or of British Columbia- the problems peculiar to a seagoing people- and yet I am desirous of being fair to those people. What do I know of the merits of the case when estimates are brought forward for the construction of wharves and breakwaters on the coast of Nova Scotia? Nothing. By supporting such estimates I may be party *-unwittingly-to an arrant piece of jerrymandering, of graft, given for the sake of getting votes; by opposing them, I may be depriving the people affected of an essential public service. In a word, I am voting with an absolute lack of knowledge, and con-
sequently with an absolute lack of intelligence. I object to being put in that position.
By referring the various estimates to committees as proposed, some members in the House besides those directly interested in the constituencies in which the expenditure is to take place-whose word naturally is not always to be accepted at its full value because of their desire to have as large an estimate as possible for their riding-some independent members, would have an opportunity of gaining accurate knowledge, and the discussions carried on in committee of the Whole, led by those members on the special committee, would bring out the information essential to an intelligent understanding of the estimates. This, I believe, would enable us to deal with national expenditure in a more businesslike way.
I am not in favour of having all the estimates sent to one select committee: partly because that committee would be overwhelmed with work; no one committee could possibly deal intelligently and adequately with the whole mass of estimates. And, moreover, the educational benefit derived would be confined to a very small percentage of the House, but by dividing the work among various committees, each of which by its very nature is peculiarly adapted to deal with the particular estimates assigned to it, the educational result would be spread among a far greater number of members and the House as a whole would understand more thoroughly what is being done.
It has been stated, and I suppose with absolute correctness, that before the estimates are brought down they have been gone over most carefully by the different ministers and by the cabinet as a whole. But what does this mean? Simply that they understand the estimates and must take the sole responsibility of passing them. Carried to its logical conclusion, we might as well dispense with parliament altogether so far as our national expenditure is concerned.


Mr. CAHILL:: Who has the responsibility
if a committee does the work?


Alfred Speakman: This House in voting the estimates must accept some measure of responsibility, and we are accepting it now blindly and without knowledge.


Frank S. Cahill: Not at all.


Alfred Speakman: To a large extent. We can ask questions here, but the difficulty is that a lot of us know so little of the subject under discussion that we cannot even ask intelligent questions. A member must know something of the nature of any particular

Scrutiny of Estimates
item of the estimates before he can put intelligent questions, otherwise he may be altogether wide of the mark and obtain no adequate information whatever. We have all found ourselves in that situation.
I do not think the amendment as altogether satisfactory; on the other hand, I am not satisfied that it necessarily kills the substance of the motion. What will happen? In the first place, without this amendment, without the reference of this specific subject to it, would the special committee which is to be appointed discuss the matter at all? Has this matter direct relation to the rules of the House? Is it a rule of the House that estimates shall be treated in this way, or is it merely custom?


Arthur Meighen: It is a rule of the House.


Alfred Speakman: But, in the second
place, this committee can elicit information and in their report will give their reasons for or against the adoption of the proposal contained in the resolution, and at that time, if we are not satisfied with their conclusions, we shall have the opportunity to again discuss and, if necessary, decide on the principle itself. That, of course, is what I intend to do, to treat the proposal on its merits after the committee has reported on it, when perhaps I shall be able to discuss it more intelligently than I can do at the present time. I wish to impress on the House the feeling of those hon. members who are honestly desirous of discharging their duties intelligently and conscientiously, but who are unable to do so at the present time through sheer ignorance. I think this proposal would help us to deal with the estimates more satisfactorily because we shall know what we are talking about, and we shall present to the country the spectacle of a House of Commons better equipped to discuss one of the most important subjects brought before it-the expenditure of the money which the people have to pay.


Mr. ROBINSON:: How will those who are not on the committee have this knowledge, or have more knowledge than they have at the present time?


Alfred Speakman: In this way; on all
sides of the House there would be men qualified to lead the discusion, men who could bring out the essential information required, and from them the rest of the House would learn something of the estimates under discussion.


Mr. PELLETIER:: It would be hearsay.


Alfred Speakman: No, it would be intelligent discussion led by those better informed members, and through that intelligent discussion other members not upon those committees would receive information. We had a splendid example last year of what we may expect. When the branch lines were being discussed in this House no member outside of those representing the constituencies affected knew anything about the question. We either sat silent or discussed the question in ignorance. When it was referred to the special committee, engineers were summoned, maps were produced, and each branch line was discussed, and later on the floor of the House the bills were intelligently discussed before they were passed. I believe we would find the same thing happen with regard to the estimates, which is perhaps one of the most important subjects with which we have to deal.


Sir EUGENE FISET (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the discussion on the proposal to submit the estimates to a special committee. I have had some experience both in the preparation of estimates and also in trying to answer the numerous questions that were put to the poor minister on the floor. I have been very forcibly struck by the proposal which is now before the House. But one thing seems to have been forgotten; at any rate it has not been mentioned by any of the ministers or by others who have taken part in the debate. If you submit all the estimates to a special committee for consideration, it is tantamount to this: you might as well ask each minister to have printed and submitted to each member of the House the detailed information that is prepared for him in book form by the officials of his department. That is the information that will be given by officials of the department if the estimates are discussed in a special committee. Why not have this information printed before the estimates are discussed in the House and distributed to each member? By this method we would avoid not only the discussion in the special committee but the second discussion that is bound to take place when the estimates are again submitted to the committee of the Whole?


