1926-03-16

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Public Works) presented the report of the special ' committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the select standing committees of the House as follows:
[Stage Direction]
No. l ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS
Beaubien,	Messrs: Kennedy (Peace River),
Bell (Hamilton),	Kennedy (Winnipeg
Bell (St-Antoine),	South Centre),
Bennett,	King (Huron),
Cannon,	King (Kootenay East),
Casgrain,	Lapointe,
Clark,	Macdonald (Antigonish-
Denis (Joliette),	Guysborough),
Donaghy,	MacDonald (Cape
Duff,	Breton South),
Edwards	Macdonald (Kings),
(Frontenac-Addington), McPhee,	
Guthrie,	Rheaume, .
Hanson,	Ryckman,
Hodgins,	Stewart (Leeds),
Jacobs,	Tob'in
Johnston,	(Wetaskiwin).-29.
No. 2 ON RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH	
Anderson (Hal ton).	LINES Messrs: Esling,
Anderson (Toronto	Euler,
High Park),	Evans,
Armstrong,	Fafard,
Arthurs,	Fancher,
Bell (St-Antoine),	Flemming,
Bell (St. John-Albert),	Fournier, *
Bennett,	Gardiner,
Bird,	Geary,
Black (Halifax),	Gershaw,
Boivin,	Girouard,
Bourassa,	Goodison,
Both well,	Gott,
Bowen,	Goulet,
Boys,	Guthrie,
Bristol,	Hamilton,
Brown,	Hatfield,
Bury,	Heaps,
Cahan,	Heenan,
Cahill,	Hanson,
Campbell,	Hocken,
Cantley,	Howard,
Casgrain,	Howden,
Chaplin (Kent),	Jell iff,
Charters,	Johnston,
Church,	Jones,
Cotnam,	Kennedy (Peace River),
Delisle,	Kennedy (Winnipeg
Denis (Joliette),	South Centre),
Denis (St. Denis),	King (Huron),
Dionne,	La combe,
Donnelly,	Laflamme,
Drayton (Sir Henry),	Lanctot,
Dubuc,	Lavigueur,
Dussault,	Letellier,
[Stage Direction]
Select Standing Committees
Lovie,
Lucas,
MacDonald (Cape Breton South), Macdonald (Kings), Macdonald (Glengarry), Macdougall,
MacLaren,
Maclean (York), Malcolm,
Maloney,
Marcil,
MacNutt,
McKenzie,
McLean (Prince), McLean (Melfort), Maybee,
Mewburn,
McIntosh,
Manion,
McPhee,
McQuarrie,
Mercier (Laurier-Outremont),
Millar,
Morand,
Morin (Bagot),
Mullins,
Nicholson,
O'Neill,
Parent,
Pettit,
Pouliot,
Price,
Robichaud,
Robitaille,
Rogers,
Ross,
Rowe,
Ryerson,
St-Pere,
Seguin,
Simpson,
Smith,
Speakman,
Spence (Maple Creek), Spence (Parkdale), StanseU,
Stevens,
Stewart (Leeds),
Stirling,
Sutherland (Oxford South),
Sylvestre,
Tobin (Richmond-Wolfe), Totzke,
Tummon,
Vallance,
Verville,
White (Mount Royal), Wilson (Wentworth), Young (Saskatoon),
Young (Weybum).-128.
And that the Quorum of the said Committee do consist of Twenty-five Members.

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Anderson (Halton), Baker,
Baldwin,
T^rber,
*BeH (Hamilton), Bouchard,
Bowen,
Boys,
Brown,
Bury,
Casselman, , [DOT]Chaplin (J.<~
ucoln),
Delisle,
Denis (Joliette), Deslauriers,
Descoteaux,
Embury,
Fraser,
Fontaine,
Forke,
Goodison,
Hall,
Hannesson,
Hanson,
Harris,
Jacobs,
Jenkins,
Johnstone (Cape Breton North and Victoria), Jones,
Kaiser,
Kay,
King (Huron),
Lacombe,
Lacroix,
Langlois,
Lennox,
Letellier,
Lucas,
Macdonald (Glengarry), Macdonald (Richmond-Wctrt Cape Breton), MacLaren,
McCIenaghan,
McKillop,
McMillan,
Mercier (Laurier-Outremont),
Morin (St. Hyacinthe), Murphy,
Peck,
Pettit,
Power,
Rheaume,
Robitaille,
Sanderson,
Seguin,
Senn,
Short,
Spencer,
Stinson,
Thompson,
Verville,
Ward,
Wilson (Wentworth), Woodsworth-65.
And that the Quorum of the said Committee do consist of Ten Members.

ON	No. 4 STANDING ORDERS
Anderson (Toronto	Messrs: Harris,
High-Park),	King (Huron),
Black (Yukon),	Lacroix,
Boutillier,	Langworthy,
Chaplin (Lincoln),	Lavigueur,
Culligan,	Lucas,
Davis,	McKenzie,
Desaulniers,	McKillop,
Deslauriers,	MacNutt,
Donnelly,	Mercier (St. Henri),
Doucet,	Messervey,
Duff,	Morin (St. Hyacinthe),
Duncan,	Mullins,
Euler,	Parent,
Forke,	Perley, Sir George,
Oershaw,	j *']'[DOT]? Roberge,
Gervais,	Ryckman-33.
And that the 1	Quorum of the said Committee
consist of Seven Members.	
No. 5 ON PRINTING (Members to act on the part of the Commons)	
Baldwin,	Messrs: McIntosh,
Charters,	Malcolm,
Donaghy,	Marc 1,
Edwards (Waterloo South), Prevost,	
Embury,	Quinn,
Esling,	Raymond,
Euler,	Rinfret,
Evans,	St. Pere, ,
Hannesson,	Speakman,
Hocken,	Steedsman,
Hubbs,	White
McGibbon,	(Mount Royal)-23.
ON	No. 6 PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Arthurs,	Messrs: Hatfield,
Bell (St. Antoine),	Heenan,
Bennett,	Jacobs,
Bettez,	Jacobs,
Bird,	Jelliff.
Boys,	Johnston,
Brown,	Jones,
Cahan,	Kennedy (Winnipeg
Cannon,	South Centre),
Casgrain.	King (Kootenay East),
Casselman,	Laflamme,
Clark,	Lennox,
Coote,	Lovie,
Cross,	McCIenaghan,
Denis (Joliette,	McPhee,
Drayton, Sir Henry	Manion,
Duff,	Meighen,
Edwards (Frontenac- Mewburn,	
Addington),	O'Neill,
Fiset, Sir Eugene	Parent,
Forke,	Perras,
Foster,	Pouliot,
Fournier,	Preston, )
Girouard,	Raymond,
Goulet,	Rheaume,
Guerin,	Ross (Kingston),
Hannesson,	Ryckman,
Hanson,	Simpson. I

Select Standing Committees
Smith,	Tolmie,
Spencer,	Tummon,
Stewart (Leeds),	White (London),
Stinson,	Young (Saskatoon)-62.
Tobin (Richmond-Wolfe),
And that the Quorum of the said Committee do consist of Twenty-One Members.

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Armstrong (Lambton),	McGibbon,
Baker,	McLean (Me!fort),
Bell (St. Antoine),	McIntosh,
Bennett,	McMillan,
Benoit,	McPhee.
Bettez,	McQuarrie,
Bird,	Malcolm,
Black (Halifax),	Maloney,
Black (Yukon),	Maybee,
Both well,	Mewbum,
Bristol,	Morin (St. Hyacinthe),
Bury,	Murphy,
Cahan,	Nicholson,
Cahill,	Parent,
Cantley,	Pettit,
Carmichael,	Raymond,
Casgrain,	Rheaume,
Chaplin (Lincoln),	Robb,
Clark,	Robichaud,
Coote,	Robinson,
Desaulniers,	Robitaille,
Descoteaux,	Rogers,
Donnelly,	Ross (Moose Jaw),
Drayton, Sir Henry,	Ryckman,
Dubuc,	St. Pere,
Duncan,	Short,
Edwards	Sinclair,
(Waterloo South),	Smoke,
Fafard,	Speakman,
Flemming,	Spence (Maple Creek),
Gardiner,	Spencer,
Garland (Bow River),	Steedsman,
Garland (Carleton),	Stevens,
Grimmer,	Sutherland
Guerin,	(Oxford North),
Guthrie,	Sutherland
Harris,	(Oxford South),
Heenan,	Tobin (Richmond - Wolfe J
Howard,	Tobin (Wetaskiwin),
Jacobs,	Totzke,
Kaiser,	Vallance,
Macphail, (Miss)	Wilson (Vaudreuil-
Ladner,	Sotdanges),
Macdonald (Antigonish-	Woodsworth,
Guysborough ),	Wright,
Maclean (York),	Young (Saskatoon),
McClenaghan,	Young (Weybum).-89.
And that the Quorum	of the said Committee
consist of Twenty-One Members.	
No. 8	
ON AGRICULTURE	AND COLONIZATION
Messrs:	
Anderson (Halton),	Boucher,
Armstrong (Lambton),	Bourassa,
Armstrong (Timiskaming	Boutillier,
South),	Bowen,
Arthurs,	Brown,
Baldwin,	Campbell,
Barber,	Cardin,
Benoit,	Chaplin (Kent),
Bothwell,	Charters,
Bouchard.	Coote,
Cotnam,	McKenzie,
Culligan,	McKillop,
Davis,	McLean (Melfort),
Delisle,	McLean (Prince),
Denis (St. {Denis),	McPhee,
Desaulniers,	Maybee,
Descoteaux,	Messervey,
Dionne,	Millar,
Donnelly,	Morand,
Doucet,	Morin (St. Hyacinthe),
Dubuc,	Motherwell,
Duncan,	Mullins,
Edwards (Frontenac-	Neill,
Addington),	Peck,
Evans.	Perley, Sir George
Fafard,	Preston,
Fish,	Roberge,
Fontaine,	Ross (Moose Jaw),
Foster,	Rowe,
Fournier,	Seguin,
Fraser,	Senn,
Garland (Carleton),	Sinclair,
Garland (Bow River),	Smoke,
Gardiner,	Spence (Maple Creek),
Gershaw,	Spence (Parkdale),
Gervais.	Spencer,
Gott,	Stansell,
Hannesson,	Steedsman,
Hay	Stewart (Edmonton),
Hodgins,	Stewart (Leeds),
Howden,	Stirling,
Hubbs,	Sutherland (Oxford
Johnston,	South),
Jones,	Sylvestre,
Kay,	Thompson,
Kennedy (Winnipeg	Tobin (Wetaskiwin),
South Centre),	Tobin (Richmond-Wolfe),
Ladner,	Tolmie,
Lanctot,	Totzke,
Langlois,	Tummon,
Letellier,	Vallance,
Lovie.	White (London),
MacNutt,	Young (Saskatoon),
MacPhail (Miss),	Young (Weyburn)-105.
Macdonald (Kings), And that the Quorum	of the said Committee do
consist of Twelve Members.

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Beaubien,	Macdonald (Kings),
Bouchard,	MacDonald (Cape Breton
Boutillier,	South),
Delisle,	Macdonald (Richmond-
Cardin,	West Cape Breton),
Dickie,	MacLaren,
Dionne,	MacLean (Prince),
Donaghy.	McQuarrie,
Dusseault,	Marcil,
Fansher,	Neill,
Fish,	Pouliot,
Fournier,	Price,
Grimmer,	Quinn,
Hannesson,	Robichaud,
Hatfield,	Short,
Hay,	Stevens,
Hubbs,	Stork,
Jenkins,	Verville,
Ladner, Langworthy,	Ward-37.
And that the Quorum consist of Ten Members.	of the said Committee d*
[Stage Direction]
Election oj Deputy Speaker
[Stage Direction]

No. 13 ON MINES, FORESTS AND WATERS ON THE LIBRARY
Messrs:
Anderson (Toronto High Park), Armstrong
(Timiskaming South), Barber,
Beaubien,
Bell (St. John-Albert), Black (Yukon), Boucher,
Bury,
Cahill,
Cantley,
Dickie,
Esling,
Evanturel,
Fansher,
Fiset (Sir Eugene), Garland (Bow River), Goodison,
Howden,
Johnstone (Cape Breton North-Victoria), Lane tot,
Lapierre,
Macdonald (Antigonish-Guysborough), MacDonald (Cape Breton South),
Murphy,
O'Neill,
Power,
Roberge,
Robichaud,
Rogers,
Sanderson,
Simpson,
Smith,
Stewart (Edmonton), Stork,
Tobin (Wetaskiwin), Ward.-36.
Bind,
Bourassa,
Cahan,
Carmichael,
Deslauriers,
Fish,
Forke,
Garland (Carletoo), Hatfield,
King (Prince Albert), McIntosh,
Meighen,
Neill,
Pouliot,
Pr6vost,
Quinn,
Rinfret,
Stirling,
Thompson.-21.
And that the Quorum of the said Committee do consist of Ten Members.
Mr. KING (Kootenay) moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved:: That the select standing committees of this House shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the House, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.
(Members to act on the part of the Commons) Mr. Speaker and Messrs:
Baker,

No. 11 ON . INDUSTRIAL AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Mess's:
Bell (St. John),
Black (Halifax),
Bourassa,
Bristol,
Church,
Deslauriers,
Garland (Bow River), Geary,
Gervais,
Grimmer,
Hall,
Hamilton,
Heaps,
Heenan,
Howard,
Johnstone (Cape Breton North-Victoria), Kennedy (Winnipeg South Centre),
Laflamme,
Macphail (Miss), McKillop,
Malcolm,
McIntosh,
Morin (St. Hyacinthe), McMillan,
Neill,
PrSvost,
Rinfret,
Robinson,
Ross (Kingston),
Tolmie,
White (London),
White (Mount Royal), Wilson (Vaudreuil-Soulanges), Woodsworth,
Wright.-35.
And that the Quorum of the said Committee do consist of Ten Members.

ON OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES Messrs:
Coote,
Elliott,
Flemming,
Fraser, *
Hocken,
Macdougall,
McIntosh,
And that the Quorum consist of Five Members.

Marcil,
Millar,
Perley, Sir George,
Preston,
Prevost,
Rinfret.-13.
of the said Committee do


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Soldier Settlement Board1 of Canada for the year ending December 31, 1925-Hon. Mr. Stewart.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, may I be
permitted to join my congratulations to those of other hon. members upon Your Honour's re-election as Speaker of this House, a choice-which was received1, as was to have been expected, with' most gratifying unanimity.
As Your Honour is aware, rule 13 of the House provides that at the commencement of every parliament, as soon as an Address has been agreed to in answer tc His Excellency's Speech, a chairman of committees of the House shall ibe elected who Shall serve as Deputy Speaker. I have no doubt that after a continuous, and-may I add?- exemplary, uninterrupted occupancy of the Speaker's chair for a period of seven weeks, during which time the debate on the Address has been carried on, Your Honour will look not without favour upon the exercise by the House of the power given it under this rule.
I hope that the name I am about, to propose as that of chairman of committees may also be cordially received by bon. members in all parts of the House.

Supply-Customs
The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) h'as had an experience in this House of some nine years. As hon. members who sat with him in the last and the preceding 'parliaments will know, he possesses the many qualifications which eminently fit him to serve in the important capacity of Chairman of Committees and Deputy Speaker. In the discharge of the important duties of this joint office he will bring a knowledge of the rules acquired1 by dareful observation and study and in no small measure by practical experience; he will bring not less a disposition to foe fearless and impartial in the exercise of an authority which in its character is essentially judicial.
I have therefore great pleasure in moving, seconded- by Mr. Lapointe,
That William Duff, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Queens-Lunenbitrg, be appointed chairman of the committees of the whole House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I 'beg to
lay on the table copies of correspondence between the governments of Great Britain and Canada relating to the proposal to hold an Imperial conference in October, 1926.



PRIVY COUNCIL DECISION


[Stage Direction]
'On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask
if the federal government is taking any action in regard to the recent decision of the Privy Council in the Alberta appeal case? Is section 1025 of the Criminal Code to 'be set aside by that decision? And is the right of appeal in criminal cases to be entirely at the discretion of the Privy Council?


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: The judgment has just been received by the Department of Justice, and I would not like to make any statement or comment before having an opportunity of reading and considering it.



DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Duff in the chair.
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 Sbuiidnngs and rentals, $6,723,815.
Hon. GEORGE H. BOIVIN (Minister of Customs and Excise): Mr. Chairman, while the entire estimate for the outside service of the Department of Customs and Excise is included in vote 349, amounting to $10,884;,390, I think it would be better, if the committee would agree, to take up the different items separately, discuss them as they are reached, and after each separate item has been approved, have one formal vote adopting the whole resolution. I really do not understand why it has always been the custom to have all the items of the Department of Customs and Excise estimates embodied in one vote, but we have followed the usual custom this year making it much easier to make comparisons with the items required in previous years.
Before going into the details I desire to say that it is not through any spirit of bravado that I happen to be the first minister to present his estimates. I at once ask the committee to grant me thq indulgence which is usually given to a new minister submitting his estimates to the House for the first time. That does not mean, however, that I am not prepared with the aid of my officers to give to the members all possible information, and if there is any information that I do not have available at the moment, the members of the committee may rest assured that I will do my best to get it for them. If they insist on the information, there will be no attempt on my part to press the item until such information has been brought down. It is true that an inquiry into the administration of the Department of Customs and Excise is being carried on and there is a rule of the House that provides that matters pertaining to a committee cannot be discussed in the House until that committee has made its final report. I think, [DOT] however, it will be possible for hon. members to ask such questions and for me to give such answers in connection with the estimates as will give this committee all the information required, without in any way referring to what is going on at present before the customs investigating committee. The only information, perhaps, that I cannot give definitely will be concerning the organization of the preventive service staff of the Department of Customs and Excise. I want to say very frankly to the committee that the preventive service staff, organized under the vote of $350,000 which was included in the supplementary estimates of last year, has not been entirely satisfactory. Hon. members will ascertain that only about $35,000, or one-
Supply-Customs
[Stage Direction]
tenth of the amount voted, has been expended. I thought it better to spend little than to expend a very large amount and get no results. I am asking for a re-vote of the same amount this year, with the intention of expending it in the same careful and cautious manner, and if it is impossible for me to describe exactly the plans I have under consideration for the reinforcement of that staff, it is because I desire to await the outcome of the customs inquiry and to follow in so far as it may be possible the suggestions which may be made by that committee. I am sure that the work of the committee will not be wasted effort, and that the suggestions received from the committee both as to possible amendments to the Customs Act and as to the reorganization of the preventive service staff will be enlightening, and that it will be possible for us to adopt them in many respects. With these few preliminary remarks, and asking once more for the indulgence of hon. members I would suggest that we proceed, Mr. Chairman, to consider the item you have just read.
The CHAIRMAN:: Is it the pleasure of
the House that the resolution be considered item by item?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: I take it, Mr. Chairman, that we all agree with the minister that that is the only thing to do. We always have done it; sometimes we do the right thing, and I think we had better continue to do so. Just at the commencement and before discussing this item I would like my hon. friend to give me all the information he can in connection with the salaries. The first item is, I suppose, the one we will take up, amounting to $6,723,815, and it deals with the salaries and contingent expenses of the several ports in the Dominion, including pay for overtime of officers and so on. I notice there is an increase in that particular item. I would like the minister to give the House some information as to how he finds these services, and if there are any changes which he desires to make, as well as his observations on the reference there made to the Civil Service Act, in connection with employees.


Mr. DOIYIN:: The words "notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act" do not apply in any sense to the appointment of the employees. The salaries paid out of this item of $6,723,815, which shows an increase over last year of $271,447.61 are paid to civil servants in the outside service but all appointed by the Civil Service Commission. The words "notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act" refer only to pay for over-

>
[DOT]
time. The officers for overtime work are chosen by the department and the overtime salary is paid without reference to the Civil Service Act. The overtime rate is 50 cents per hour on week days and 60 cents per hour on Sunday. The Sunday and much overtime labour of customs officers is repaid by the railway or steamboat companies that take advantage of the services of these officers.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: Do they pay the civil servants direct?


Georges Henri Boivin: No. The officers are paid by us, and the company is billed by the department for the overtime. None of our officers are ever obliged to work overtime on Sunday but those who do so voluntarily and willingly are paid.
Additions to staff under this item account for the sum of $59,210, but that amount is offset by the decrease in salaries to promotions, retirements and appointments of senior officers whose positions are taken by new men or by men promoted from an inferior rank so that in reality the additions to staff mean an increase of $1,880. The statutory increases provided for by the Civil Service Act, with which all the old members of this House are quite familiar, account for the sum of $169,530.
Another increase in this item is for contingent expenses. They are increased by about $97,492.61. The major portion of that amount, about $60,000, is made up of overtime salaries and special salaries paid to watchmen for boats at Halifax, Windsor and other ports, but specially at Halifax, where all boats coming into the harbour laden with liquor must be placed under guard by the department, and the officers must be paid for watching the boats. While the amount, $97,000 may appear large, I should state at once that this amount like the overtime paid to our officers on Sundays, is reimbursed to the department by the owners of the boats and schooners requiring the services of these watchmen.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I take it from what my hon. friend says that he has some new regulations in connection with this particular branch of the department's work. He tells us that there is a substantial increase in this connection. I assume that must be because we have some change in the regulations. My hon. friend shakes his head. If there is no change in the regulations, why does the amount go up so much? Perhaps it would be more convenient if my hon. friend would give the committee just exactly how the item

Supply-Customs
is made up, so that we can see where the increases come in, and how the expenditure compares with last year.


Mr. BO  IVIN@: The total salaries amount to 85,753,815, as compared with 85,579,000 last year; that is, the difference in total salaries is about 8175,000. As I stated before, the statutory increases account for 8169,530, and the additions to the staff, very few of which were made, are almost entirely compensated by the decrease in salaries paid to the new appointees.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is it convenient at this point to give the additions to the
staff?


Georges Henri Boivin: The net additions to staff are 48 men, receiving salaries amounting altogether to 850,210. The total number of officers paid is 3,583. The total amount paid in salaries is 85,753,815.
Mr. M,ANION: What were the 48 additions?


Georges Henri Boivin: New officers were appointed at different ports where the work had become so heavy that the inspectors requested additions to the staff and a few new offices were
opened.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: At what places?


Georges Henri Boivin: A new office was opened at Malagash, near Amherst; there was an addition of one clerk and three typists to the Montreal office; another customs excise officer at Berthierville; an additional officer required for preventive work to take charge of office during the absence of the sub-collector at Quebec; a new outport was established at Cowansville, and a new officer appointed there; an additional officer for supervising the trans-shipment of goods at Beauceville; six customs excise examiners appointed at Bridge-burg; one at Fort William, one at Ingersoll, one at Whitby, seven additional officers at Windsor, one at Calgary, one at Lethbridge, one at Abbotsford, one at Nelson, British Columbia, a female examiner at New Westminster, and two additional men for the Pacific highway at New Westminster.


Henry Lumley Drayton: As I get it there are three new offices?


Georges Henri Boivin: There are three new offices.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Just in connection with the matter of offices, I wonder if my hon. friend has considered the question
of the multiciplity of office. That is something that has a great deal to do with the very matter the committee is now considering, and that is the question of properly collecting our customs. I think it is pretty well notorious that the way to get goods in at valuations which do not jibe is to multiply the offices. I wonder if my hon. friend has ever considered whether it would not be a right thing to decrease the offices and adopt rather the standard of the United States in this regard where their offices are merely a fraction of ours, having regard to the activities carried on. Would it not be better to do that instead of further increasing offices, the only effect of which is to make it just that much more easy for importers to get their goods into this country at an improper valuation and on an improper basis?


Georges Henri Boivin: I agree entirely with what
my hon. friend says. In fact I might perhaps give a list of some of the offices that we have already abolished. We have abolished more, offices than we have created.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Would my hon. friend give the names of those abolished?


Georges Henri Boivin: There were three officers
employed at Baddeck. It was found that these officers stationed at that place could not perform their work effectively and the positions were discontinued.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is the office at
Baddeck closed?


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes, there is no one left
there now except possibly a preventive officer. At Barrington Passage the postion of customs excise examiner has been vacant since the appointment of Mr. Gray as collector. That position, instead of being filled, has been discontinued. The position of customs excise examiner at Bridgewater has been discontinued; the position of customs excise examiner at Digby has been discontinued. The officer stationed at Point Acone, North Sydney is no longer required there for the entering and clearing of vessels, and that office has been discontinued. The position at Port Maitland, Yarmouth, has been vacant for some time and has been abolished. The position of a parttime officer at Stanhope, near Coaticook, has been discontinued. In addition to the foregoing an office has been closed at New Richmond, in the county of Bonaventure, which does not appear on this report.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So far the offices closed have been in the Maritime provinces. Cannot we get anywhere else?
Supply-Customs


Georges Henri Boivin: : New Richmond and Stanhope are in the province of Quebec.


Henry Lumley Drayton: They are all in Nova Scotia, with that exception. What offices has my hon. friend been able to close in Quebec and Ontario?


Georges Henri Boivin: Up to the present time I
have closed no other offices in Quebec or Ontario. With the exception of the dismissal of a few dishonest employees-and I may say there are very few in comparison with the number of officers in the service of my department-I have not attempted to make any radical changes. It must be remembered that I took over the administration of the department on or about the first day of November. Very shortly after that it was announced in the press that this parliamentary inquiry into the administration of the department would take place soon after parliament met, and I considered that it was my duty to refrain from making radical changes until the Customs committee had completed its labours and had given the House the benefit of its recommendations. I have always felt that the minister of any department, especially the Minister of Customs, was not only the servant of the crown but the servant of the people. I have always considered that the peoples' wishes could best be expressed by the voice of their representatives in parliament, and I will wait for the judgment of this House on the report of the Customs committee before I make any serious change.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Does that not apply to Nova Scotia?


Georges Henri Boivin: The changes made in Nova Scotia were made before I came into the department, but during the present fiscal year. Most of them were due to positions having been vacant for a long time. Instead of filling them it was decided to abandon them. I do not think that anyone has suffered in any way. The only complaint that I have so far received concerning Nova Scotia is, that some of the officers appointed there have not been supporters of the present government, 'and some of my political friends have felt unkindly towards the Civil Service .Commission.
'Mr. MEIGHEN:	My hon. friend is not
very complimentary to his friends. They appear to feel that the Civil Service Commission only does its duty if it appoints Liberals. 1 want to make a comment or so upon this increase. The increase this year in this one item is $271,447.61. In the entire vote, No. 346, it is $376,761.33. In the same item last

year-I -mean the partial item, the one we are on now, not the entire one-the increase was $566,673.41. The year before it was $138,910. No doubt these constant or rather startling increases of cost are all in pursuance of the much vaunted policy of economy of the government. The general estimates came out yesterday, but with that thoroughness of political preparation and publicity characteristic of the government-I have always complimented it on that; it is the only respect in which I have known it to be thorough in anything-the estimates were preceded by the announcement of a great saving to the country. I think one paper, very faithful to the administration, has the saving at $24,000,000. Looking, though, at the summary at the commencement of the estimates the reduction of the main estimates of this year from those of last year is $5,652,672.66, a trifle over five and a half million. And now we have merely this year's main estimates as against last year's total estimates, including all the eupple-mentaries. Last year's supplementary estimates aggregated $9,387,426.97. On the assumption that this year's will be no more, we 'have already in the estimates for the present year, instead of a decrease from the year before, an increase of approximately $4,000,000.
But the assiduity of the government in presenting appearances did not end there. I have not been able to find anything in the estimates at all to cover any one item in the Speech from the Throne of all the numerous berry-patches there presented .to hon. gentlemen to my 'left. There is nothing at all to correspond with the programme as to rural credits. There is nothing to correspond with the promise as to old age pensions. How many millions are to be required for each of these? Why are they not in the estimates? No doubt the ingenuity of the Minister of Customs has advised the government already to keep those out of the estimates, to present them in bills and make them statutory, and thereby keep up the pretence of a reduction while the actual fact is that the country is being loaded with millions more, untold millions more, this year over the year before.
What will be provided in the supplemen-taries in respect of public works, harbours, rivers and the like is only yet to be conjectured. But assuming that they will not exceed last year, they will not be very far from last year's figures. We will have this year over last year a total of approximately $4,000,000 in the estimates alone. We will have the whole of the rural credit venture

Supply-C ustoms
and the entire old age pension venture in addition. In these latter respects the future mortgages far exceed the present commitments in amount. This is the direction in which the government is travelling. There may be merit in this course or that, but there is no merit in travelling this course and then endeavouring to make the public believe that vast sums of money are being saved. The mortgage is increasing and multiplying year by year. It may be the price the government had to pay. It may be that they could not maintain themselves in power at any cheaper quotation. This may be the best they could do in the present market as it stands, but while they have to go in the market and pay, do not let them be proclaiming through the press that they are saving this country millions, when the poor country is being mortgaged in order that the government may gratify their own ambitions.


Mr. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):: Coming down
to the express item under consideration, the minister told us there was an addition of seven officers at Bridgeburg. I should like to know what they are for and what they are doing.


Georges Henri Boivin: There are six customs excise examiners appointed for the purpose of fixing what we call Tyden seals on cars travelling through Canada in bond. There was also one stenographer-


James Dew Chaplin: Is the business so much greater this year that they require seven new men at a point like Bridgeburg?


Georges Henri Boivin: The chief inspector reported that it' was absolutely necessary for the security of the revenue.
In reply to the remarks made by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen)
' in so far as this item is concerned, I say that not a single officer in the entire list was added upon the recommendation of any member of parliament or any member of the government. In every case the vacancy was reported upon by the chief inspector or by the inspector of the district and in every case the appointment was made by the Civil Service Commission.


Mr. GOTT:: How about the Kingsville appointment?


Georges Henri Boivin: I am not aware of an appointment there but I am now told that it was made by the Civil Service Commission. I might say to my right hon. friend that one reason why my Liberal friends in Nova Scotia considered a few Liberals should be appointed,
is that all Liberals holding provincial positions in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have been dismissed and replaced by Conservatives within the last few weeks.


Mr. HANSON:: Not all, but soon.


Georges Henri Boivin: Not all, but soon! I think " soon " has already arrived, if reports received are true. This is undoubtedly why our Liberal friends from Nova Scotia really think that once in a while a Liberal should be appointed by the Civil Service Commission.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder if the minister could tell us whether the government of Nova Scotia has as yet been able to catch up with defaulting employees of the province of Nova Scotia.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Liberals.
-Sir HENRY DRAYTON: They were all Liberals-not one Conservative there.


Georges Henri Boivin: Catch up with defaulting
employees in Nova Scotia?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.


Georges Henri Boivin: It is not necessary to catch up with them. They have dismissed them all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No.


Mr. CAHAN:: Is the minister serious in that statement?


Georges Henri Boivin: Certainly-absolutely serious


Arthur Meighen: Nonsense.


Georges Henri Boivin: Officers occupying quasijudicial positions, such as sheriffs and others, have in certain cases, I am told, been dismissed. There is no civil service commission in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: I may say that the minister's statement is very wide of the mark and I would ask if that is his justification or the justification of the government in appointing Liberals to places where the service is not required?


Georges Henri Boivin: I do not want to get into
an argument concerning the statement I have made. I am perfectly willing to accept the statement of my hon. friend who lives in that part of the country and admit that a few Liberals may have been retained in office by the provincial government. A few Liberals have undoubtedly been appointed by this government in Nova Scotia. The extra watchmen on the preventive service staff at Halifax do not come under the Civil Service Commission. They were recommended by our Liberal friends from Halifax.
Supply-Customs


John Wesley Edwards: They are not appointed through the Civil Service Commission?


Georges Henri Boivin: No, they are temporary
employees who are not on regular duty, who are employed only seasonally, when the regular men who are supposed to do the overtime work are unable to do it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister said that
certain quasi-judicial officers, such as sheriffs, had been dismissed by the new government. Can the minister give me the name of a single sheriff in that province who has been dismissed by the new government?


Georges Henri Boivin: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There has not been one.


Georges Henri Boivin: No, I frankly admit I did
not hear any name.


William Duff: I think we are getting
some distance away from the item.


Mr. FOSTER:: Can the minister give us
the name of one sheriff in Nova Scotia who has been dismissed by the Nova Scotia government? He has made the statement that practically all of them were dismissed. I do not think it is a fair statement to go to the country because it is not true.


Georges Henri Boivin: Not in Nova Scotia.


George Eulas Foster: Nor in New Brunswick
either. Not one-tenth or one-twentieth of the officials have been dismissed in Nova Scotia.


Georges Henri Boivin: I hope my hon. friend will allow me to refer him to the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), who told us that those who had not gone would go soon.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Quite right.


Arthur Meighen: They have not gone yet?


George Eulas Foster: But the statement-


William Duff: Order. I must call the attention of both the minister and the hon. gentleman who has just spoken to the fact that we are going beyond-


Georges Henri Boivin: I am sure, Mr. Chairman,
you will allow me to apologize, if an apology is necessary, to my hon. friends from Nova Scotia whom I may have offended. I will admit that I relied only on verbal reports and that I should not have introduced that subject here, although I was led astray by a remark made by the leader of the opposition concerning my Liberal friends and the appointment

of Liberals. It was not my intention to divert the attention of the committee from the item before us and I certainly am sorry if I have not been fair to the new governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Have any representations
been made to the minister with respect to the necessity for new officials on that part of the coast line of New Brunswick bordered by the gulf of St. Lawrence? St. Pierre and Miquelon are very close to that border and the information I have is that immense quantities of liquor are being brought from those French islands to ports on the gulf of St. Lawrence with practically no let or hindrance. So far as I know the department over which the minister has the honour to preside has not appointed a single new preventive officer in that locality and there is no prevention of the smuggling of liquor from those points. I should also like to know how many female examiners are paid under this vote and where they are located. Are they part of a flying squadron? At the port of St. Stephen we have had visits on occasions from some of these female examiners and they throw great trepidation into the heart of the ordinary housewife who walks across the bridge from time to time.


Georges Henri Boivin: These ladies in the department bear the title of female searchers. There are three in British Columbia and six or seven in Ontario. There are none now in the Maritime provinces, but an application has been made for the appointment of one at St. Stephen. This application is now pending before the Civil Service Commission, by whom the appointment will be made.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The department has made
an application?


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes, for the appointment
of an officer there.


Richard Burpee Hanson: To be located there permanently?


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What about my question
as to the appointment of more preventive officers on the New Brunswick coast bordering on the gulf?


Georges Henri Boivin: That matter is under consideration, and I am glad my hon. friend has brought it up. Our preventive service has been very weak on the coast of not only New Brunswick, but Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. Perhaps even before the committee has made its report and we have the advantage of its recommendations, it may be necessary to strengthen our force on the

Sup-ply-Customs
shores of the three Maritime provinces. I hope it will be possible for us to co-operate to a certain extent with the administrators of the provincial laws in an effort to put an end to rum-running and to protect not only the federal revenue but the revenue of the different provinces concerned. There has always been some difficulty in making arrangements with provincial governments for the protection of liquor revenue because the provincial governments making seizures have always claimed the right to sell the liquor and to retain the proceeds. This deprives the federal government of the duty or excise tax, as the case may be, on that liquor. We do not generally pay awards to our informers until the duty or excise tax, as the case may be, has been paid. For that reason the question is a difficult one to adjust. We have had conferences recently with Mr. Paton of Prince Edward Island who, if I remember correctly, is chairman of the Prohibition Commission there. We have had frequent conferences with the president of the Quebec Liquor Commission concerning the matter, and I hope very shortly to be able to devise some way which will be acceptable to the provinces and also to the department so that the officers of the two governments may work together in close harmony.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What arrangements have
been made with the provincial authorities, say in New Brunswick, with respect to appointing liquor inspectors under the prohibitory laws? I think an arrangement has been entered into, and if so, I should like to know what it is. I know some are clothed with the authority of seizure officers.


Georges Henri Boivin: The only arrangement that
has been made is that in the three Maritime provinces-I think this applies equally to the three-not all the provincial officers, but a few of them, at the request of the mayors of their cities, or the provincial govern-4 p.m. ment, or the chairman of the prohibition commissions, or whatever organization is functioning, have applied to us for what is commonly called a writ of assistance. This is the appointment of a preventive service officer without pay, giving to the local officer the same power and authority, in so far as searching, arresting and [DOT] seizing are concerned, as our own officers have.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Do these officers to whom
these writs of assistance go from time to time make any report to the Customs department, or do they report to the bodies under whose immediate jurisdiction they are? If they do
not, why should some steps not be taken to see that liquor illegally smuggled into the country and seized by these officers with the assistance of these writs pays revenue into the Dominion treasury? That is a vital point that should be looked into. No doubt a very large revenue is lost to the country by reason of that fact.


Georges Henri Boivin: I do not get the exact
sense of my hon. friend's question.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If I understood the minister's previous remark correctly, liquor seized by these officers who are primarily prohibition inspectors, is confiscated after judgment by a proper tribunal and it is condemned either to be destroyed, or as in the case of New Brunswick, to be handed over-to the New Brunswick Liquor Commission. If that liquor is properly handed over to the commission it is sold to the vendor. Does that liquor so seized and handed over in the way I have described pay excise to this government?


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes. All liquor which is
sold by the respective commissions pays excise to this government, and it is a well known rule that liquor which does not produce at least the amount of the excise or customs duty when it is offered for sale for beverage purposes, is destroyed. No seized liquor is sold to these respective commissions as potable liquor unless it pays at least the amount of the excise or customs duty as the case may be. We have always insisted that this liquor shall pay customs or excise duty to the government exactly as my hon. friend has suggested, but the difficulty arises from the fact that the provincial governments claim that they pay the salaries of these men; that the proceeds of seizures made by these men all go to the federal treasury, and that the only advantage they get out of it is that they get their liquor for the price of the duty instead of having to pay the duty plus the cost which is very small. They claim they do not receive enough out of the proceeds of the seizures to cover the salaries of their men. They also claim that they are doing our work, and that therefore we should contribute in some way to the payment of the salaries. That is the question we are endeavouring to adjust, instead of making them customs preventive officers without salary at all.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Mr. Chairman, I understood the minister to say that seven new officers had been appointed at Bridgeburg, six of whom were car sealers. My impression is that some years ago-I do not know whether it obtained last year-only two car sealers were maintained at Bridgeburg, one of whom
Supply-Customs

operated during the day and the other during the night. Why was it neeessaiy last year to appoint six additional men? Could we have the report of the inspector making this recommendation, and his name?


Georges Henri Boivin: They were appointed upon
the recommendation of the chief inspector, Mr. E. S. Busby. I do not happen to have the report with me, but I will be very glad to have a copy made and either place it on the table or hand it to my hon. friend.


Hugh Guthrie: Are these men employed at Bridgeburg, or do they cover the district around Bridgeburg?


Georges Henri Boivin: They are all appointed and paid and considered to be officers of the port of Bridgeburg, but I am told by the deputy minister that some of them, although they do not reside in Buffalo, perform their duties there.	,


Hugh Guthrie: And Black Rock?


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: I understand that formerly the American railways used to contribute to the expense of maintaining these officials, they being employed for the convenience of the companies. Are they still contributing to the expense?


Georges Henri Boivin: The department pays salaries direct to the men, but the money is reimbursed to us by the American railways.


Hugh Guthrie: And there is no additional cost to the country by reason of the employment of these six men?


Georges Henri Boivin: No.


Hugh Guthrie: That is what I understood.


Mr. CHURCH:: 

REVISED

[Stage Direction]
self without representatives in the federal parliament. Those are the opinions expressed by resolutions and deputations of Toronto Liberal organizations. There is, in fact, no customs warehouse in Toronto; a lot of the goods are down at the Union station, out on the pavement and in various old rented shanties, and there is no place to house them. This is a public utility and should be operated as such. There is nothing which retards trade, both retail and wholesale, more than the inadequate way in which this public utility is operated. No concern under private ownership could live twenty-four hours if it was conducted in this manner, and treated its patrons as the citizens of Toronto have been treated.
I have a table of receipts here which I will not read but which shows that Toronto contributes over 45 per cent of the total customs revenue.
The late Minister of Customs and his predecessor went to Toronto and saw the actual conditions. A site was purchased from the city at about one-third of its value cfver twelve years ago. This lot was situated on the south side of Front street, and was bought in 1917 for $110,000. I venture to say that the increment to the government from that lot would amount to over $400,000 at the present time, so that as a real estate speculation they have made over $300,000 by that purchase. The new building was not erected because war broke out, but the war has been over for some years, and that excuse will no longer serve. The time for talk has passed and the time for action has arrived. The work of the customs in Toronto is spread out around the old Union station, the new station, the docks, and all along the waterfront to West Toronto, a distance of several miles. That is surely no way to conduct such a business. No regard should be taken of the way the city votes; this public utility should be operated from the commercial point of view.
I do not wish to criticize the young minister, because he has done just as well in this connection as his predecessors, and he has not been very long in office. I would be the last to say anything against him, but he knows something of conditions in Toronto. He has been up there and I believe in the short time that he has been in office he has become well acquainted with those conditions. It is not a question of spending money but of giving adequate service; the people of Toronto will pay for it anyway. They have to in part. They will pay two or three million dollars which is to go to the Hudson

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Customs
[Stage Direction]
Bay railway, and they will contribute revenue to provide customs houses, post offices, branch lines and so on throughout Canada. According to the free trade law of supply and demand as understood by the Progressive party, Toronto would have the greatest customs house in the country if that doctrine prevailed.
But we do not want any favours; business is business, and I do not see how the government can expect to hold this large business in the key city of Canada, so far as customs is concerned, without doing something to relieve the conditions which exist there today and to give an adequate service with a proper plant.
Mr. MULLINS:: The hon. member has
made some reference to the Hudson Bay railway. I may say that there is a suffering people in the west asking for a Hudson Bay railway, and that is more necessary than a customs house in Toronto. The customs house is not necessary; we can come to it later. The item in the estimates covering the Hudson Bay railway is absolutely necessary, and should not be referred to in that way.


Thomas Langton Church: Well let the provinces pay for it. It will bring out the ice crop.


Eccles James Gott: The hon. Minister of Customs stated a few moments ago that the appointment at Kingsville, Ontario was made by the Civil Service Commission. I desire to submit a letter in this connection under date of February 5. This is rather a complicated affair, and quite difficult to explain by letter.
I am forwarding herewith two official documents, the result of marks obtained on the examination, also the appointment, both signed by the secretary of the Civil Service Commission.
I carried out instructions on appointment, and ou presentation of same was informed that my duties would not begin until authorization from Minister of the Department at Ottawa had arrived.
Through some reason, the news of my appointment became known, and our friends here became active, by wire, with the result that although I was appointed on June 30, headed the examination, served approximately three years in France, was rejected on account of a charge by some political henchmen ot this district, but the enclosed letters will explain all I think to your satisfaction.
This appointment did not follow the usual procedure, and instead of going through the commission, came from the department by wire, in due time being passed through the usual channels.
Pressing the commission personally for a reason, also the department through the Windsor G.W.V.A., will enclose herewith the letters which are selfexplanatory, the charge against me by the department (manufactured for the instance), and also letters from the C.N. and C.P. Telegraph Companies, whose agent I was here. These letters are from the inspectors who personally checked my office at the time I resigned.

You can easily see what becomes of the charges of the department, against the name of a man who had served his country in the time of need; charges that had not the slightest foundation, nothing more or less than a political dodge from beginning to end.
When we fellows enlisted they did not stop to ask what our politics were.
The defeated representative of South Essex, Mr. Graham, with whom I had several interviews, the first one the day that I had been informed that the appointment was made definitely. Mr. Graham said that the Civil Service Commission was absolutely and entirely supreme. The commission and the department usually met and decided on the appointment, but if the commission made the appointment, rtcommendations or anything else from the department would take no effect.
I immediately produced the result of my marks, also the appointment, and said:	"In view of the
facts already stated by you with these official documents in your hand, how do you account for another man receiving the appointment?"
Mr. Graham: "Well, the Customs Department have got busy, Mac."
Mr. McCallum:	"You have just finished telling me
that this could not possibly be done."
Mr. Graham:	"But of course, you understand this
is not my department?"
Mr. McCallum:	"This may not be in your department, but this is your constituency, and are you aware of the fact that there- are hundreds of returned soldiers in South Essex?"
Mr. Graham then promised that he would get in touch with the department, and the Civil Servic* Commission, and see what could be done.
The next interview I had with Mr. Graham was the day that he was endorsed as Liberal candidate in South Essex.
He admitted before Lafferty, president of the Windsor G.W.V.A., and others, that according to the evidence produced from Lafferty's files, part of which I herewith enclose, there was no doubt I had been done an injustice, and on arriving at Ottawa he would immediately get in touch with the Minister of Customs and see if he could not have my name cleared of th-se charges. As usual his actions were conspicuous by their absence.
Mr. Chairman, on the 23rd of February last 1 produced all the documents in connection with the appointment of McCallum, his dismissal, and the appointment in his stead of a man from Kingsville.


Mr. MANION:: I should like to bring to
the attention of the minister a condition which exists at the head of the lakes. Perhaps it hardly fits in under this item, but it is just as appropriate under this item as under any other as far as I can see, so I do not think it is out of order, Mr. Chairman.
There is at the present time r.t the head of the lakes a bus line- running from Port Arthur to Duluth, a distance of something over 200 miles. That bus line has a passenger service each way daily, but for some reason, owing to a provision in the Customs Act- ' I do not know when it was -introduced- these busses cannot carry anybody on the Canadian side; that is, a man, woman or child cannot get on one of these busses at

Supply-Customs
the head of the lakes and get off before reaching the international boundary. If the bus permits such a thing to happen, it is apparently breaking a law which brings these busses under the same control as applies in the case of passenger and freight boats on the Great Lakes, which are not permitted to call from one Canadian port to another. Apparently the same law applies to the bus lines as applies to the steamship lines. I do not know of any reason in the world why that law should apply to bus lines, but such I believe is the case. The fact remains that a man, woman or child living in Fort William or Port Arthur, or a farmer out in the country, cannot get on one of these busses and go for any distance less than the 55 miles to the international boundary. If anyone wishes to make a shorter trip, he must hire a special car, if 'he has not a car of his own. It certainly seems a ridiculous proposition that these busses should be running to and fro daily and yet the farmers in the neighbourhood1 'and the citizens of Fort William and Port Arthur who have not automobiles of their own should not, be permitted to use these busses and travel any distancs they wish, twenty-five or thirty or forty miles without the bus breaking the law. I remember laying this matter before the then Minister of Customs last year or possibly two years ago. I have also written recently to the present 'Minister of Customs, but he has not had time to deal with the matter. Certainly it would appear to me to be reasonable to permit these busses to handle Canadian traffic at 'least until a Canadian bus line is established. The present bus lines are managed by American companies, and until such time as there is a Canadian bus line competing-and I would certainly favour a Canadian line-it would appear to me that the present restrictions should be wiped out and the people allowed to take advantage of these busses travelling to and fro daily.
I appeal 'here to the minister to look into this matter thoroughly and 'endeavour to have the difficulty straightened out. Just the other day I received, as I am sure my hon. friend from Port Arthur (Mr. Langworthy) did also, a resolution passed by the Port Arthur Chamber of Commerce, and in the past I have received various other resolutions along the same line advocating this change. It is possible there may be some slight damage done to the Canadian National Railways, which have a line to Duluth, but it is such a roundabout line that it is rot fair to ask 14011-102i
anybody to use that line unless he has no other way of going. The Canadian National Railway runs a service only three days a week to Duluth, and one has to leave at four in the afternoon and does not get into Duluth until eight o'clock next morning, changing at Fort Frances at two in the morning. The _ bus service is much more convenient, leaving at nine or ten in the morning and getting into Duluth at five or six in the afternoon, after 'a very pleasant trip along the lake shore, which by the way is one of the most beautiful automobile drives on the American continent. Last year over 5,000 American cars crossed the bridge at the international boundary and entered1 the Dominion, and this traffic is increasing very rapidly every year. I again urge the minister to look into this matter thoroughly and endeavour to straighten out this ridiculous law; or regulation which prevents the use of these bus lines by citizens of Fort William and Port Arthur and by the people in the sum unding farming country.


Georges Henri Boivin: Just a word in answer to
my hon. friend. I received his letter this morning, and I have already given instructions to the officers in my department to investigate and see if something cannot be done to meet his wishes. The great difficulty in connection with that bus line is the fact that they are using American busses that have not paid duty, and if we met my hon. friend's wishes we would be allowing American manufacturers to use in Canada American busses for commercial purposes without duty having been paid upon the value of the bus. There should, I think, be a provision in the law by which part of the duty might be collected in a case of this kind, but I fear that to open the door and give this particular bus line the permission requested by my hon. friend would be creating a precedent that might work havoc perhaps to many Canadian lines operating in other parts of Canada. However, I will look into the matter, and if it is possible to do so, my hon. friend's wishes will be met.


Robert James Manion: I had never heard before the argument my hon. friend has just made, but even if it is as he states, and I accept his word at once, I would point out that there is no other bus line in competition in this case. I do not think there would be enough local traffic on the Canadian side of the line to permit this bus line to pay any part of the duty, because a large proportion of the farmers in the surrounding country and of the citizens of Fort William and Port Arthur have cars of their
Supply-Customs

own, and only a very small proportion would use this bus line. I think a temporary ruling might well be made to permit this bus line to carry local traffic until such time as a Canadian bus line is established.


Mr. GEARY:: May I ask the minister if in . estimating his expenditure for salaries and contingent expenses of the several ports in the Dominion, he includes in that amount moneys which are subsequently paid back to the department?


Georges Henri Boivin: Oh yes.


George Reginald Geary: The Auditor General's report indicates that there is an amount of $22,000,000 which, though included to the credit of the Receiver General originally, was subsequently refunded by the department independently of the Receiver General as drawbacks of customs, excise refunds and similar items chargeable to revenue. I would like to ask the minister if this item gives credit for any part of that sum.


Georges Henri Boivin: No, this item does not give credit for any part of the drawbacks returned.


George Reginald Geary: I was thinking of salaries.


Georges Henri Boivin: There are no salaries returned.


George Reginald Geary: I wonder if that is the case. It says in volume I of the Auditor General's report that this $22,000,000 was subsequently refunded as drawbacks of customs, excise refunds and similar items chargeable to revenue. Then I am to understand from the minister that salaries in no case are included in the amount?


Georges Henri Boivin: No.