Harold Putnam: Mr. Speaker, it does seem to a tyro in parliamentary practice like myself that with the exception of two or three contributions this discussion has taken a very illogical range. Some hon. gentlemen seem under the hysteria that unless they can discuss this very question here and this afternoon the opportunity will never recur. As I take it, if the amendment
Scrutiny oj Estimates

proposed by the hon. Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) prevails, in due course of a brief time there will be a report from a committee and nothing under the firmament of heaven can then prevent this House from having a discussion, whether or not the finding of that committee be in favour of the submission of the estimates first to a committee. The hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark), with a fear not worthy of his intelligence, made the direct statement that unless the discussion proceeded now it would be impossible ever again to have the discussion on its merits, before this House.	/


John Arthur Clark: I beg to differ, if I may rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I said no such thing. I said that if the amendment is accepted by the mover of this resolution (Mr. Coote) it is not possible for the House to express its opinion on this subject to-day.


Harold Putnam: The hon. member did not say "to-day"; be put it absolutely. But I freely and willingly accept his statement of what he really meant.


John Arthur Clark: Read it to-morrow.


Harold Putnam: Oh, my ears are sharper
than my tongue, and I am giving what the hon. member said.
The mover of the resolution presupposes that at least in some circumstances a committee to deal with a given matter in its first stage would be above the ability of the House of Commons, and I can reverently say that the amendment carries out better and more logically the purpose of his motion than the motion itself. The motion says in effect that to have a committee of the House review the recommendations of the cabinet is better than to have the House do so; that a committee should take the first shock of handling the estimates before they are discussed in the House. He has urged the principle of exalting a committee over the House; of making a committee a shock absorber in the matter of the estimates. Then, Mr. Speaker, we have gone on record :as desiring a committee to report on the revision of the rules, rather than having that matter of revision taken up initially by debate in the open House. The committee to be thus charged with a revision of the rules is obviously the place where any and all revisions of those rules should first be dealt with.
What the mover of the original motion and the mover of the amendment both have in view is a potential change in the rules. We are on record as referring to a committee all rules which may be susceptible of change;
{Mr. Putnam.]
let us refer this one also to that same committee or assert that impliedly it is already so referred. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) seems to think that the motion is in effect wiped out mechanically or chemically by the amendment. It seems to me that the right hon. gentleman should show why an exception should be made of this proposed change of rule by discussing it in the open House first rather than having it initially dealt with by the committee to which the whole question of the change of rules has already been referred. I think a burden of proof stands squarely against him. In fact, the House has already expressed its sense as to the method by which this matter of qualifying the rules should be dealt with, and I think it is good sense.


Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford) :: I have listened with much interest
to the discussion of this motion and to the amendment which has been moved. I have been endeavouring to locate the cause for any such radical movement as is suggested in the motion and also in the amendment, and I say that I think the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset) has touched upon the real reason for the bringing up of this discussion. If we had submitted to us by each minister as he brings on his estimates a detailed statement of what the money was being used for, it would not only facilitate the passing of the estimates but it would avoid any such discussion as we have here and the moving of such motions as we have had this afternoon. I have a very vivid recollection of attempts on the part of ministers to smuggle their estimates through the House; I have even made that statement on the floor of the House and have not been rebuked for it. With such a scheme as is proposed by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) it would be impossible for anything of that kind to happen. A committee such as is suggested in the original motion would review the estimates submitted by each minister and hon. members would have a pretty well defined idea of what the money was being voted for. We have seen ministers submit their estimates to the House and deliberately withhold information to which the House was entitled before an intelligent vote on the items under consideration could be given. That has occurred time and time again. I have also noticed that many estimates of a questionable or suspicious nature are held over until the last days of the session, and millions of dollars are fired through at the last minute, late at night or early in the morning after an all night session, without

Scrutiny oj Estimates
very much consideration. I think it is high time that some better method should be adopted than the one that has been in effect here during the last two or three years.


James Alexander Robb: In what regard have the last
two or three years differed from the other fourteen that my hon friend has spent in the House ?


Donald Sutherland: If my hon. friend desires that information I will endeavour to illustrate it by something that happened in this House in 1923. While in committee of the Whole on the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), information was asked with regard to a particular matter. Upon my submitting a question on the subject the Chairman informed the committee that that matter came under the head of civil government and when I attempted to discuss the matter referred to I was ruled out of order.
I think it was the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) who asked where the payment came in for a man who was known to be in the employ of the government. After the item was passed and the question was put directly to the minister he quietly informed the committee that the matter came under the item which had just been passed and Hansard does not show that the item he claimed was passed, was ever submitted. I was in the House all the time and followed the passing of these estimates carefully. My attention was closely fixed upon the item referred to and I never heard that item called.


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friend will allow
me, the question I asked him was in what regard it differed from the experience of the other fourteen years. My hon. friend will recall that he was once before ruled out of order in 1918 when he was finding fault with the ministry he was then supporting, with Dr. Tolmie, when he held up the House four or five hours.