George Reginald Geary: And if you get a refund
from a boat company, for instance, this year for last year's payments of customs officers it is not credited in the item?


Georges Henri Boivin: No amount received by any boat company or railway company appears or is credited in any way to this vote. The item referred to by my hon. friend in the Auditor General's report is the item covering customs duties drawbacks, that is to say money sptaid back by the department to those persons who have paid duty to us, but who have a -right to reclaim that duty under the drawback clause in the case of materials imported and afterwards exported in manufactured form from Canada.


George Reginald Geary: As I understand it generally, the matter comes down to this:	The
$6,723,815 for salaries this year includes an amount for Sunday service which ultimately will be refunded?


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes.


George Reginald Geary: Will it be refunded in the
same fiscal year, or is there a balance over from year to year?


Georges Henri Boivin: The difference is that the
refund instead of -being made by us, as in the case of the drawback, will be made to us and sometimes in the next fiscal year.


George Reginald Geary: It will be, but I should
think there would be a credit for it in that amount.


Georges Henri Boivin: It goes to the credit of
revenue, -and not to the reduction of salaries. It will be found in the revenue account of the Auditor General's report. It is -accounted for -in the Auditor General's -report, but not credited to this item.


George Reginald Geary: What is the amount that
will come back?


Georges Henri Boivin: * I -am not sure, but perhaps a million and a half.
Mr. -GEARY: And there is nothing in the way of salaries at all?


Georges Henri Boivin: No.


Mr. CHUROH:: May I ask the minister
if 'he will state what he proposes to do in the matter of the Toronto customs house?


Georges Henri Boivin: My hon. friend knows -there is no place in Canada I would rather visit than Toronto, especially when the hon. gentleman is there, because he always extends such a hospitable welcome. -Since I took over the department I have not had occasion to visit Toronto. Let me say that is not my fault, it is my misfortune. I intend to go just as soon as I possibly can, and investigate the customs conditions there. I know -from reports I found on file in the department tha-t the conditions in Toronto are not what they should be. I agree entirely with what my hon. friend has said concerning the necessity of improving the customs accommodation in Toronto. I -am not, however, going to agree with him when he says that we shall lose revenue in Toronto if it is not improved because I know the city is going to keep on growing, -and the people there will meet their obligations ic any event.

Supply-Customs
But I do agree with my hon. friend that they deserve better customs accommodation. Requisitions have been made by our department to the Department of Public Works for improved customs accommodation.
I am going to take it upon myself to bring the hon. member's remarks to the attention of the Minister of Public Works, because his department is responsible for the erection of these buildings. I do hope that my hon. friend's wish may be granted, at least in part, before another budget is presented.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: I understood the minister to say that he anticipated a refund to the department of something approximating a million and a half dollars on account of salary refunds specially covered under this item. Where would it be possible for us to get the details in connection with the refunds from year to year?


Georges Henri Boivin: I think they should appear under sundry receipts in the revenue account of the Department of Customs in the Auditor General's report. Of course the refunds for the present fiscal year, which has not quite expired, will only appear in the next report of the Auditor General. Those that do appear in the report tabled a few days ago would be for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1925. They are the amounts paid by the railway companies for sundry services of the officers, the amounts paid by the boat companies and the amounts paid by the owners or masters of schooners, and ships of all kinds in the different harbours of Canada that are under care of our watchmen as well as the services of all the men employed for sealing cars in transit and in bond through Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: With respect to the situation at Halifax to which the minister referred where watchmen are required for steamers and schooners loaded with liquor, how long has this situation been going on, and why is it these men are termed temporary employees? Because it seems to me that is not a seasonal occupation, it must be an all-round occupation, especially since the Volstead Act came into force in the United States. Therefore it seems to me those selected, for this work should be men of a very high standard, and I see no reason why they should not be appointed by the Civil Service Commission, instead of being appointed, for instance, at the request of the late lamented Mr. Finn. I would not expect that we would have a very high type of watchmen appointed by that gentleman. I am not making any great
reflections on him, but having regard to what we who were in the last house all know, I think it would be very dangerous to have appointments made in this way. Is the minister giving any consideration to the question that these men should not be temporary employees, but should be highly efficient employees. I can conceive where there could be a great injustice done to the public revenue if the men appointed to do this work were not of a high type. I should like to know how many men there are, when the system began to grow up, and if the minister intends to continue it?


Georges Henri Boivin: It is impossible to tell my hon. friend exactly how many men are constantly employed there. I think there are about twelve whose services are available when required. It is true that boats laden with liquor go to Halifax quite frequently, but it is not a regular traffic. There are certain times-and I think I can say it does not only depend upon the season-when there are many boats in the harbour and they have to be watched and guarded. There are other times when there are no boats at all and frequently the regular staff can do the work, do it efficiently and do it well. In fact it is only when they are overworked that the regular staff, appointed by the Civil Service Commission, allow these extra watchmen to be employed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are they appointed at the request of the collector?


Georges Henri Boivin: I think a list of names is supplied to the collector by the department here at Ottawa. I remember having seen some correspondence between the collector and the department wherein the collector suggested the names of some men who should be added to this list. I cannot exactly remember by whom the other names were suggested-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Make a guess,


Georges Henri Boivin: -but I am positive they were not suggested by the former member for Halifax, to whom my hon. friend has just referred.


George Brecken Nicholson: In connection with these officers for whose services refunds are received, what class of officer is covered in this particular grant? Is it just watchmen at the outports and the employees in the railway terminals or outports, who look after the sealing of cars and does that work involve one-fourth of this total item?
Supply-Customs


Georges Henri Boivin: [DOT] No, I do not want to say that the entire amount that-I mentioned a moment ago is refunded for moneys paid out of this particular item. I am not even positive that the total refunds that we receive from the railway companies and the steam boat lines for all expenses out of any of the items included in the estimate 349 amounts to one million and a half. I would say that the amount refunded from the moneys paid out of this particular vote would be a little less than one-half million dollars. The balance would be paid out of the other items. The railway companies do not pay the salaries of all the men employed in and around the railway. Many men who are placed there for the convenience of the railway company are paid by the railway company, and on the other hand there are many customs employees placed there for the convenience of the public whose salaries are not refunded.


George Brecken Nicholson: The officers who are
placed there for the convenience of the railway company are sent there at the request of those railway companies, I presume, in order to facilitate the passing back and forward of the traffic. With regard to the question raised at Bridgeburg, and the addition of seven men for sealing purposes, were these officers placed there at the request of the railway companies? Was there a very great increase in the volume of business passing through the terminals that made it necessary for the railway to ask for the appointments, or are these a class of officers whose salaries the railways do not refund?


Georges Henri Boivin: There is not a very large
increase of traffic through that port, but I am told the inspector found the work was not properly performed, and the railways found that their trains were delayed. It took too much time to seal their cars, and they preferred to have their own men and to pay the extra expense in order to expedite their trains.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who is collector of customs at Buctouche and how many officers of the department are there residing between Point Escuminac and Cape Tormentine on the St. Lawrence? That would take in the out-ports of Shediac, Cocagne, Buctouche and Richibucto. I suggest that would be a good ground to look into in connection with the traffic I have referred to.


Georges Henri Boivin: That would be under the
port of Moncton.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Moncton or Chatham?


Georges Henri Boivin: Chatham, I think. Mr. Mclnerney is a sub-collector replacing Mr. McMinn at Richibucto. At Buctouche, there
I Mr. Nicholson.]
is a sub-collector, Mr. A. Legere. He is the only officer on the regular staff at that point. It may be that we have a preventive officer there but he is the only regular customs officer at Buctouche and Mr. Mclnerney is the regular officer at Richibucto.


Eccles James Gott: What was the essential
qualification in connection with the appointment of the excise officer at Kingsville?


Georges Henri Boivin: I am sorry I cannot give
that information. The officer at that point was appointed by the Civil Service Commission about two months before I took over the department. I am informed that a returned soldier was appointed there. I am sure the Civil Service Commission were under the impression they had made an excellent appointment. Complaints were lodged against the appointee. The appointee was dismissed, and the Civil Service Commission were asked to appoint another man. I was not in office at the time, and I have no knowledge of what the essential qualifications were.


Eccles James Gott: No. Mr. Pearsall, who was
appointed permanently, was a son of the president of the Liberal Association of the town of Kingsville, not a returned soldier.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am willing to stand corrected. I am informed by my deputy that the appointment was made by the Civil Service Commission on July 15, 1925. His name is A. G. Pearsall.


Eccles James Gott: Is it on file that he is a returned soldier? I understood the minister to say that.


Georges Henri Boivin: I was under that impression. I did not say that it was on the file. I will look up the documents and speak to my hon. friend about it again, and ascertain whether any misrepresentation was made. If any misrepresentation was made it is not too late to have it corrected.


Eccles James Gott: I understand the Great War Veterans' Association at Windsor took it up at the time on behalf of Mr. McCallum.


Georges Henri Boivin: I will look into it.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Why was Mr. McCallum disqualified?


Georges Henri Boivin: My officers tell me it is absolutely impossible for them to tell from memory exactly tvhy he was disqualified, but the matter will be looked up and the information will be given to my hon. friend.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Before the estimate is passed?

Supply-Customs


Georges Henri Boivin: I would not like to make that promise-I hope my hon. friend will not exact it-but before all the estimates of the department are passed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think that
would be a safe promise.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: It appears from what we have before us that an estimable man, a returned soldier, who headed the examination with the highest number of points, was appointed by the Civil Service Commission to the position. It is a case of this man first and the rest nowhere, and then the son of the president of the Liberal Association is appointed in his place, and the minister in the House and his deputy cannot give us any reason to-day why it was done.


Georges Henri Boivin: I thought my hon. friend would be less exacting than that from a new minister. I was not in office when the dismissal was made. I know nothing about it.
I could not know the question was going to be asked. If I had I would have brought the information. I promise my hon. friend ! will get the information, bring it down and hand it to him or lay it on the table before I ask that all of my estimates be passed.


Eccles James Gott: I rise to submit this letter
despatched from Ottawa to Mr. McCallum on July 16, 1925:
Dear Sir:
In reply to your telegram of the 13th inst. I am instructed to inform you that the Deputy Minister of Customs and Excise has notified the commission that your services will not be acceptable to that department, and the commission has therefore made another assignment to the position of sub-collector of Customs and Excise in the person of Mr. Allen Dorland Pearsall, who qualified for permanent appointment at the same time as yourself. Mr. Pearsall did not serve overseas during the late war, but you were the only successful candidate who did so. Mr. Pearsall was regularly assigned to this position on the 3rd instant.
Yours truly,
C. H. Bland,
Assistant Secretary.


Mr BOIVIN:: That clears up one point.
The letter from the deputy minister states clearly that he was not a returned soldier.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Does it not also prove
that this man was dismissed at the instigation of the Customs department at Ottawa? According to the statement read by the hon. member for South Essex, before any appointments were made by the Civil Service Commission they had to have a consultation with the head of the department. I should like to know from the minister whose will prevails on occasions like this. It is quite evident in this case it is not that of the Civil Service Commission.


Georges Henri Boivin: I can speak only for myself and for what has taken place in my department since I took charge. I do not know of anything in the Civil Service Act which gives me the right as head of the department to dictate to the Civil Service Commission whom they shall appoint. I have never made any recommendation. I do not think I have the right to recommend, and if I did, I do not think they would be obliged to follow the recommendation. It is true when an officer is appointed by the Civil Service Commission, if he is not acceptable to the department, if, for reasons given, the department do not want tG avail themselves of his services, if he cannot perform the duties which are expected of him, if he is incompetent or if serious charges have been laid against him, the officer may be dismissed, but not in favour of someone else.


Eccles James Gott: Would the minister consider
a charge made in the heat of a political contest a serious charge?


Georges Henri Boivin: That would all depend on
the charges and by whom they were made.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Does the minister tell
us seriously that neither he nor his deputy who sits with him nor his assistant deputy knows why Mr. McCallum was disqualified or discharged?


Georges Henri Boivin: Of course I do not know
because I was not there. The deputy tells me that at the present time it is impossible for him to definitely remember.


George Brecken Nicholson: We have this fact, that as recently as last July the deputy minister, the head of the department, in the case of an officer newly appointed who had all the qualifications called for by the Civil Service Commission, finds it necessary to ask for his removal and does not know the reason why. A customs officer is not removed merely at the whim of some individual who says: I want him removed. Surely after such a short time as has elapsed the deputy minister iuuj, the reasons for asking for this man's removal


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps I can
help the minister a little.


Georges Henri Boivin: I wish the hon. membei
would enlighten us.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It would be
a great mistake to waste much time in looking up the record because I think everybody knows what happened. There was a proper examination; the proper man was appointed-that is, the man who easily headed the list, unless what I heard in that riding is absolutely wrong; unless the returned
Supply-Customs

soldiers' organizations are absolutely misinformed. He was not given a chance to look at the department. That appointment was made in the ordinary way by the commission, but it did not suit politically in connection with the election. It was necessary to look after the son of the chairman who was running that riding, and the man who was appointed never had an opportunity of showing whether he could do the work or not. He was never taken into the service at all. There was no delay; there was no necessity for anything to be done in the way of finding out whether or not the man 5 p.m. was any good. He was not politically right. He had no chance of making good. He was simply "canned" before he entered the service. I do not think my hon. friend will be able to find in the department much information that will show anything else. I know that was never denied in the riding and I happened to be there for a couple of days. I do not know whether my hon. friend thinks he can find something, but I can save him the trouble. Of course that is the sort of thing that is done every now and then

I am not blaming my hon. friend-by this government; it is their practice. They say that they cannot get along at all with Civil Service Commission appointments. When it does not suit them to take such appointments, they do not take them; they simply say: This man or that man will not do. They may quarrel with the colour of his eyes or the record of his grandfather or grandmother or something like that which has nothing whatever to do with the matter.


Mr. JACOBS:: They may quarrel with
the colour of his politics.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is absolutely right. I accept, in the spirit in which it is offered, his suggestion which is absolutely correct.


Samuel William Jacobs: I do not admit that.


Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):: It would be an easy matter for the deputy to furnish the committee with this information at the next sitting.


Georges Henri Boivin: Certainly.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: Why not say that that will be done, and the matter could be dosed?


Georges Henri Boivin: I have already promised on two or three occasions that that will be done.
[Sir Henry Drayton.3


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: But I
listened to the minister and he gave those Who inquired to understand that he would furnish them with the information before the items of his department were disposed of.


Georges Henri Boivin: I meant as soon as possible, but of course I expected we would have to hold over one item until to-morrow.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I congratulate
my hon. friend on the progress he is making. We have received from him the first item which goes to make up this total, namely the item of salaries amounting to $5,753,815. Will the minister go on with the rest of the details?


Georges Henri Boivin: The rest of the details are contingencies.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How much?


Georges Henri Boivin: The item is made up of salaries and contingent expenses. The contingent expenses are composed of the overtime paid to the men, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act. In addition to that there are the rentals.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is hardly
a contingency.


Georges Henri Boivin: It is included in this vote as a contingency.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How much for temporary buildings and how much for rentals?


Georges Henri Boivin: The contingent account for the first six months of 1924-25 is $484,658; based on that, for the entire year it will be about $969,000. For 1925-26 the contingent expenditure was $523,936, which proportionately for the entire fiscal year would be $1,048,000. The increase for the first six months of 1925-26 over 1924-25 is therefore $39,278.09, which appears to be normal, as it is accounted for by actual increases of $16,450 for overtime at Halifax, $4,000 for overtime at Windsor, Ontario, and $12,550 distributed over other ports throughout the Dominion.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How much of
that is in rentals and how much in temporary buildings?


Georges Henri Boivin: That unfortunately I do not happen to have at hand. Under the system of accounting in the department the amount is not divided. The items would have to be picked out and it would require a certain amount, of calculation.

Supply-Customs


Henry Lumley Drayton: Can my hon.
friend tell me what buildings he is now renting? Take Toronto, for instance.


Georges Henri Boivin: I think there is a little misunderstanding in the mind of my hon. friend concerning rentals. There are very few rentals. Most of the rentals are paid by the Public Works department. My hon. friend knows that the customs rentals for all the larger offices throughout the country, as well as the buildings occupied by the customs when they cost more than $5,000, are rented or erected by the Department of Public Works. It is only the little buildings at the outports costing less than $5,000 that are built by the Customs department; and it is only when the rental is proportionately small that it is paid by the customs at all. We have a few leases for small quarters, but all the large rentals are paid by the Public Works department. So I think I am quite within the mark when I say the rentals would be less than $40,000 a year.
. Sir HENRY DRAYTON:	A discussion
takes place every now and again, Mr. Chairman, the underlying idea being that we should have some definite information of the cost of civil government. For instance, the votes for salaries should be grouped. I think that is something that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) is of opinion ought to be done. It is something which his predecessor, Mir. Fielding, on one occasion at any rate, said ought to be done. But I observe that we still have the vote in the usual form. I quite agree that for purposes of comparison it is advisable not to depart from your system of bookkeeping, that it well may be necessary for comparative purposes to maintain figures set up in the same way that these are set up, but it would be a very excellent and a very proper thing to get our salaries collated so we would know what it is costing us to administer our civii service. Of course, just at present everybody is aware that there is no way of arriving at that information. We have lump votes here and lump votes there, and those votes not only are to be found in different places entirely uncorrelated one with the other, having regard to salaries and the like, but they also contain other items that on their face do not show the proportion covered. I wonder if my hon. friend has considered at all in connection with his Repartment how much is entirely salaries, how much is entirely contingencies, how much is entirely rentals, and the like?


Georges Henri Boivin: I can give my hon. friend the exact amount of the salaries paid out of this vote.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I should like to have that information.


Georges Henri Boivin: In every item I can give the exact amount of salaries. Where the trouble comes is in overtime, travelling expenses and small rentals, which are grouped together in a contingent account. If my hon. friend happens to have in his hand the Auditor General's report for last year he might look, for instance, at part D on page 53 There he will find1 the entire salaries and contingencies paid out of this same vote for that year. Of course my hon. friend knows that we try to keep the bookkeeping uniform as much as possible. He will find in the same item-salary paid to the sub-collector, bonus, office rent, postage, telephone rent and petty expenses totalling $1,746.01. Of course, each item is detailed, the exact amount is given, but it would be necessary to pick out the small rentals in order to give the total asked for by my hon. friend.


Mr. MORAND:: Mr. Chairman, to come
back to Windsor for a moment, I would like to ask the minister how many officers are employed at the port of Windsor, and the number of outports.


Georges Henri Boivin: The outports of Windsor are Belle River, Sandwich and Walkerville.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Are there no sub-ports
to those again?


Georges Henri Boivin: No. The total number of
employees at the port and sub-ports is 123. The total salary paid to those employees this year is estimated at $206,125, an increase over 1923 of $7,530, or an average increase of about $60 per employee.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Were seven new men
employed there this year?


Georges Henri Boivin: At Windsor seven additional officers were required, some for use at the ferry and some-the number is not given- for sealing cars At the port of Windsor itself, if I remember correctly, there were two new appointments. I am told that of the seven referred to, four were employed sealing cars and three at the ferry.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: What cars were those?


Georges Henri Boivin: Cars going through Canada in bond over the Michigan Central have to
Supply-Customs

be sealed. The salaries of those employed in fixing the seals are paid by the government, but we receive a refund from the railway company.
Mr. MOR AX I): Some of those officers are paid overtime, I believe. Is that overtime paid by the government or by the ferry concerns which require these men for overtime periods?


Georges Henri Boivin: There would be about $41,000 paid in overtime at Windsor-an increase of $8,000-and of that amount about $10,000 would be refunded by the railway companies.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Could we have a list of
the different companies who refund this overtime? I do not mean the amounts, but I would like to know the names of those who have employed these men overtime.


Georges Henri Boivin: The principal company
would be the Michigan Central Railway, but there would also be the Pere Marquette, the Canadian National, the Canadian Pacific, and the ferry company when employees gave overtime service for their convenience.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Do any of the export
docks there pay for overtime service?


Georges Henri Boivin: No. There is no overtime
paid to us by any of the export docks and there is no overtime paid to our employees on any of the export docks.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: By whom are they paid
for overtime?


Georges Henri Boivin: Overtime is paid for services rendered before eight o'clock in the morning, after six o'clock at night, and on Sunday. Any services rendered by our officers outside of regular hours have not been charged to us, and therefore we have received no refund from the owners of the docks.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: How
many employees has the department at Sarnia?


Georges Henri Boivin: Thirty-eight.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: And the total amount paid?


Georges Henri Boivin: The total amount paid to the 38 employees in 1925-26 was $54,540. We estimate that this year they will receive $60,285.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: And what is the amount of overtime at that port?


Georges Henri Boivin: The overtime paid at the port of Sarnia amounts to about $15,500.


Mr. RYERSON:: Will the Minister of Customs tell me the number of employees of the Customs department at the port of Brantford, and whether there have been any additions to the staff during the year 1925, either through the Civil Service Commission or as preventive officers?


Georges Henri Boivin: At Brantford there are 22
employees. They were paid last year $39,390, and will receive this year statutory increases amounting to $450. A preventive officer was appointed at Brantford; he has nothing to do with the Civil Service Commission, and is not an officer of the port of Brantford.


Robert Edwy Ryerson: What recommendations
were made for the appointment of the preventive officer at Brantford? Was there a demand for his appointment from that locality?


Georges Henri Boivin: I think that information was given to my hon. friend yesterday in reply to a question. He will find it in yesterday's Hansard.


Robert Edwy Ryerson: I did not ask that question before. This is the first time I have asked it.


Georges Henri Boivin: Does my hon. friend refer
to the appointment of Mr. Cummerford?


Robert Edwy Ryerson: That is the name.


Georges Henri Boivin: Mr. Cummerford is not
assigned to duty at the port of Brantford only, but covers the district as well. He is a member of the special preventive force, reporting directly to Mr. Wilson, who is chief of the special preventive service staff here at Ottawa. I cannot say at the moment, whether the recommendation came from the inspector or the chief preventive officer or from some person in Brantford, but I Shall be glad to get that information for my hon. friend.


James Dew Chaplin: I would like
to inquire from the minister as to the number of employees there are on the Queenston-Lewiston bridge.


Georges Henri Boivin: At Niagara Falls there are
65 employees, and on the Queenston bridge there are four customs excise examiners.


James Dew Chaplin: How many of
*them are employed on the bridge at night?


Georges Henri Boivin: I am afraid it would be very difficult to give my hon. friend that information without communicating with the collector in charge of the port.

Supply-C ustoms


James Dew Chaplin: My reason for
asking the question is this: When I was home during the last week I saw an article in the newspaper to the effect that during one evening, when there was only one man employed on the bridge, four trucks had passed over the bridge in the face of the officer and had got clean away without ever making any report to anybody at the port. I sent a copy of the newspaper dipping to the deputy minister to inform him of what was reported. It seems to me in view of what is happening throughout the country that it is a very serious thing that four loaded trucks should pass over a bridge in the face of an officer, make no report, and get dean away with four loads of smuggled goods.


Georges Henri Boivin: My hon. friend is quite
right when he says that he sent a newspaper clipping and reported the incident to the deputy minister. The deputy minister informed me of the occurrence and told me he was having the matter investigated. I am very grateful to the hon. membeT for bringing it to our attention. I hope he will realize that it is not with my consent and approval that these things are being done. There are abuses throughout the country, but with a service of about five thousand men, they cannot all be perfect, and it is only by following up these cases when they are reported to us that we can weed out those who are not worthy of being in the service. My hon. friend can rest assured that the moment the guilty parties are found their services will be immediately dispensed with.


James Dew Chaplin: My reason for
speaking to the minister now is that I understand it is the common practice at that particular bridge to keep only one man there all night, and that is what I want to bring particularly to the minister's attention. If that is so, I want to say that the United States government never allow their end of the bridge to be without at least two men, one to protect the other. At our end of the bridge there is a barrier which is thrown down at night to prevent just such a thing happening. What happened in this particular case was this:	A car comes in, the barrier is raised,
and the man deliberately backs his car in and prevents the barrier from going down, and then four trucks immediately pass over. That is what actually happened, and it was probably due to the fact that we had only one man on duty there all night, doing two men's work.


Georges Henri Boivin: The matter has been brought to the attention of our district inspector and I can assure my hon. friend that hereafter, within two or three days, there will be more than one man continuously on duty at that bridge. I thank my hon. friend for having brought this matter to my attention.


Mr. SMITH:: I understood the minister to
say some time ago that an official had been appointed at Malagash during the past year. Malagash is in Cumberland county, not near Amherst as I think the minister stated. I should like to find out what this officer's duties are and his salary.


Georges Henri Boivin: When I said near Amherst,
I meant it was a sub-port or preventive station under the port of Amherst. J. G. Train is the name of the employee. He was appointed on September 9, 1924, and has the rank of customs excise enforcement officer. He is 43 years of age, and gets the enormous salary of $200 a year.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Has there been a new
appointment made at Tilbury, or has the old appointment been renewed? What port does that come under?


Georges Henri Boivin: Does my hon. friend refer
to the position occupied by W. A. Hutton?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Yes.


Georges Henri Boivin: His services terminated on
December 2, 1925. The vacancy has been reported to the Civil Service Commission, and I understand is now being advertised, but no appointment has yet been made.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Who is acting there at
present?


Georges Henri Boivin: One of the relieving officers appointed for such work in the district pending the appointment of a permanent official.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Who were the actual
relieving officers appointed in the port of Chatham, since that time or iust prior to that time?


Georges Henri Boivin: I do not think there were
any, I am under the impression that Mr. Mackenzie from the port of London is at present relieving officer at Tilbury.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Would the minister give
me the definite information to-morrow, if he can?


Georges Henri Boivin: I certainly will.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Because I am under the
impression that an appointment has been made since that time, although I may be wrong.
1616	COMMONS
Supply-Customs

i


Georges Henri Boivin: My hon. friend will have
the information to-morrow.


George Brecken Nicholson: Under this one item of salaries and contingent expenses of the several ports of the Dominion, temporary buildings, and so on, there has been an increase in two years of $924,253.41. Has there been a corresponding increase in the revenue of the department of Customs and excise that would justify an increase in salaries, leaving out altogether the preventive service, of approximately $1,000,000?


Georges Henri Boivin: I shall include the preventive service in the figures I am about to give to my hon. friend. They will show complete revenue and expenditure for the past four years:
1921-	22
ReVfnue	 $233,359,133 30
Expenditure	 7,523,575 48
Cost of collection per cent	 3.22
1922-	23
Revenue	
$279,229,466	71Expenditure	
7,202,106	37Cost of collection per cent	
2.581923-	24Revenue	
$298,721,419	55Expenditure	
7,435,931	59Cost of collection per cent	
2.491924-	25Revenue	
$249,786,807	83Expenditure	
7,698,175	79Cost of collection per cent	
3.08
1925-26 (9 months)
Revenue	
$268,518,930	23Expenditure	
7,300,008	62Cost of collection per cent	
2.71


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose the
figures my hon. friend has been giving are inclusive figures.


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes, 'I gave the customs and excise figures up to 1925 and then for the nine months of 1925-26 the figures are for customs, excise and income tax.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The figures
would have more interest if they would just show what the customs revenue is when we are considering these customs expenses.


Georges Henri Boivin: These are not only customs expenses but excise expenses as well.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is true.


Georges Henri Boivin: The salaries of the excise
officers throughout the country are paid out of this vote.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This covers sales tax just the same, but there have been such changes made in the sales tax that it is pretty hard to make any comparison.
IMr. Morand.]


James Dew Chaplin: I should like
to inquire from the minister if it has not been the custom to figure customs by itself in the blue books ever since 1867, when they began to keep a record-


Georges Henri Boivin: Certainly.


James Dew Chaplin: -of the cost of customs collection alone. What has been the cost of collection of customs for the last three or four years?


Georges Henri Boivin: We can give to my hon.
friend the exact customs revenue. We can give him also the exact excise revenue and the exact sales tax revenue. It is impossible to give him the exact cost of collecting each of these revenues because the figures showing the cost of collection are grouped together. If my hon. friend will secure a copy of the annual report of the Department of Customs and Excise, which I laid on the table a few days ago, he will find the information.


George Reginald Geary: I do not like to have the
minister jumping from one subject to another, but may I go back a moment to the question I was asking a short time ago. I understood the minister to state that in connection with these salary items there would be a refund of probably a million and a half.


Georges Henri Boivin: I corrected that. I said
that applied to the salaries paid out of the different votes in the Dominion, not out of this particular item. I think I said that the last refund of salaries provided by this particular vote was $400,000 in round figures, or less than half a million. That is the amount indicated as the refund for the last fiscal year.
I am sure that I said that the total refunds on money expended for salaries amounts to about a million and a half.


George Reginald Geary: As I look through the Auditor General's report, I find that the revenue in the Customs and Excise department is 292 million odd. That will be found in volume 2, part D. But I see no item there that would include refunds. I see the items, "customs duties", "excise duties", "excise taxes", "income tax", "business profits tax", "casual revenue",-$400,000-and "fines and forfeitures." * There is no place there for such an amount in the preceding year. I wonder how it got back into revenue.


Georges Henri Boivin: If my hon. friend will look at part D, page 8-


George Reginald Geary: That is what I have.

Supply-Customs


Georges Henri Boivin: -he will find the casual revenue received by the department. The total casual revenue on page 8 would be $400,924.59.


George Reginald Geary: Yes, that is it.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am told by my deputy minister that that is the amount reimbursed to us by the railway companies.


George Reginald Geary: I understand that, but the point I am making is that it is too small an amount, in view of the hon. minister's statements as to a million and a half this year, or when reduced, as he later states, to $769,000, whereas last year it was only $400,000 altogether.


Georges Henri Boivin: There is certainly some other item or account under which refunds of salaries and other amounts paid back to the department are accounted for. I shall get the information and give it to my hon. friend tomorrow if possible.


George Reginald Geary: And the minister will be * good enough to indicate the amount for the year 1924-25.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the matter is just left in the Way my hon. friend puts it, it appears to me that perhaps fairness is not being done to his department. This is looked upon as a matter of revenue purely and simply. It is something that is not taken into consideration when arriving at the figures showing the co^t of collection. I admit it is merely a summary and he can only give a rough estimate, but if he is right in his idea that there is perhaps a million and a half of salaries altogether repaid to his department, and if that merely comes in as revenue instead of as reduction of the cost of running the department, it is manifest that the department is not getting credit for nearly the service given to the country and the ratio of cost. I should think the subject would be well worth looking into.


Georges Henri Boivin: My hon. friend is perfectly right. I am informed that in previous years the department was authorized to credit to its expenses the refunds made to it for salaries. The vote that was formerly asked for was in reality the net amount of the vote actually expended by the department for the collection of revenue. Under instructions from the Auditor General the new system has been adopted. Now every dollar expended must be voted by parliament, and the refunds made must be credited to revenue.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The auditor may be right for the purpose of bookkeeping in connection with the matter of salaries themselves, but if it is done in the department that way, as a matter of fairness to the officers of the department I should have thought the items coming in would have been applied in connection with salary lists, and that the general public would not have been given credit for those items as they are when it comes in as casual revenue. That may have something to do with the matter. It may be my hon. friend's accounts this year have been unusually swollen by reason of that fact. I was looking back at the vote of 1921-22, when we were told we were horribly extravagant in connection with the administration of this department.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend says "hear, hear." I am afraid he must of necessity vote against this item, because we were told we were extravagant in connection with this very vote of salaries and contingent expenses in the different ports of the Dominion, and the vote then was $1,234,000 less than the public are asked to pay this year. It may well be that the new ruling of the Auditor General accounts for something of that.


Georges Henri Boivin: It accounts for about


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would have thought my hon. friend has rather in his opening taken away from himself that defence, because he pointed out that the increases-


Georges Henri Boivin: For last year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: -for last year were very small, but perhaps it might have come in the year before, when there was about half a million of an increase. It may be that that was when the direction of the Auditor General was putting the department in an unfortunate position. It is the sort of thing we should know about at once, because on the face of it, it now looks as if the public were being asked to pay for the same services much more money than they ought to pay, particularly when the government are so fond of telling us that they are reducing the cost of living, the cost of the public services and the like, so that the dollar to them is worth far more than it was in 1921. If I were to adopt just what these hon. gentlemen say themselves, their extravagance on the face of it is perfectly appalling in connection with this item, because not only is the vote swollen by $1,234,000, but the dollar is worth so much more. My hon. friend will remember that when we started discussing this item he was able to show
Su-p-ply-Customs

economy because older men had been retired and new men had been appointed. My hon. friend shakes his head. I think he will find that is what he pointed out. I think he will find that he stated in connection with these additions to the staff that forty-eight men were appointed at a cost of $59,210 and that by reason of retirements and the like there was economy in other directions, the net increase being thereby reduced. If I am wrong in that I want to be put right at once, but that is my recollection of what he said.


Georges Henri Boivin: I will correct my hon. friend. I said that the net additions to the staff accounted for an increase of $59,210. Decrease due to promotions, appointments and retirements filled by lower paid men, amounted to $57,330. There was also a statutory increase of $169,530.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



THE INTERPROVINCIAL AND JAMES BAY RAILWAY COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGES PARENT (Quebec West) moved the second reading of Bill No. 5, respecting the Interprovincial and James Bay Railway Company.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the hon.
gentleman kindly explain the bill?


Mr. PARENT:: Mr. Speaker, I think the
hon. gentlemen would probably get the best explanation by reading the bill, which speaks for itself.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is it?