Donald Sutherland: I do not recall that incident, but it is just possible, because I insist on getting information that I think I am entitled to have. In this instance, the chairman of the committee informs me that the matter came under the head of civil government. I looked over the items under civil government, and I could not find it. Then another item comes up, and the minister quietly informs the committee that it was in the item which had just been passed. He was asked to reopen the question, but he would not do anything of the kind. I am referring to the money that was paid illegally out of the treasury of this country
to the organizer of the Liberal party, Mr. Duncan Marshall, and I believe that is the thing that is more responsible for this discussion coming before this House to-day than anything else-the obvious lack of common ordinary courtesy on the part of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) and his effort to conceal from the committee the moneys that are being voted by this House. If the estimates were submitted to a committee of the House before they came up for consideration in committee of the Whole, or if the suggestion of the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset) were adopted and each minister came down with a detailed statement showing what the money he was asking parliament to vote was for, I think there would be no necessity for a special committee. But hitherto we have had to extract information from some of the ministers by a long and laborious process, particularly from the Minister of Agriculture, and that same process had to be gone through here on Friday night. It seems to be a habit with him to bring up his estimates on Friday night. After I left the House on Friday night I noticed in Hansard that someone requested that the particular item then before the committee with regard to live stock should be left over until more members who had left for home late Friday night should be here, and the minister informed the committee that possibly I would be back again on Monday when these items came up, and he was anxious to get them through before I returned. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is that a proper way of voting the money of the people of this country? I say that the practice that has been followed here during the last two or thrss years is responsible for the protests which have been made here this afternoon, and if the government would adopt a reasonable method of presenting its estimates and have each minister give a detailed statement as to what the moneys voted were to be used for, I think there would be no request to have the estimates referred to a special committee. _ I do not like to refer to these things in this way, but it has come to the stage where I must protest against the methods that have been adopted and followed in voting money without the knowledge of what it is to be used for being in possession of members of this House.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, the subject which we are discussing, you will recall, was discussed very fully in the parliament preceding this one, in the session of 1921, on a motion that was introduced by your Honour, then occupying a
Scrutiny oj Estimates

seat on the floor of this chamber. You suggested the appointment of a committee to scrutinize estimates before they were submitted by the different ministers to the committee of the Whole. As I listened to the discussion this afternoon, my mind wandered back to the debate that took place on this subject four years ago. I recall that your Honour introduced that resolution in a very effective and forceful speech. You set out in much more detail than is contained in the motion of my hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Coote) the means that should be taken to effect the purpose you had in view. I recall that after you had spoken, my hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton), who was then occupying the position of Minister of Finance also spoke, and while he did not disagree with the principle that you, Mr. Speaker, had enunciated and supported in your speech, he did rather take the position that after all it was not very necessary. True, he said, they had done something of the kind in the British parliament, but then conditions there were wholly different from what they were in the Canadian parliament. Then I recall that the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) spoke and supported you quite vigorously in the position you had taken, and urged that it was of very great importance that this committee should be appointed, or at all events that serious consideration should be given to the appointment of a committee for that specific purpose. Others also took part in that debate.
I recall that the then sitting member for Neepawa- made what I think was the most effective contribution, after the speech of your Honour, to that debate. The upshot of our discussion was that at the suggestion of the government your Honour withdrew your motion, and it was the general consensus of opinion in the House at that time that the discussion had done a great deal of good.
I do not find myself on common ground with the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) when he takes the view that the amendment which has been submitted, and has been accepted by my hon. friend from Macleod, disposes of the whole matter; not at all. As has already been pointed out in the discussion, it simply amounts to this: It makes this question of whether a change in our procedure should be made and the estimates submitted to a special committee, a matter of special reference to the committee that is going to consider the revision of the rules of the House; it is an instruction to that committee that this matter must be dealt with by them; that is all it is. Otherwise the committee charged with the

revision of the rules of the House, if such be deemed1 necessary, might not feel under any obligation whatever to consider a change in the practice of submitting estimates. It does seem to me that that is the sensible way to proceed, and for this reason. We should not lightly change the rules and the practice of this House; when we do make a change we should be as certain as we can be that our judgment is sound and that the change will be beneficial to the conduct of the public business of the country.
We have had a suggestion made by my hon. friend from Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset) this afternoon, which by the wav appears to me to be the only concrete suggestion that has been made in the discussion. I am not prepared at the moment to accept his suggestion, valuable as I think it may be; but I do think that this suggestion could be made, to the committee that is charged1 with a revision of the rules, and evidence secured and the books examined in which the expenditures submitted to the ministers are set out, and submitted by the minister to the House. In that way its value could be best determined. That would be an eminently sensible way of proceeding. But I must say that I doubt if any committee charged with the duty of revising the estimates before they are submitted' to the House would prove of very much greater value than the procedure we now follow with regard to the estimates. I think it would be of some value, but after all if we are to secure economy in public administration-and if there is one note that has run through all the speeches made in this debate this afternoon it is the desire and the need for economy-there must be more than a desire for economy among the members of this House. There has got to be a desire and an understanding, and a thorough understanding, of the need of economy in the constituencies, back in the country. Because, after all, this parliament is simply the mirror, it is in large measure the reflection, of the opinion that exists in the country-at any rate it should be.
I agree with the criticism that has been made this afternoon, that perhaps we take up too much time in academic discussions in this House. After all, what is the function of parliament? The function of parliament is legislative. It has to do with the consideration of the expenditure of public moneys, it has to do with the consideration of the all important question of how those moneys will be raised, the forms of our taxation, the question of what laws we shall enact and how they shall be enforced. Parliament in the real sense of the word is not a body that.