Georges Parent: I believe if the bill is
referred to the committee on Railways and Canals full information could be given to the satisfaction of hon. members. The bill only asks for an extension of time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is the
explanation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Duff in the chair.
George Reginald Geary: Mr. Chairman, before
recess the Minister of Customs and Excise was good enough to intimate that he would supply particulars of the amount which will 
be refunded to the department in respect to Sunday work and so on performed by his officials for the accommodation of certain companies. He suggested at first that the amount would be probably a million and a half, but subsequently he made it $700,000 odd. However, I did not understand him to say that he could furnish particulars; I should judge that the amount must be at best an estimate. I call his attention to the fact that the same item apparently occurred in 1924-25, and that the only amount in the Auditor General's statement of revenue that would appear to cover such transactions is an item of $400,000 under casual revenue. The minister is to get those figures to show how the estimate for the present year is made up.
I call my hon. friend's attention to the first page of the Auditor General's report where reference is made to the custom that has existed for some time of the retention of certain moneys by the department to pay drawbacks, and so on, from revenue. The amount of such moneys in 1924-25 was $22,500,000-I am giving round figures. The Auditor General says that the general summary of revenue does not include this item of $22,500,000-
-which, though included in the revenue deposits to the credit of the Receiver General in the first instance, was subsequently refunded as drawbacks of Customs, Excise refunds and similar items chargeable to revenue.
The minister states that no refunds of wages are included in that $22,500,000. The Auditor General says this retention is-
-in accordance with a long standing custom. This custom has been brought to the attention of the House of Commons in previous reports.
May I ask the hon. minister whether he has considered it a desirable state of affairs that $22,500,000 should be received and credited to the Receiver General and disbursed by the Department of Customs and Excise, but not through the ordinary course of vouchers, checked and approved by the Auditor General ? It just occurs to one that when there is a sum of $22,000,000 odd available by the department to pay drawbacks and' refunds, it would be well that that sum should pass through the ordinary system of accounting by the Auditor General. I do not suggest anything wrong at the moment, but it does provide a fruitful field for favouritism and that sort of thing in the refunding of moneys, unless we have a close check and a properly audited voucher system for that amount.
Then I draw my hon. friend's attention to the fact that the figures he gave me for 1924 and 1925, receipts $249,000,000, disbursements $7,700,000-again I am using round

Supply-Customs
figures-which show the percentage of cost to revenue as 3.08 per cent, cannot be made up by a reference to the Auditor General's summary on page 30, part D, volume II of his report. I judge that in that amount one will find $22,000,000, the sum which I have referred to just now. If that is so, I would point out that 122,000,000 should not be credited to revenue there because it is to be paid out again, and if it is taken off the figures which my hon. friend has given, his percentage of cost to revenue suffers a slight increase. If I am right in my contention that result follows. The point of my remarks is simply that my hon. friend may be doing himself an injustice in charging as salary an amount which includes payments which are to be returned. On the other hand I should like again to draw his attention to the point raised by the Auditor General, referring to the custom of disbursing $22,000,000 otherwise than through the ordinary channel. My last point is the combination of the previous two, in the statement showing the percentage which he gave me. I hope I have made myself clear.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member has made himself quite clear. The first knowledge I had of this contention on the part of the Auditor General was when I saw the report to which my hon. friend has referred. The matter will be taken up with the Auditor General and discussed with him. I think it will be a very difficult matter to have the Auditor General initial and approve all the vouchers for cheques for refunds. We have a drawback staff which has to go to the factories of the different firms claiming drawbacks, and it is only there that, the actual amount of merchandise imported from other countries and used for export can be determined. All the payments are made from the department here after the drawback claims have been received and checked over by our officials. Whether or not it would be feasible to have a further check by the Auditor General, and whether or not it could be done rapidly enough to not interfere with trade and commerce is a matter that I will not say is under consideration but that I will take under consideration at once.
I think he is quite right about the disparity between the net revenue shown in the Auditor General's report and the gross revenue given by me to the committee this afternoon. The gross revenue of $249,786,807.83 shows the percentage of cost of collection to be 3.08. That is not the percentage of cost of collection to net revenue, but those figures show the actual cost of collection of the revenue. I realize that my hon. friend is perhaps more correct, than I am if it is desired to show the exact cost of collection of net revenue.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Before passing
this item I would like to draw my hon. friend's attention to one matter which we have not yet covered, in connection with the retirements, the amount of pensions which we are paying to men who have been retired, the amount of bonuses and the like. That, in one sense, no longer appears as a cost in connection with this department, but it nevertheless is a cost in connection with the staff of the department. I would like to ask my hon. friend about that now.


Georges Henri Boivin: I could get a list showing
the retirements, if that is what my hon. friend desires. I want to thank my hon. friend for the point he made in my favour just before adjournment. I agree with him and I thank him for his remark that it is perhaps a little unfair under the system now employed by the Auditor General to make us show as expense moneys paid out in salaries which are eventually refunded to us by other parties.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Certainly there is some change to be made in one direction or the other. Surely the logical thing is to show that not as actual revenue but as something which is going to decrease the cost of the department.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):: Mr. Chairman, before the item carries I would like to refer again to the question of preventive officers, which was discussed to some extent this afternoon. I might say that around the coast of Prince Edward Island the preventive officers would have to be very numerous to be of any value. I suggest to the minister that a better way, indeed the only way to get results with a coastline such as that of Prince Edward Island, would be to prevent the stuff from leaving the ships. The vessels lie a few miles off the coast, which contains innumerable bays and creeks and rivers and inlets, and in order to prevent material being landed you would have to have preventive officers everywhere. The practice has been, as I understand it, to look after it to some extent by one patrol boat, but it is utterly impossible for one small boat to look after such a coastline. The result is that the traffic is in and out all the time, with perhaps three or four or five vessels close to the coast all summer. It has created a very bad condition there; liquor is very cheap at the vessel, and four or five fellows put up a few dollars each, send out a motor boat and get a case of liquor. That sort of traffic is very heavy, and we have as well the bootleg traffic. Taking all things into consideration I do not see how the Customs department can have any success
Supply-Customs

whatever in stopping the landing of that liquor unless further patrol boats are put on. I do not think enough preventive officers can be put around the coast to prevent it from coming in, and I would like to suggest to the minister that one patrol boat is certainly not sufficient.


Georges Henri Boivin: At the present time we have in Prince Edward Island two boats, the Margaret and the Buzz. Two boats are not sufficient. It is impossible to place a preventive officer on every creek and inlet on the shores of that island. It is our intention to provide protection' there by more patrol boats. I will not say they will be purchased; it may be that they will be leased, if good boats can be found for the purpose of trying out the system, without entailing too large a capital expenditure.


Robert James Manion: In regard to offices rented in the customs building in various places, are rentals allowed by the Public Works department, for example, to the Customs department for the use of these offices?


Georges Henri Boivin: There is no charge made by the Public Works department to the Customs department for these offices.


Robert James Manion: The buildings are in charge of the Public Works department? It is the other way?


Georges Henri Boivin: There is no charge either
way.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Salaries and travelling expenses of inspectors of ports and of other officers on inspection, preventive service, and in connection with the Board of Customs; the latter including salaries of $1,500 for the chairman, $1,000 each for three memlbers and $500 for the secretary, $854,065.
Robert James Manion: Why the increase in this
item?


Georges Henri Boivin: My hon. friend will notice
the increase is very small as compared with the increase in the previous item. This increase is due entirely to what is known under the Civil Service Act as the statutory increases.
I can give the exact number of officers promoted, if my hon. friend insists.


Robert James Manion: No, but I find myself
wondering sometimes why it is that year after year ever since I have been here, and I have been here nearly ten years now, we get the same story to explain these increases- statutory increases. Do the statutory increases go on indefinitely? That is what puzzles me at times. Suppose we should last another hundred years; will these keep on increasing year after year?


Georges Parent: I hope the Civil Service
Commission will be dead by that time.


Robert James Manion: I hope this government at least may be dead by that time, because I rather think that a lot of these increases are due to this government, and not to the Civil Service Commission at all. It is simply a case of passing the buck to the commission, I am afraid. Would the minister explain whether these statutory increases are going on for all eternity?


Georges Henri Boivin: I will do my very best. I
will say at once that I had been just as much puzzled as my hon. friend ever since I came here until the matter was explained to me the other day. I do not know whether I shall be able to make myself clear to my hon. friend because the man who explained it did not make himself quite clear to me. I am told that on a certain date every employee blanketed into departments by the Civil Service Act and all employees employed after that date, go into the service at a certain minimum salary. That salary is gradually increased over a period of years and finally reaches the maximum salary. Like my hon. friend, I believed that some day we would reach the happy time when, with those at the top retiring from the service and being replaced by others starting at the minimum figure, we could administer the service without further increase. We could arrive at that point and the service would adjust itself in that way, however, only upon two conditions. The number of employees must not be increased, and the salary scale must not be changed. The reason why "statutory increases" is invoked every year to explain increased estimates is that requests are constantly made to the Civil Service Commission for re-classification and increases in minimum and maximum salaries. I know I have not been clear, but I have done the best I could.


Robert James Manion: I presume the minister has explained it as well as he knows how, but I think I know as much now as I did when he got up; I confess I do not know very much about it now. It is a very difficult thing to explain. If it were not for the fact that I would be afraid of being misunderstood in this city of civil servants, I would be inclined to ask if none of them die, but being in this city I would not ask that, because some of the press might say I was wishing for some of them to die off. It does seem strange, however, that in every department every session there are these same salary increases, and the same explanation.

Supply-C ustoms
Perhaps it will come in handy next year, when we are in power, to offer the same explanation, but I confess I find the explanation rather difficult to believe at times.


Georges Henri Boivin: I want to assure my hon. friend that the civil servants who are dead will not blame him for his remarks-


Robert James Manion: I am not afraid of them.


Georges Henri Boivin: Let me also say that when his party does come into power in the far and distant future, there will be statutory increases in the estimates to explain.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Do they think they ever will get into power?


Robert James Manion: Not with the help of my hon. friend.


Georges Henri Boivin: Perhaps they will, when the civil servants are all dead.


Arthur Meighen: The government is so close there now that the minister has the vision splendid. I want to make a comment on one or two interruptions as well as on the words of the minister. In the first place, the practice of attributing everything to the Civil Service Commission-


Georges Henri Boivin: We are not doing that.


Arthur Meighen: It was not the minister, but the hon. gentleman to his right. I expected the minister to rebuke him, but he remained strangely silent. The Civil Service Commission has as much to do with these statutory increases as they have to do with the sun spots-just as much.


Georges Henri Boivin: Except that they make the classifications.


Ernest Lapointe: It is the law.


Arthur Meighen: It is the law, certainly, but the law is not what the minister explained. The law does not compel the government to give any increases whatever. The law simply places within the discretion of the government certain limited increases which they may apply or not apply, and the intention of the law was that the government would apply them as a reward for assiduous service to the public in the capacity in which the civil servant might be. Consequently, the application of these increases is entirely within the discretion of the administration, and they are responsible for each and every one applied. The power is theirs, but I am afraid the increases have become more or less automatic, and I do not know how it is ever going to be anything else if the practice of this government is followed. They have taken a 14011-103
certain group of civil servants and have increased' their salaries by a very large percentage. They first of all adopted one limitation, and when that did not suit them, they put the increase upon another basis, and then when both failed to meet all the cases they wanted to cover, they abandoned all limitations and gave increases to everybody. Having pursued that course, I do not see how the government is in a position to deny almost anything to the civil servants underneath. Consequently, the automatic principle applies, and away goes the statutory increase every time; all limitation is abandoned. But there is no mystery about it all. Nor is there very much hope in the words of the minister when he says that the time may come some time when those who go out at the far door, the large-salaried men, will be so numerous that the amount saved in that way will offset the statutory increases, and that we will thus get to a point where the expenditure for salaries will be stationary. There were just as many old men when this law was enacted as there are to-day. There were just as many men fit to be retired the first day this law went into effect as would be retirable next year, or ten years from next year. Consequently there is no hope that the increased retirements later on will have any more effect in offsetting the statutory increases than those retirements have to-day. The only way it could be offset would be either to abolish the power or to restrict the application of the power by some system of discrimination. I do not really see that it is much good to give statutory increases while they are automatic. If they are to apply to everybody why, of course, they are no incentive to service at all. If everybody is to get them, then service does not make them any more helpful to the man who works than if he did not work at all. He might as well be talking to the girls around the corner as working if he is going to get his statutory increase just the same. What I want to impress on the minister is this: he must take the responsibility for the statutory increases himself; he cannot shift it upon the statute, much less can he shift it upon the Civil Service Commission.


Mr. ROBB:: I agree with much my right
hon. friend has said, but surely he will not blame this government for the statutory obligations that we found when we came into office.


Arthur Meighen: They are not obligations.	.

Supply-Customs


James Alexander Robb: Yes, they are obligations.


Arthur Meighen: No, no, they are not.


James Alexander Robb: Just prior to the last general
election there were a number blanketed into the service and given a standing, or a grade or salary, by the Civil Service Commission. They might start at $700 and would run up year after year until they came to a thousand. We had these obligations upon us.


Arthur Meighen: No, you did not. The
obligation is not there. It is only a power in the government to grant an increase but there is no obligation to apply the power.


James Alexander Robb: They are put into a class and they get the increase automatically until they reach the maximum of that class.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister read
the statute?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has there been a reclassification of the civil service every year? The minister rather pointed to that fact, but is there such a reclassification? In the short experience I have had here I have heard of the efforts made by civil servants to get themselves reclassified. They are naturally ambitious to get into a higher classification, and I have no doubt that constant effort is being made by various civil servants to attain that end. Now, has it become the practice under this government to 'have a reclassification every year, and does that account for the increase?


Georges Henri Boivin: No. There has been no
general classification since the government came into power, but there are partial reclassifications every year. The most frequent reclassification is a reclassification increasing the minimum and maximum salary of a certain class of employees.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That has not had much
effect in raising this item?


Georges Henri Boivin: No, and I agree with what
my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition has said concerning the right of the government to refuse to give the statutory increase to the employees.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Georges Henri Boivin: The government is empowered to do that, but the government led by my right hon. friend did not refuse to do it. I am very sure my right hon. friend did not say he would refuse to do it when he spoke at the Auditorium on the eve of the last election.


Arthur Meighen: I did not refer to the
subject at the Auditorium, save to correct just a few foolish rumours circulated by the friends of the minister. But I am aware, distinctly aware, that in eases we did refuse the statutory increase, and that I did myself, so that the minister will have another apology coming in addition to that of this afternoon


Georges Henri Boivin: In my department, when
the inspector makes a report that an officer's conduct is only fair, no statutory increase is given to him, but where his conduct and efficiency is better than fair he is given his statutory increase.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps my
hon. friend, since we are getting into this kind of experience-trying to find out what the other fellow did, and matters of that kind -would turn his attention to another direction and explain why it is, if things were done so loosely under the former administration, with no refusals to increase here, there, and everywhere, he has got to ask for $232,000 more for his department than was asked under the former administration? That would be very much to the point if he would do it.


Georges Henri Boivin: I do not accuse the last
government of such terrible looseness, I said that the last government-and I am not blaming them for it-gave the statutory increases to all employees who were worthy of them. We have been doing the same thing. But my right hon. friend is certainly not referring to the proper item, because the total increase in this item is only $40,816.


Robert James Manion: That is since last year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am taking my hon. friend back to the time when, as he says, the former administration did not stop increases. I am going back to the year 1921-22.


Georges Henri Boivin: That is too far.


Henry Lumley Drayton: To 1921-22, four years ago, is that too far? It is the last year to which we can go.


Georges Henri Boivin: That is not too far but my
hon. friend will admit that at that time the bonuses paid to the civil servants were voted separately and did not form part of the item that the hon. member brings into comparison with this vote.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There was a
bonus, there is no question about that; but the bonus falls very far short of making up this increase, which roughly speaking, is something like 40 per cent in this vote. Now as

Supply-Customs
to the vote asked by the Conservative administration, I am taking the year I have mentioned, but I could go farther back and get a lower amount; I could go back to 1921, which was our last complete year. But I am not doing that; I am taking a year in which this government had to do with three months of the preparation of the costs, a year in which they submitted estimates which they claimed were our estimates. I can make the position much worse if I take 1921, but I do not do that; I am minimizing the situation as much as I can, and I find that under this vote all that was asked in 1921-22 was $621,380, whereas to-day we are asked to p.ay $854,055. There is an increase of $232,675 on an item of $600,000 odd. Perhaps it would be much better if my hon. friend, instead of going into ancient history, would explain why it is we have an increase of that kind in the period of four years.


Georges Henri Boivin: I want to assure my hon.
friend that I do not want to go into ancient history; I would be perfectly satisfied to explain the increase for the present year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend cannot take it coming and going, just when it suits him to take it. I am quite sure he would be quite content to take all the estimates without any explanation at all.


Georges Henri Boivin: Oh, no.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would not
blame him in tin slightest for being so content. But, Mr. Chairman, here we have an increase during the lifetime of this government-I have not figured it out, but it must be 40 per cent- in a mere matter of administration and that applies to a government Which is making all kinds of extravagant claims to economy. Now the best way to test this claim is to test it right in connection with this particular vote we have before us. What excuse is there for this "government of economy" increasing that vote 40 per cent? It is not a matter of ancient history, but I am trying to see where we are going to wind up. Has my hon. friend reconstituted his board of customs?