Scrutiny of Estimates
exists for the purpose of carrying on propaganda. That is peculiarly a thing that should be done outside of parliament; and when your public opinion has crystallized, as a result of propaganda, along any particular line of reform then that opinion will be reflected in the nature of your legislation and your administration. Such being the case I feel that a burden lies upon the individual members of this House to carry the gospel of edonomv back into their own constituencies. It has been apparent, I think, to anyone who has observed the proceedings of parliament closely, that very often criticisms of expenditures suggested or expenditures omitted are the result-to some degree at any rate, and we are all sinners in that respect more or less-of the particular or peculiar political effect they may have in some constituency or constituencies; and that, I maintain, is not the atmosphere in which we can approach this question of economy in public expenditures. Unfortunately we have had this condition of opinion in the country in the past-and I am not reflecting on or directing my attention to any particular section of the country; it is a disease that seems to have affected the whole body politic more or less -that the merit of a member and the value to his constituency was judged too much by the number of scalps he brought home at his belt at the end of the session in the way of votes of money for works in his constituency.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I want to call the
attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact that that is not true of Southeast Grey.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am sure public opinion
in that constituency has improved since my hon. friend has been its representative. I repeat, what I have described is a condition that has, to too great extent, existed in the country, and I say that no matter how many committees you may have to consider estimates, no matter how many questions you may direct to sweating, agonized ministers in this House, you will never find a real basis for economy until there is full appreciation and an understanding of the needs of it among the people outside of parliament.
Now I think that the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) in accepting the suggestion that the matter be refer-
5.	p.m. red to this special committee has acted wisely. I do hope that that committee, whoever may compose it, will thoroughly examine the whole question, get whatever evidence they can, approach it in an impartial manner, find if possible means whereby these estimates can be scrutinized, and if possible revised, before they are submitted on the floor of parliament, and thus not only save the time of parliament but make some saving to the pockets of the taxpayers of this country as well.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as amended?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


George Gibson Coote: Have I the opportunity of
replying?


Hewitt Bostock: If the hon. member replies that will close the debate. Therefore, if any other hon. member wishes to speak he should speak now.


William Charles Good: If I may be
permitted I should like to say a word or two. I want to indicate my entire agreement with the amendment, not because I am not in favour of the original motion, but because I do not think we have enough information at this stage to decide the matter as intelligently as we shall be able to do after the committee reports. I think it is a very wise amendment, and I am glad the mover of the resolution has accepted it. I should like to say further that the attendance this afternoon indicates that this is a matter which comes home very strongly to a great many members of the House. It is really a very important question, and I am glad to see the interest that has been taken in it.


George Gibson Coote: I just wish to take a very few minutes of the time of the House in concluding this debate. First, I should like to refer very briefly to the remarks of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), and to the remarks of the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George (Mr. Marler) expressing regret that I had accepted the amendment offered by the Acting Minister of Finance. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I gathered from the attitude of hon. members when I was speaking on this resolution that the House was not interested in the question to any great extent. I might remind you, Mr. Speaker, that you were good enough to rise and ask for order in the Chamber in order that the mover of the resolution might be heard. Even after that I am not sure that I made myself heard by all the members. When a member cannot make himself heard, he naturally feels that the House is not very much in sympathy with his motion. I felt that here was a chance of getting some action when the Acting Minister of Finance went so far as to say that the government would be quite in
538	COMMONS
Scrutiny of Estimates
favour of referring this matter to the special committee which is to inquire into the question of revising the rules of the House.
I may explain my reason for putting this resolution on the order paper. After being here for three years I was almost in despair of the hon. members of this House doing anything that would effectually Teduce the estimates as presented to them. I felt last year that the only possible way by which we could get a reduction in these estimates was to move that they should be reduced by, say, one-fifth or one-sixth of the amount as brought down, and leave it to the minister to decide on what particular items he was going to retrench. But that might not be a wise way of reducing estimates. We have some expenditures that are necessary, we have some, I am sure, that are unnecessary. In the Department of Agriculture alone, I believe, if my suggestion were adopted and the members of the committee gave their very best attention to this matter, we could effect a reduction of a million dollars in the departmental estimates through the cutting out of overlapping between the Dominion and the provinces alone.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Would my hon.
friend be good enough to give me a list of the items upon which he would make that saving, because I have been endeavouring to avoid the overlapping to which he refers? I should be delighted to receive an itemized list of just where my hon. friend would begin, and would endeavour to apply it.


George Gibson Coote: I am sure the minister would not expect that I should give those details offhand; but I think possibly that if this committee would take the matter in hand, we could go into the proposed expenditures in detail and soon find out where we could save the sum I have suggested. I may have made it too big, but I honestly believe it could be done.
One other thing I should like to say in regard to this resolution. I am not absolutely satisfied that the suggestion I have made is the best one that can be made in regard to getting better procedure for the discussion of estimates. When I put the resolution on the order paper last year, I thought it was the very best that we had any hope of having adopted in this House and I am still rather of that opinion. I am pleased to see the interest which the House has shown in the consideration of this resolution, and trust that some good will result from the discussion.
Before concluding I should like to draw the attention of the House to what has been accomplished in the United States in the way 
of cutting down expenditures. This reference will be very brief and I hope hon. members will give me their attention while I present it. This quotation which I will read is part of an address by the President of the United States at the seventh regular meeting of the business organization of the government. That is, as I understand it, a meeting of heads of government departments from all parts of the United States. The president is referring to the work which had been accomplished since ' the Bureau of the Budget was established in the United States. I am quoting this in the hope that I may impress upon hon. members the possibility of finding ways of cutting down the expenditures that this country is enduring at the present time. The president says:
For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1921, the last pre-budget year, our expenditures were $5,538,000,000 and our receipts $5,024,000,000. For the succeeding three years, which include the year which ends today-
This is after the Bureau of the Budget had been established.
-our expenditures were $3,795,000,000, $3,897,000,000, and $3,497,000,000, respectively. Here we show a progressive and consistent reduction in expenditures.
Then he goes on to quote the receipts which I do not think I need quote to the House. He continues:
An analysis of these figures shows that in the face of a progressive reduction in receipts we have still achieved a substantial surplus at the end of each of the fiscal years-$314,000,000 for 1922, $310,000,000 for 1923, and in excess of $500,000,000 for 1924.
Further on he says:
Without the aid of this recurring surplus the public debt would be $1,100,000,000 more than it now stands, and the interest charges would be some $45,000,000 greater next year than we shall now have to pay.
In conclusion, I am going to ask the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) who moved this amendment that we have some suggestion from the government that this committee will be asked to consider this particular matter as soon as possible. If that were done, we might have from the committee a recommendation that would help us to secure some better method of considering and discussing the estimates even at the present session. Should that result be achieved, I feel that the time we have taken over this resolution today will have been well spent and I shall be satisfied.
Mr. MACLElAN (York): Mr. Speaker, has the committee met yet and are we likely to get a report this session?


Hewitt Bostock: The committee has not
yet been formed but it will likely be formed in a few days.

Divorce


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: And progress reported?


Hewitt Bostock: I am not speaking for the government, but as my name was mentioned in connection with the committee, I suppose the committee will be formed in a few days and will then sit.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Motion as amended agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Hocken:
For a copy of all applications made to the government, or any department thereof, towards the close of the last navigation season on the Great Lakes, asking for a suspension of the Canadian coasting regulations, and of all correspondence -between any member of the government, or any of its officials and any other person in reference to the same matter.
Arthur Meighen: I notice that this motion is really an order for papers. If the House does not object, I take the responsibility of moving it.


George Perry Graham: There is no objection to
the motion except this, that the hon. member himself may want to make some remarks on it. We have an order under which motions for which discussion is not asked are put, but this is not in that particular category. I am quite willing to let it go through.


Arthur Meighen: I have not heard that
the hon. member wishes to speak on it, but for fear that he might, we shall let it stand.
Motion stands.



OCEAN SHIPPING RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, in relation
to the government order having to do with the bonusing of a fleet of steamers, I should like to refer the government to some correspondence in 1921 and 1920, at least. There may have been correspondence in previous years, as I think there was, with the British government in relation to the subject, and especially in relation to the shipping committee, and with the shipping committee itself. I would ask that that correspondence be laid on the table, as it can easily be done, I believe, before the government proceeds on Tuesday.


George Perry Graham: I will -bring the matter
to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Arthur Meighen: And the Prime Minister.


George Perry Graham: And the Prime Minister.
ALTERNATIVE VOTE On the Orders of the Day:


Robert Forke: At the close of last session it was understood that a bill would be introduced to provide for the transferable vote in single member constituencies. Does the government intend introducing that bill shortly?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):	A bill of that nature
would be in the hands of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), and if my hon. friend will put his question when that minister is present I am sure he will receive a reply.



OLD AGE PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the goverment propose bringing down any legislation this year in regard to old age pensions?


George Perry Graham: I am not in a position
to say.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT-PRINTER'S LIABILITY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi) moved the third reading of Bill No. 3, to amend the Criminal Code (Printer's Liability).
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (West Calgary) moved the second reading of Bill No. 4, respecting Divorce.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my hon. friend
would allow this motion to stand until the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is in the House. I will undertake to see that he has an early opportunity of going on with it.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Will the Minister of Justice
be in tJhe House to-morrow?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I expect he
will be here to-morrow. He was at Washington yesterday and I think he will be back in the city before the close of to-day.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I am perfectly willing to
accommodate the Prime Minister in his
Supply-Customs

request, but this is the second occasion on which I have been asked to let this matter stand. I want it to be abundantly dear, however, that I desire that the House shall have the fullest opportunity to discuss the matter, and that there shall be ample opportunity also to put it through its various readings, provided it meets with the approval of the House.
Order stands.
YUKON QUARTZ MINING ACT AMENDMENT On the Order:
Second reading of Bill No. 6, to amend The Yukon Quartz Mining Act.-Mr. Black (Yukon).


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Minister of the
Interior (Mr. Stewart, Argenteuil) is not here at the moment and perhaps my hon. friend would also permit this bill to stand for the present. I expect the minister here tomorrow.


Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: I am
willing to have the matter stand, but it is my intention to move that it be referred to the committee on Mines and Minerals, as was done with a similar bill last session. If that were done it could be considered in detail; and I am inclined to think that the Minister of the Interior would take the same stand.
Order stands.
MOUNTAIN FREIGHT SCALE On the Order:
Resuming the adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of Mr. Kennedy (West Edmonton), That, in the opinion of this House, the mountain freight scale should be abolished in so far as it is reflected in standard mileage rates, class rates and commodity rates.


Hewitt Bostock: Is dt the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Lost.


Hewitt Bostock: In my opinion the nays
have it; I declare the motion lost.



TORONTO TERMINALS RAILWAY COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that on Tuesday next the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution: That it is expedient to amend the provisions of section 6 of the act respecting the Toronto Terminals Railway Company, chapter 70 of the statutes of 1924, whereby the Canadian National Railway Company was authorized to issue bonds, debenture's or other securities to an amount not exceeding seven million dollars, [Mr. Shaw.)
in addition to the issue authorized by subsection two of the section enacted thereby; and to provide that such bonds, debentures or other securities may be used,-
(a)	in the purchase at par of securities issued by the Terminals company not exceeding, together with the securities purchased under the provisions of subsection two, one-half of the total securities to be issued by the Terminals company for the purpose of its undertaking;
(b)	in defraying the cost of portions of the said viaduct and works, which will not be included in the works to be owned by the terminals company, and will have to be constructed for or by the Canadian National Railway Company itself.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Customs and Excise.-salaries and contingent expenses of the several .ports in the Dominion, including pay for overtime of officers, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act-and temporary buildings and rentals, $6,369,235.
The CHAIRMAN:: Is it the pleasure of
the committee that this vote be taken item by item?