Georges Henri Boivin: No we still have the same board.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Are there any new jobs in the board of customs?


Georges Henri Boivin: Messrs. Farrow, Blair,
Breadner, Taylor and Wilson are still the members of the board.	[DOT]


Henry Lumley Drayton: If there is no increase in the number, why is the vote changed? Why is the $1,500 put in?


Georges Henri Boivin: There is $1,500 which is paid to the chairman of the board. If my right hon. friend will refer a few years back he will find this same vote in the estimates of previous years. It was taken out when the salaries of the deputy ministers was raised to $8,000.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister show where it ever was in?


Georges Henri Boivin: It was in before. I have not the estimates for former years at hand.


Arthur Meighen: I cannot see it.


Georges Henri Boivin: When the deputy minister was receiving a salary of $6,000 he was given an allowance of $1,500, as chairman of the board of customs. When the salary was raised to $S,000 that $1,500 was withheld, but the allowance made to the other members of the board was still paid. Mr. Breadner does not receive any salary as a member of the board of customs but his salary is $10,000. The other members of the board of customs receive $1,000 allowance as members of the board and the chairman receives $1,500.


Arthur Meighen: So that he gets $9,500?


Georges Henri Boivin: He will get that amount if this item is passed.


Arthur Meighen: I thought it was an increase, and ventured to say so, but the minister's first words intimated that it was the same as it always was.


Georges Henri Boivin: I did not mean to do so.


Arthur Meighen: It is an increase of $1,500 -from $8,000 to $9,500. Last year this item was out. I have the estimates of previous years before me, but not the whole of them, I have last year's estimates and I do not see such figures at all. The item reads:
Salaries and travelling expenses of inspectors of ports and of other officers on inspection, preventive service, and in connection with the board of customs.
The details are not given, but at any rate this is an increase over last year of $1,500 for one official. It all indicates the process by which the quarter million was arrived at in the three years.


Robert James Manion: Do I understand the chairman of the board of customs receives $9,500?


Georges Henri Boivin: The deputy minister of the department is at the same time chairman of the board of customs. If my hon. friend will look at the salaries paid the deputy ministers of the different departments he will find several of them receive a salary of $10,000 a year. Some receive $8,000 and some $6,000, depending upon their years of service. The
Supply-Customs

number of years of service of the present deputy minister should qualify him for the higher amount. The commissioner of taxation, the deputy minister of finance, and the deputy minister of justice are receiving $10,000 or more. Having seen my deputy at work and appreciating his devotion and ability, I thought it only fair to give him the same salary or very nearly the same salary as the other deputies were receiving.


Arthur Meighen: I was going to ask about how long the minister expected that it would take to get all of the others up to this amount?


Georges Henri Boivin: Some of them are above that now.


Arthur Meighen: I know, the process is on.


Georges Henri Boivin: No, the process will depend on the years of service, and perhaps some of those there now, under the system referred to by my right hon. friend, will have retired before the others advance. We hope some day under this regime,-and perhaps later on under the regime of my right hon. friend, that we will reach that point where there will never be any more statutory increases, where every public servant will be perfectly satisfied with his position, where everybody will be completely remunerated, and everybody will be perfectly happy.


Robert James Manion: It would be the last thought in my mind to say a word against my hon. friend the deputy minister of customs, for whom I have the utmost respect. I have had dealings with him in an official way, and have every respect for him; this is not a personal reference to him. But I do say that a salary of $8,000 a year for a deputy minister, unless for some special cause, would appear to me, where it is a life job, as a deputy minister's job is, to be a pretty fair salary. Lawyers, doctors or other professional men- and most of them, with the rare exceptions of the very outstanding men in the profession, have at least as great a training as a deputy minister would have-would be quite satisfied with a life annuity of $8,000 a year. I notice that whenever there are any positions open, even if the salaries are about $4,000 a year many lawyers, doctors and other professional and business men are quite ready to apply for them. I do not believe in being niggardly in regard to salaries paid to public officials. I believe we should pay men from whom we get good work a reasonable salary. At the same time I repeat that $8,000 a year, generally speaking, without some special cause, should be a pretty reasonable salary for a
fMr. Boivin.]
life position for a deputy minister, and I am of the opinion that it is about time for this parliament to put down its foot and say that such and such a figure, whatever we consider is fair, should be the figure above which deputy ministers will not go. The matter is well worth consideration, because, with all due respect to the gentleman who occupies the position, and again pointing out that I am not saying or implying anything against him, because I have the utmost friendship for him, I believe that $9,500 a year for a life position with regular holidays is a fairly heavy salary for this government to pay, considering the heavy' burden of taxation from which it is suffering.


Georges Henri Boivin: In the first place there is a
great difference between an annuity and the earning of a salary as it is earned by the gentleman who occupies the position of deputy minister in the heavy Department of Customs and Excise. Statutory holidays are unknown to him. He works every night and every legal holiday, and his vacations are few and far between. He is obliged to do this to keep up with his work but he does it willingly and apparently with pleasure. It is because I have seen him at work that I placed the amount in the estimates for him. I thought he was entitled to this increase. I agree entirely with what my hon. friend has said concerning the size of the salaries paid to the civil servants. It may be that some of them are receiving too much. That does not apply to the deputy minister of my department. This increase is due him; I do not see why it should not be made. He has, I forget how many years of service, but he has been in the department almost since the year I was bom. He has been and is an effeient and faithful servant. I am only doing justice in making his salary almost equal to those of several other deputy ministers.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The real trouble in connection with salaries of deputies is not what my hon. friend is talking about at all ; it is the manner in which this government have handled the question. They did not approach the question from the point of view of work, merit or the like.


Georges Henri Boivin: I did.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am speaking about why we find ourselves with a general run of deputy ministers' salaries raised from $6,000 to $S,000 and $10,000. It is not so very long ago when they were lower even than the figures I have given. The policy was introduced into the House by the then

Supply-Customs
Minister of Finance, the Right Hon. Mr. Fielding, that just so soon as a deputy had been so many years in service, irrespective of his office, irrespective of the amount of work, irrespective of his attainments, irrespective of anything except length of service, he was to be put into the higher register, and he was so put. The position I then took is very much the position my hon. friend takes to-day. I then pointed out that Mr. Farrow under that rule was being passed over altogether, not because he was not doing the work-he was doing far more than most of the rest-not because he was not worth the money-he was worth far more than most of the rest-but simply because he had not happened to hold that particular position for a certain length of time. As a matter of fact he was discriminated against. Anything I am saying now has nothing to do with the immediate vote to the deputy of this department, who certainly deserves just as much credit as the deputy of any other department, but it has to do with the general scale of increases put in for the reasons they were put in. The reason was a false one; it was entirely an error and it is costing the country a great deal of money.


Georges Henri Boivin: That is why I did not make the increase that way.
Mr. NICHOLSON; This discussion has revealed very clearly a situation with which parliament will have to deal sooner or later, namely that because the salary of a deputy in some other department has been raised, the salary of this deputy must be raised. Prior to that, in connection with the general increase of 40 per cent that has taken place, as the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) has pointed out, we get the statement that the government is simply impotent in the hands of the Civil Service Commission or is surrounded bv conditions with which it cannot cope, and consequently these increases go automatically into enect. The question the taxpayers are going to ask is: What are we here for? Do 9 p.m. they send members to the House of Commons and do they have a government in office merely to act as a group of automatons to register decisions that someone else makes? Are the people who are paying 25 per cent of their gross revenue in taxes to be told from year to year as these increases continue to go into effect that the government and parliament are helpless; that there is no means by which we can check these continually advancing outlays; that the government is faced with a debt that is
burdening the people to a point where business, industry and everything else are being strangled, and yet the government and parliament seem to be utterly helpless? The government say: We can do nothing; it is true we have increased this one item by over $200,000 in four years, but this is solely because of a condition with which we cannot cope. Where can we get a minister, who will say: I will manage my department as a business institution and bring the cost of it down to where it should be as'a business institution? That is what the country is expecting this government and this parliament to do now. The people expect at least some effort to be made to bring down the total cost of government in this country, and we are not going to do that by the process that has been outlined this afternoon and evening-by simply saying: Somebody else did it, and I am following suit.


Georges Henri Boivin: If it is possible to do that in any department, it will be done in mine. The cost of administering the department will be reduced, but it will be reduced by doing away with unnecessary employees. I shall never stand for a policy which will not give a fair and living wage to the man who earns it in either the Department of Customs or any other department. I will be frank with the committee. If there is anything I dread it is a dismissal. Nothing is more difficult for a minister to do than to say to an employee of a department: You must go; there is no more work for you here. In my department at the present time there are several vacancies for which money is being voted to-night, and I give the committee my promise that if I remain in the department most of those vacancies will not be filled, and the money voted this year in connection with them will, I hope, remain in the public treasury.


Robert James Manion: Why not leave it out of
the estimates, and if another government comes in let them worry about getting it in again?


Georges Henri Boivin: I am not making any provision for any government of which my hon. friend might be a member because these estimates will certainly not apply. I made no change because I am a new minister in the department and some of my ideas and desires concerning economy may be altered before I get through the year. I am leaving the estimates for the different positions that are vacant and I am asking for an increase in the preventive service vote. I want to follow the direction given me by the House when the
Supply-Customs

Customs Inquiry committee has made its report. I do not say that I can do so in every respect; but I shall do the best I can to follow the will of the House, to economize and to keep down expenses in the department. I have a department in which it is very difficult to keep down expenses. Every dollar voted for my department is for contingent expenses or salaries. There are no contracts to be given, no rentals to be paid. It is not a spending department but a great collecting department, and if members of parliament desire to have the revenues properly collected they must provide the staff and means whereby those revenues may be collected.


George Brecken Nicholson: I did not suggest that any man should work for less than a living wage or salary.


Georges Henri Boivin: If the hon. member will
allow me to interrupt him. I do not think 1 said that, but possibly the tone of my voice -which will not appear in Hansard-might convey the impression that that is what I meant. I do not wish to reflect upon my hon. inend from East Algoma in the least, I know that he did not intend to make such a suggestion, and if my remarks were worded in a way to convey that impression, I hasten to withdraw them.
Mr. NICiHOLSON:	My point is simply
this, Mr. Chairman. The whole discussion with regard to this and the previous item simply implies that the ministers are confronted with a condition that they cannot cope with-these increases must automatically go on. Now, my hon. friend has given evidence at least of a willingness to economize; he says there are a number of positions in his department that he is not going to fill. This is a splendid place to start to economize, and if the minister as a further earnest of his intention will simply say to the committee now how much of this item he desires to have dropped, I have not the slightest doubt in the world that the committee will accept his proposal. That is the point. The taxpayers expect us to find some means of cutting down the national expenditure.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: What proportion of this
1854,065 is salary and what proportion - is travelling expenses and contingencies?


Georges Henri Boivin: The salaries of the inspection staff of 120 officers represent $324,435, and the board of customs staff of 97 employees working here in Ottawa account for $291,765. The balance is made up of travelling expenses, contingencies and salaries of the members of the board of customs.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: What part of the $40,000 increase is for salaries and what part is for contingencies?


Georges Henri Boivin: The statutory increase?
represent $9,120. Additions to the staff, including the amount referred to by the right hon. leader of the opposition a moment ot two ago for the chairman of the Treasury Board, represent $22,080. The decrease of $3,390 is due to promotions and appointments where vacancies are filled by lower paid employees. Bo that the additions to the staff cost $18,690, and the statutory increases, $9,120.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder how
my hon. friend really thinks we can justify passing this vote. Usually estimates are not put through because somebody may want them, possibly at some future date; they are voted because they are needed. Estimates are also passed because the accredited minister states on his responsibility that he wants the vote. My hon. friend to-night on his responsibility' as a minister has stated that there are many cases where he hopes the money will never be used at all. That is, in the judgment of the responsible minister of this department the committee is asked to vote money which, he says, ought not to be voted. Cf course, I can quite understand certain government supporters being prepared to vote for anything, but I wonder what their allies who have been saying so much about economy think of their vote for an estimate in face of a declaration by the responsible minister that that vote is not necessary. I think my hon. friend, who says he is out for a compaign of economy, owes it to himself not only to pick those items out, but to indicate the positions that he thinks he can dispense with, and reduce his vote accordingly. If he does that he is in a position to carry out his views as head of his department, and he puts this committee in the proper position of voting supply that the responsible minister asks for. As this stands at the present time, so far as I am concerned, I cannot support the vote.


Georges Henri Boivin: 
Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Chairman,
my hon. friend dodges the issue entirely. It is. perfectly true that no minister says he is going to spend all the money, and it is perfectly true that every minister ought to effect all the economies he can, but it is also perfectly right to say that no minister ought to ask this House to spend money which he thinks ought not to be spent. That is what my hon. friend has said, that so far as he is concerned he things it ought not to be spent. Yet he asks this House to vote it. This is the first time I have ever known such a thing to be done. Many votes are made which are not used; they are made in contemplation of use, because the minister believes they will be necessary. They are not made in the knowledge on the part of the minister that they ought not to be used. The minister here- and it may be that he does not know much about it; I am not blaming him for it at all -'has information that it is not necessary.


Georges Henri Boivin: I did not say that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I certainly so
understood my hon. friend.


Georges Henri Boivin: I want to make that correction. I said that I personally did not know enough about the department to reduce these votes, that I had mentioned to my deputy one or two of the vacancies, and that he had told me that we would be able to get along without filling them for the present. I want to learn how long I can refrain from doing so, and I can only find out by putting the vote in the estimates.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We will take this diminishing protestation, but Hansard will show what was said. We will say it was only a few cases, and perhaps my hon. friend would like to get it down to two or three cases.


Georges Henri Boivin: Not at all. I would like
to put it up to forty cases if there were forty vacancies, and I hope there will be forty by the end of the year. I hope I will be able to cut down the staff by at least forty without impairing its efficiency and without overloading and overburdening them with work.


Henry Lumley Drayton: As I was saying, the quantity is diminishing and I do not know whether or not it will further diminish. It has reached this point, that there were certain vacancies in connection with which the service, as my hon. friend finds it, does not require any further appointments. My hon. friend said not so long ago-that may shrink also- that the request to fill these vacancies came from the outside, from people wanting jobs. He received no request from his department at all. On the other hand the department was quite willing to go along without filling them.


Georges Henri Boivin: I have been so busy with
other matters that I have not had time to sit down and discuss this question with the head of the department. I cannot give a better reason. We have had the Customs inquiry. That has meant the preparation of all those documents required for it. I was in attendance at council almost every day before the opening of the session, and the work that I have had to perform since I entered the government has been such that I really have not had time to discuss the matter with my officials. That is one reason why the vacancies are not filled and why the item is not reduced. If I had had time to discuss the matter, and the heads of the departments had agreed with me, I would have been only too glad to cut down the estimate as my hon. friend suggests.
Supply-C ustoms


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hy hon. friend puts it in an entirely different way now. I have to take what he says, and I think he is giving us the real situation now. I am going to meet him. Often we say things which perhaps we ought not to say, and I think perhaps his present statement-widely at variance as it is with the former one-is correct. However, I would press this further point. Why is it that he wants to get further tied up, and brings his estimates on first, when he does not know anything about them?


Georges Henri Boivin: I told my hon. friend the
reason when I introduced my estimates this afternoon. The Customs investigating committee is at work in another part of this building and I am greatly interested in following its deliberations. I do not want to discuss the question in detail at all but I may say that the attorney in charge is to-day going over evidence submitted to him by the department, and taken by one Inspector Duncan at Montreal. Next week we are promised that wholesalers and business men from all parts of Canada will be here to give evidence; we are promised that we will have in a week or two evidence that I have never yet heard or seen, and I would like to be in attendance then. I do not mean to insinuate that the sessions of the committee are not interesting.
* They are not interesting to me to-day because the evidence given is that which I have already read. When new evidence comes before the committee I would like to be there, and that is why I asked that I be allowed to go on with my estimates first, thinking that the House would allow my estimates to go through after discussion and allow me to return to the committee.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend now gives me a reason. I thought it would not make much difference when he was away; he did not tell me about the question of evidence, or if he did I do not recall it.


Georges Henri Boivin: I did not give that explanation; I merely referred to the matter in a general way.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The probe is
going on to-day and my hon. friend is not there. He is away from it and apparently satisfied to be away, so perhaps he would be satisfied to be away for some days. My hon. friend says he has made no progress, but he has put through nearly 87,000,000 in estimates. A million must be very small in the sight of my hon. friend, if that is the way he looks at it. I am just going to say one thing fur-

ther to my hon. friend, and he can give us the information or not as he likes, because in view of his last statement I personally do not think he is in a position to do so. If however he should be able to give us the information I think the House should have it. I would like to know what these vacancies are which he hopes never to fill.


William Duff: Shall the item carry?