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Chairman, I certainly think it should be taken item by item. What is the principle in the construction of these estimates? How is it that some departments can lump a whole lot of items together, while others systematically specify each item? Is it just because of the ingenuity of the minister?


Hon. JACQUES BUREAU (Minister of Customs and Excise):: Mr.	Chairman, I
should not like to claim the fathership of this ingenuity. I have been looking at the estimates for a number of years back, I find it has always been done in this way, and I could see no reason, neither could the officers of the department, why we should change it. This item covers various ports of the Dominion, and we can give any details when required. Everything appears in the Auditor General's report. I suppose the explanation that will be required of this item is the apparent increase of over half a million dollars, from $5,799,561.59 in 1924-25, to $6,366,235. Last-night I was asked if the reorganization in the Department of Customs had taken place. My answer was that it had taken place in the outside service, but not in the inside service. Civil government last night covered the inside service. This item covers the outside

Supply-Customs
service. The explanation of the increase is that an the previous year there was a bonus paid to the employees, they receiving, in addition to their regular salary, a bonus which was not charged to Customs and Excise, but was paid, as I explained last night, by the Finance department. In the reorganization the bonus has been absorbed, and we are paying an amount of $586,223.29. By the reorganization the amount which we have added is not quite as large as the amount which was paid when we paid the bonus. The saving by the absorption of this bonus and the reorganization is the difference between the amount I have just stated, $586,223.29, and $566,673.41.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Was the bonus not included in the $5,799,000 last year, or from what source was it paid?


Jacques Bureau: By the Finance department. It was not charged to the Customs department.


Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry and Stormont) :: What was the amount of the bonus paid last year?


Jacques Bureau: The amount was $586,-
223.29.


John Wilfred Kennedy: Has that all been absorbed?


Jacques Bureau: All but $20,000. The
amount of the increase, as my hon. friend will see, is the amount of salaries paid without bonus; that is, we have absorbed this amount less $20,000, the difference between $586,223.29 and $566,67341.
Mr. CALDWELL How much has been paid in superannuation allowances to those who have retired during the year?


Jacques Bureau: I promised last night that a list would be brought down of those who were superannuated and retired, showing the amounts they received at the time of their superannuation or retirement. We have the list, but it is not totalled. When it is completed I will lay it on the table.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: For the purposes of
comparison it would be useful if this table were inserted in the record at this point.


Jacques Bureau: It will have to be made
up in a hurry and will be subject to correction.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Can the minister give
us approximately the percentage cost of the collection of customs during the last three or four years?


Jacques Bureau: The best years are after
the consolidation took place; that would give us only 1922-23 and 1923-24. In 1922-23 it cost 2.58 per cent; in 1923-24 it cost 249 per cent. The total collected in 1922-23 was $279,229,466.71, and in 1923-24 $298,721,419.55.


James Arthurs: How will those figures
compare in the minister's opinion with those for the present year?


Jacques Bureau: It is very 'hard to tell my hon. friend as the year in not concluded yet. I would have to get the percentage for the ten months that have expired.


James Arthurs: Is the minister fortunate or unfortunate when he has the excise attached to the customs?


Jacques Bureau: It is rather debatable. I
think it is the minister's misfortune and the country's good fortune.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think a more useful
comparison would be a statement of the percentage cost of collection now as against that of the time prior to the amalgamation of the two departments.


Jacques Bureau: I could give my hon. friend the figures for the Customs department, but not separately for Inland Revenue, which now takes the name of Excise.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I thought it would be useful to know whether the amalgamation of these two services had cheapened the cost of operation.


Jacques Bureau: I think I can show my
hon. friend that it has. In 1914-15 the percentage of cost for Customs alone was 4.76, and in succeeding years the percentages were as follows: 1915-16, 3.55; 1916-17, 2.54; 191718, 2.51; 1918-19, 3.13; 1919-20, 2.48; 1920-21, 3.36; 1921-22, 3.22. That was the last year the two departments were separate.


John Wilfred Kennedy: The minister has not the figures of the percentages for inland revenue?


Jacques Bureau: No, they have not been
tabulated. This table of percentage of cost of collection in the Customs department has been prepared annually for years.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I simply wanted to
know' whether the amalgamation had cheapened the cost of collection. If the minister is willing to make the statement that he believes it has, I should regard that as sufficient.


Jacques Bureau: I honestly believe it has,
and the figures show it. In 1914-15 the customs dues collected amounted to $107,179,-
Supply-Customs

360.33, and the cost percentage was 3:59. In 1924-25 we collected $298,721,419.55-more than double-at a cost of 2.49 per cent.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Has the minister been
able to reduce the staff as compared with the staff of the two departments before amalgamation?


Jacques Bureau: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Do you know what the extent of the reduction is?


Jacques Bureau: No, not from memory.


Mr. CHURCH:: In the first paragraph of
this item No. 349, there is provision for temporary buildings and rentals, and in that connection I would like to call attention to the conditions in the city of Toronto. There are several buildings devoted to Customs purposes in Toronto. These include the express offices at the Toronto depot, an office at the Union station, and an old warehouse building on Wellington street, formerly a baking powder factory. The people of Toronto have for many years been complaining about the utter lack of, and inadequate, accommodation in connection with customs services and it is the general belief that the revenues would be greater if the facilities provided for the transaction of business were adequate. The administration of the income tax, transferred to the Customs department also comes under this item. The income tax branch in Toronto has been located in the old post office on Lombard street but it is proposed to be transferred down to Wellington street. With this in view two extra flats adjoining the customs house were rented at $3,600 per year; they were fitted up for the purposes of the income tax staff and they have been vacant ever since.
When I brought this matter up last year the minister referred me to the Minister of Public Works. The present Minister of Customs admitted the lack of accommodation but said the government could not find the money. The Minister of Public Works was in Toronto recently looking over some buildings with the idea of providing additional accommodation. I understand that the old Union station on Front street was visited in this connection, as well as some other buildings. Business men are complaining of the dilapidated condition of the rented buildings now in use; the plant is thoroughly inadequate to handle the $60,000,000 of customs collections in Toronto each year. The old customs building at Front and Yonge streets which was one of the finest buildings in the city from an architectural point of view, was torn down-I

do not know why-and a lot at the comer of Bay and Front streets was purchased for $110,000 from the city who gave it to the government at less than commercial rates. I must say that the minister has been doing what he can to give an efficient service to the business men of the city with crippled facilities. Many organizations have been asking the Toronto members to bring this matter up including the city board of trade and other public bodies.
The Liberal Association of the city of Toronto passed a resolution dealing with it. The resolution reads, in part, as follows:
The present customs house is not only wholly inadequate to care for the business that passes through it, but it is also an eyesore to the people of Toronto, and a liability that is as a millstone around the neck of the Liberal party in Toronto.
And be it further resolved, that not only in the interests of good government, but in the interests of common decency, the Right Hon. Mr. King and his cabinet associates be asked to delay no longer in according to the people of Toronto what in simple justice is their right, a new and adequate customs house.
The resolution was accompanied by a letter from the Liberal excutive from which I quote
as follows:
Toronto does not expect favours. If it ever expected them it has long since passed that stage. Rut Toronto does expect that its necessities will be cared for at least in same measure. And a new customs house or federal office building is an absolute necessity. Let me point out to you that the customs receipts of Toronto amount to $60,000,000 a year, or more than a million dollars a week, out of a total for the Dominion of $133,000,000 a year, and that the headquarters for the customs house there is a ramshackle old shed of a building with two warehouses half a mile distant from it that cannot and should not be called upon in the matter of accommodation to house the millions of dollars worth of merchandise yearly passing through them, and none of these buildings are suited to the requirements of a town of 50,000, much less a city of half a million people.
I am at a loss to know why the old building at Front and Yonge streets was torn down. The late government tore it down intending to build but a war came on and the financial situation of the country was such that they could not go ahead and put up another building. A great mistake was made in tearing it down; it was a shame. I know that business men, irrespective of party politics, have expressed their appreciation of the work that has been done by the Minister of Customs and Excise and his officials in the department. He has at Toronto a courteous collector and staff; they are doing good work, and the department is being, run efficiently. The collection of the income tax has now been added to his department and where are you going to house all these officials? You have the old post office building, and the customs officers are housed

Supply-Customs
in a lot of old dilapidated, rented buildings, and you have to walk blocks and blocks to find the one you want. The department is well administered and I contend that for a public service and utility of this kind proper accommodation to efficiently transact business ought to be provided. I think the time has passed for any further discussion, and that adequate accommodation ought to be provided now. It will be good business for the department; it will increase the revenue, and do away with the amount that is now being spent in rentals. The department is deriving a revenue from Toronto of $60,000,000, out of a total revenue for the country of about $135,000,000, and I think the quantity of business done in the city justifies the putting up of an up-to-date building not as a luxury but as a necessity. No business concern receiving a revenue of $60,000,000 would do business in such a ramshackle and dilapidated building in a port the size of Toronto. Our business men have been complaining. The minister has been looking into the situation and I hope he will try and induce the Minister of Public Works or the government to give us some degree of satisfaction in the matter of accommodation. The Minister of Customs will find it of benefit to his department to do so, because a lot of revenue is being lost through not having a proper building and people having to run around from one office to another to transact business. It also involves delay for the business men in getting their goods out; they have to go from unit A to unit B, along Wellington street and uphill and down dale before they finally get their goods out.


Jacques Bureau: If my hon. friend will
allow me first to answer my hon. friend from Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell), who asked me the total amount paid on account of retirements and superannuation from the department during last year, one of the officers of the department has made a rough calculation, which is, of course, subject to correction, which shows that the total superannuation allowance of officers at ports retired under the Calder Act during the last year was $49,551.57. This is, of course, subject to correction. I do not want to bind the officers to a hasty calculation made on the floor of the House.
Replying to my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Church): He has put three questions. First, what was the revenue derived from the port of Toronto during the last fiscal year; secondly, what is going to be done to the building on Wellington street; and thirdly, what
is going to be done about new office accommodation in Toronto. I may say that a more important question than either of the ones I have enumerated, and one that I was going to ask him to answer, and this goes really to the root of the whole trouble, is why was the old customs house in Toronto tom down? Part of it is left standing, and as my hon. friend has said, it has been my privilege to visit Toronto and examine the offices to see if there was any way of improving conditions and facilitating the service, with a view to securing greater efficiency from proper accommodation. From what I have seen df the exterior of the old custom house, the part that is left, I deplore that the building was ever tom down, because the part that is left, which is now used by the express, is one of the best buildings for the custom house officers in the whole city of Toronto. I do not see how you could justify the tearing down of that building, and am I to assume the burden of the difficulties which have followed from tearing it down? I do not think it would be fair to blame me for that. I admit that the conditions in Toronto are bad, but I must say that it is due to the fact that the old building, which was a good and substantial building, was tom down. My artistic taste may not be as good as that of others, but judging by the carvings and stonework on the part that is left, it struck me that the old building must have been a very fine one, and I do not see how you can justify tearing it down.


James Arthurs: Was it tom down before the war?


Jacques Bureau: During the war, in 1914,
I think.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: In 1918.


Jacques Bureau: In what month did they
start tearing it down?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Towards the end of the year.


Jacques Bureau: I stand corrected. At all
events I did not tear it down, and this government did not tear it down. Let me now give my hon. friend the revenue from the Toronto office. The figures are as follows:
Customs	Customs	Excise	ExciseYeaT	Entries	Revenue	Entries	Revenue1922-	1923	.	.	206,239	$28,842,403 59	50,403	$28,481,660	091923-	1924	.	.	283,738	$29,880,074 36	49.544	$28,375,820	00


James Arthurs: How does that compare
with the rest of Canada?


Jacques Bureau: I can compare those figures with those of any of the biggest ports, Vancouver, for instance, or Montreal. The corresponding figures for Montreal and Vancouver are:
Supply-Customs

Montreal
Customs Customs Excise Excise Year Entries Revenue Entries Revenue
1922-	1923	.	.	233,731	$32,307,801	43	58,326	$34,456,503	991923-	1924	.	.	271,207	$30,900,360	76	59,440	$60,176,645	17
Vancouver
1922-	1923	.	.	92,738	$11,287,929	90	11,859	$ 4,441,329	861923-	1924	.	.	99,744	$11,489,291	77	14,299	$ 5340,605	23
My hon. friend can find these figures, I think, in the Auditor General's report. Toronto would .average, I am told iby the officers who are more acquainted with the details, about 20 per cent of the total.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Just on that point, are these figures in dollars the value of the goods entered or the amount of revenue collected?


Jacques Bureau: In the case of customs it
was the amount of duty that was collected, and in the cases of excise the amount of excise taxes and duties that were paid, the amounts being collected by the department at the various points.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: To go back to the
other matter I was discussing. I asked for the amount of superannuation paid during the year and it was given as $49,551.57, but the saving by absorbing the bonus was something less than $20,000 last year. Therefore we have paid out in this department nearly $30,000 more than we did last year. This illustrates the necessity of getting these estimates before a committee or, as an hon. member suggested, of printing and distributing the detailed information. If this Were done it would, I think, save a good deal of time in committee of the Whole. What I should like to know in this connection is how much was paid into the superannuation fund by those persons who were superannuated in this department.


Jacques Bureau: I am not in a position to give my hon. friend that information. The amounts paid for superannuation are kept in the Finance department; the various departments are not in possession of those details.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I realize that, but if we are going to discuss the estimates or pass legislation intelligently we should have this information. I am not blaming the minister because he has not got the information, but the lack of it illustrates the need for fuller details than we are now able to get in committee of the Wbole. When the superannuation bill passed last year I was in committee at the time, but I fully prepared myself to discuss the measure when it went through. I should like to have the information for which I have asked at some future time if it can be secured. I refer to the amount paid in by 
any of those officers who have been superannuated. I think a great many hon. members believed last year that civil servants were paying enough into the fund to meet the expenses of superannuation when superannuation became due. However, this is not the case. I was going to say it falls short of doing that by 95 per cent-that is, I doubt if members of the civil service pay in more than five per cent of the amount they draw out in the way of superannuation. I may be a little out in the statement but that is my opinion. For instance we will take a man who enters the service at the age of twenty, at a pretty low salary. His stipend is augmented as time goes on and he retires with a pretty good salary. I understand he could retire at the age of fifty after thirty yeans' service.


Jacques Bureau: No, at the age of sixtvfive.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I understand he can
retire after thirty years' of service no matter what his age. I think the minister will find that I am right. He can retire after thirty years in the service or at the age of sixty-five.


Jacques Bureau: If, the employee is
physically incapacitated he can be retired after thirty-five years' service; otherwise, not until he is sixty-five years of age. There is a special provision under which an employee who possesses special qualifications can be retained until the is seventy-five provided he is physically sound.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I should like the minister to be positive.


Jacques Bureau: I am as positive as I can
be of anything.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: We will say the salary
of the employee is $1,500, I think that will cover a great many cases. Well, he pays in five per cent of his salary during his term of office. That would be $75 per year which, paid in for thirty years, would represent a total of $2,250 he had paid into the fund. If his salary average $3,500 for the last ten years of his service he would draw one-fiftieth of that amount multiplied by the number of yeara he had been in the service, whereas he would only have contributed $2,250 during the whole term of his employment. I think it is abundantly clear that there must be an immense sum of money contributed from the public treasury in order to provide for the superannuation of members of the civil service. Therefore, I think we should have this particular information, and I should like to ask

Crowsnest Pass Agreement
the minister if he will secure it for us from the Finance department before his estimates
are passed.


Jacques Bureau: I am neither ready nor
willing to engage in a financial discussion at this stage. My hon. friend has only put one side of the question.


Arthur Meighen: Six o'clock.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend supposes
that every man who has paid into the superannuation fund and is not now in the service has drawn superannuation. Let me remind my hon. friend that the fund rests on an actuarial basis. Further, my hon. friend is under the impression that in the case of a man who paid into the superannuation fund for thirty or thirty-five years and then died the superannuation went to his family. But the fact is that in the past the money remained in the fund; his widow or family did not draw superannuation.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Just there, does not
the widow get the superannuation?
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, February 26, 1925.