George Brecken Nicholson: Just a moment, Mr. Chairman. The hon. minister, with his deputy beside him-and I take it that in reality the deputy is the administrative head of the department-stated clearly that there were vacancies in the department; that he had discussed 'this with the deputy or the officers of the department, and those officers agreed with him that it was unnecessary to fill those vacancies until there was reorganization. Is it the purpose of the minister to have a reorganization which will increase the staff or a reorganization which will leave it as it is now, or one which will reduce it? If it is a reorganization which is going to leave it as it is, he has said-and it is stated that his deputy agrees with him-that it is unnecessary to fill these vacancies. If that is so, why vote money, if the vacancies are not to be filled? There is another point on which the minister might give us some information and that is as to how long these vacancies have existed. If the department can go on week by week and month by month with certain positions vacant it is evidence 'that they simply have that many superfluous officers somewhere. With his deputy beside him now, he might tell us What is in his mind with regard to this reorganization which is to take place, and which will decide whether these vacancies are to be filled. I would like to ask again if it is to be a reorganization which will increase the service or one which will decrease it and make it more effective.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am going to give my hon. friend a frank answer. 1 had hoped that the preventive service of my department would be vastly increased.


George Brecken Nicholson: If my hon. friend will
just pardon me, on the opposite page of this estimate there is an entirely separate vote for the preventive service.


Georges Henri Boivin: I think I know as much
about my own estimates as my hon. friend. He need not get excited. I want to be polite to him, but I think I am entitled to the same politeness.

Supply-Customs


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The minister said he
knew nothing about his own department.


Georges Henri Boivin: I said. I was not entirely
familiar with my department. I did not refer to the estimates. I was about to say to m>
hon. friend that I had hoped-I did not say I would-greatly to increase my preventive service staff. What I want to convey is the idea that if the service is increased and makes many seizures, if it does the work and sends in the reports I hope it will send in, it may be necessary to fill some of these positions in the inside service to handle 'the work here.


Mr. BOYS:: My hon. friend has told the
committee that there were a number of vacancies. Can he tell us how many vacancies he does not expect to fill, and about what the salaries of these officials would amount to in a year?


Georges Henri Boivin: I do not think I can give that information to my hon. friend offhand The hon. member for West York asked me to produce a list of these vacancies, the places where they existed, and the salaries paid before the vacancies occurred, and I undertook to do that. I do not think I could give definite information to-night. I would say that there are eight or ten. vacancies. My idea of economy-I will be frank with the House-is to avoid filling vacancies when it is possible. I dread to reduce salaries or to dismiss employees but I am not anxious to make new appointments.


William Alves Boys: If the minister is directing the latter portion of his remarks to myself, that is not at issue at all, because I am not suggesting either that salaries be reduced oi that employees be dismissed. The minister made the frank statement that there were a number of vacancies he did not intend to fill. I do not suppose he made that statement at random; I suppose he made it knowing what he was talking about, I presume he has some idea of how many vacancies there are he does not intend to fill, what the positions are, and the salaries attached to them. If there were only two or three of them I would not bother my head about them, but if there are twenty or thirty vacancies that the minister does not intend to fill, I think the item should be reduced by a substantial sum, and I think we ought to have that information before we are asked to pass upon this vote.


Georges Henri Boivin: I told my hon. friend in my discussion with the hon. member for West York, when he asked how many vacancies there were, whether four or five or two or one, that I was only sorry there were not
forty, but I did not desire to suggest in any way that that was the number of the vacancies. I believe that the number of vacancies in the department at the present time is eight or ten. I do not promise that all of them will not be filled, but I do hope that five or six of them will not. Most of them are clerk positions where the salary rvould be about $1,200 a year. The saving is not very large, but it is a beginning.


Robert James Manion: I was listening some time ago to the minister speaking in reply to the hon. member for West York. He has pointed out what is quite correct, that he attempts to be perfectly courteous to us all, and I have no criticism to offer of him in that regard. At the same time, there were two or three statements which I think require some elucidation from him. In the first place he pointed out that a minister in his position could not give his promise, or his word of honour, as he expressed it, that he would attempt to cut down the expenditure of his department by three or four hundred thousand dollars, but he forgets in making that statement that he belongs to the most- promising and the least fulfilling government that has ever existed in this Dominion of Canada.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Don't limit it.


Robert James Manion: Probably I should not limit it. to Canada. His leader travelled from one end of this country to the other in 1921 and promised everything on earth to every section of the country. This parliament is now being held together by a system of promises, because the whole Speech from the Throne was a bundle of promises, and that is what is holding this government in office to-day. The minister, when he says this vote is going to carry whether my hon. friend from West York likes it or not-


Georges Henri Boivin: I did not say that.
Mr MANION * Oh yes, I listened very carefully.


Georges Henri Boivin: I said I would be sorry if it had to carry without his support.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend is very smooth in changing fronts, but put it that way if you like: he will be sorry if the vote goes through without the support of my hon. friend from West York. That simply means: If you and your party oppose it, all right, we are going to pass it anyhow. That simply means, when you carry it a little further that instead of having regard to the 116 members on this side of the House and the 101 members on that side of the House, the Minister
Supply-Customs

of Customs is so sure that these various promises made by his leader and himself and the other members of the government are going to succeed in keeping my friends to my left in line, that all these votes are going to carry whether this side of the House likes them or not. Certainly that is not very complimentary to my friends to my left, and if I were one of them I think I would resent that attitude on the part of any minister.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: I do not blame my hon.
friends for laughing, because my hon. friends to my left have shown no resentment at anything yet done foy this government. They have accepted the promises of the government, and promises is altl they have received, but I certainly should feel like resenting that attitude on the part of a minister who a short time ago went down to Montreal and in a speech of threats and promises as to what the government were going to do if the Progressives did not support them-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: I do not know upon what the minister bases his certainty that my hon. friends to my left are going to support him. Suppose we move an amendment to cut down this item in accordance with the suggestion of the minister humsel'f; taking his own figures, ten or twelve vacancies at #1,200 apiece would amount to about #15,000. Suppose we moved an amendment to reduce the item by that amount. A few minutes ago the minister said he would not submit to this vote being cut.


Georges Henri Boivin: I did not say that.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend changes
his tactics very often; he has changed them seventy-five or a hundred times to-night .already.	.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Make it a thousand.


Robert James Manion: I would if I were the
Minister of Agriculture; I would not care how far I went in that case, because he never cares where he goes or wh'at he says. But I am not the Minister of Agriculture.
. Mr. RINRET:	You would like to be,
though.


Robert James Manion: Suppose we make up our
minds to move to cut down this item by #12,000 or $15,000. If that motion is made,
I hope that some of my friends to my left .-there are not many of them left in the

chamber just now; I do not know whether the discussion has had anything to do with that or not-will show that they really believe in the economy which they have talked about so much. I hope the hon. member for Bow River, whom I see in his seat, and for whom I have a great admiration-for his ability, not for the way he votes-will stand by some of the professions he made in past years in favour of economy, if such a motion is made. I remember hearing him last year, and I used to admire him so much-he was not so much to the front then as he is now, but sat back a little farther

I remember how he would stand up and tirade against the present Prime Minister, and never in all my attacks on the Prime Minister, and I will admit I have been fairly severe at times, have I attacked him so wickedly or viciously as the hon. member for Bow River used to. He would stand up and advocate economy, which he said he believed in, and I think he really does believe in it. Well, if we make a motion here to cut down this item by about $15,000, in accordance with the minister's own figures, I hope the hon. member for Bow River will have the courage of his convictions and stand up here like the good man he is and vote with us to cut down this item by the amount which the minister himself admits is unnecessary.
I am going to show the hon. member for Bow River just how futile are all the excuses given by the minister for these different increases in expenditure. He made the excuse here that practically all the increase in this item of #40,000 was due to statutory increases, and then when he was giving the details a few moments ago he said the statutory increases out of the forty thousand amounted to, I think, $18,000. Was that right, or was it $12,000? Which is it?


Georges Henri Boivin: About that.


Robert James Manion: He first said that this
whole forty thousand was practically due to statutory increases. Then when he was giving the details he points out that the statutory increases really amount to $12,000 out of the forty thousand. I do not know what the other twenty-eight thousand consists of. I listened to the minister attentively and I do not know what it is for; it certainly is not for statutory increases. But let me turn to the next item-and I ask the Chairman's permission to refer to it; I am not going to discuss it. Turn over to the next item, which amounts to $480,000, as compared with $455,-

Supply-C ustoms
163!
502 last year, and there is not a dollar of wages in it at all. It is made up of:
Printing and stationery, subscriptions to commercial papers, flags-
I wonder which flags?
-dating stamps, locks, instruments, etc.
It has nothing to do with wages. I went through the items very carefully and I do not find a wage of any kind. The whole item amounts to $480,000, $25,000 more than the item last year. Is the minister going to claim that this is connected with statutory increases, that printing and stationery, subscriptions to commercial papers, flags, dating stamps, locks, and instruments, have anything to do with statutory increases? In other words the minister in the few months in which he has been in this government has learned all the tricks of the trade adopted by the group he is associated with. You cannot depend upon a single promise of this administration to cut down the taxation of this country. They never live up to their promises. They promise everything in the shape of taxation reduction and give none, except where they cut down business so much that the taxation is automatically reduced. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am going to move an amendment to this item. I am going to move that it be cut down by $15,000, and then we will find out how hon. gentlemen to my left react.


Georges Henri Boivin: Does my hon. friend desire to have the vote taken on that immediately?


Robert James Manion: I am not in any hurry.


Georges Henri Boivin: Would my hon. friend like to have a reply to his remarks?


Robert James Manion: Oh, I am not very particular-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: -but if it eases the mind of my hon. friend I should be very glad to listen to it.


Georges Henri Boivin: It will not ease the mind of "your hon. friend" at all.


Robert James Manion: Then I do not know why I am asked the question. Go ahead.


Georges Henri Boivin: I fear I might possibly be called to order by the Chairman unless I have my hon.. friend's consent.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps if my hon. friend is called to order I shall be afterwards.


Georges Henri Boivin: My hon. friend was right
when he said the Speech from the Throne contained many promises. All Speeches from the Throne contain promises.


Robert James Manion: Never so much as now.


Georges Henri Boivin: All Speeches from the Throne composed by my hon. friend's friends contained promises to be broken. The Speech from the Throne composed by this government contains promises to be kept.


Robert James Manion: They never were in the
past. It would be something entirely new if they were now.


Georges Henri Boivin: I have enough confidence in our friends who sit to the left of my hon. friend, to think that if those promises are put there to be broken they will not be very long supporters of our party.


Edward Joseph Garland: Hear, hear.


Georges Henri Boivin: The Speech from the Throne meets with their approval, and it is the intention of the government to implement it by legislation. Now, if my hon. friend desires to reduce the vote by $15,000, if he wants to tie my hands, if he wants to make it impossible for me to appoint a certain number of employees in a department which is now being attacked for not giving sufficient and efficient service, I am quite willing; but I do not think the people of Canada will be. What the people of Canada want, if anything, is a larger expenditure for a more rigid collection of revenue.


Robert James Manion: More efficiency.


Georges Henri Boivin: My hon. friend is right.
No one desires more efficiency than I do; no one desires more honesty than I do. I can tell my hon. friend' that I am going to do my very best to give honest administration to the department and the country; but if I am to be hampered-my estimates reduced-


Robert James Manion: Does the minister suggest for a moment that a $15,000 cut out of 8J million dollars or nearly nine millions will hamper him?


Ernest Lapointe: Why $15,000?


Robert James Manion: Because I took the figures of the minister himself.


William Duff: Is the committee ready for the question?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Before you put the question, Mr. Chairman, I should like the minister to take himself seriously for a minute and not to play mock heroics-because that is what he is doing. He talks about the necessity of the customs sendee being strengthened. It ought to be. The preventive side of the customs service ought to be strengthened, there is no question about it. This
1G32
Supply-Customs

vote has nothing whatever to do with the preventive side at all. The minister wants to do this and everything; he wants to be so clean, so pure, so holy, so godly. But if he does, why does he not want to do simply what he thinks ought to be done-take this amount off? We are simply in this instance taking the minister at his word, that is all. We are prepared to take more of a chance with him than apparently he is willing to take in the case of his own words and his own judgment.


Mr. BO  IVIN@: That may be true.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is playing mock heroics when he says that a cut which ought to be made here according to his own judgment, and the judgment of his deputy, has anything to do with the preventive service of the country.


Georges Henri Boivin: I will explain to my hon. friend how it has something to do with it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wish you
would.


Georges Henri Boivin: The amendment was moved more for the purpose of attempting to embarrass the government than it was for the purpose of cutting off $15,000 that may not be spent anyway. This item is the one from which the salaries and travelling expenses of the inspectors of the department are paid. The larger the service throughout the country, the more inspectors we shall need and the better the inspection service must be and I am sure, knowing my hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion) as well as I do, that he is not going to press the amendment to a vote.


Robert James Manion: Let me just say a word
in reply to the minister. He said the amendment was moved to embarrass the government. It was done for no such purpose; it was done for the purpose of testing the sincerity of the Minister of Customs and' Excise. The hon. gentleman pointed out again and again how anxious he is to cut down the expenditures. He said there were possibly twelve or thirteen employees he could1 dispense with. I take his own figures, and I am testing him out to see if he will act on his own statement. If he is so anxious to cut down the expenditure he will accept a reduction which should have no effect whatever on a vote of approximately nine millions. If the minister is sincere in all his assertions that he wants economy, that he is going to try to have economy, and has no intention to put a number of new men in positions

which he thinks are unnecessary, then he will accept an amendment for a reduction of $15,000 which I would have made $50,000 if I were trying to embarrass the government. I put it at this figure because the minister practically asserted again and again this evening, that he could cut out probably much more than that, but he could cut out that much without embarrassing the department at all.
Amendment (Mr. Manion) negatived.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Now that the House has satisfactorily swallowed the protestation of the minister, and he has practically swallowed himself, I may point out that he has told us one thing I was not sure about before. We are told that we are now on preventive service, and I would ask the minister whether any of the salaries here covered are salaries of officials who are at present under suspicion or suspension.


Georges Henri Boivin: No, the salary of any official who is at present under suspicion or suspension is covered under the second item on the next page, which reads:
To provide for expenses of maintenance of revenue cruisers and for preventive service.
The present item merely covers the preventive service staff here and the inspection officers.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Are any of the people who come under this item covered by the Duncan report?


Georges Henri Boivin: No. Some of those mentioned in the Duncan report are paid out of the first item passed this evening, and others mentioned in the same report are also paid out of the second item on page 62. Those are regular preventive service men.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-Printing and stationery, subscriptions commercial papers, flags, dating stamps, locks, instruments, etc., for various ports of entry, express charges on samples, stationery and legal forms, legal expenses, premiums on guarantee bonds, and uniforms for Customs officers, $480,000.
Mr. FORKE:: We are very proud, Mr. Chairman, to see you where you are, but I am going to give you a little word of advice at the start; you will have to speak a little louder. *


William Duff: I shall be very glad to oblige my hon. friend.


Robert James Manion: Could the minister explain why there is an increase of $25,000? He cannot explain it on the ground of statutory increases.

Supply-Customs


Georges Henri Boivin: The best explanation is that we tried to meet my hon. friend's request two or three years ago and we cut $100,000 off this item. We found that we had cut off too much, and we are obliged to ask that one-quarter of that amount be added to the vote for this year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the
expenditure last year?


Georges Henri Boivin: I have here the chief accountant's memorandum on this particular item, which reads:
The expenditure for the first six months of 1924-5 was $201,920.31. Proportionately for the entire year the expenditure should have been approximately $404,000, whereas it actually amounted to $455,502.28, a difference of $51,500.
For the first six months of 1925-6 the expenditure was $227,097.44, which proportionately would be $454,000 for the entire fiscal year, which is approximately the total expenditure of the previous year.
The increase for the six months 1925-6 over 1924-5 is $25,177.13, which is accounted for by payment in 1925-6 of guarantee bond premiums, covering the last half of 1924-5, $10,090, for which similar payment did not occur in 1924-5; and payment of printing and stationery accounts of 1924-5, $21,145, which did not occur in the previous year. These two amounts total $31,235 increase, which is reduced to the difference of $25,177.13, being lesser general expenditure during the year 1925-6.


Edward Joseph Garland: The description of the item would indicate that a good deal of the money was spent on office supplies, guarantee bond premiums and uniforms. Would the minister divide the sum into major items? We do not want the smaller items; but give us a general idea of how it is spent.


Georges Henri Boivin: The largest amount generally expended under this vote is that paid to the Canadian Bank Note Company of Ottawa for excise stamps. The amount paid for the printing and excise stamps is approximately $165,000 per year. That is one of the largest amounts. All the forms used in the service are printed by the Department of Printing and Stationery, but they are charged to the Department of Cuslums anu cost over $100,000 per year. At all the ports where rve have officials in railway stations, on trains and at points of vantage, they are uniformed. The uniforms are purchased by the officers themselves, but they are paid for by the government in the form of an allowance of $37.50 per annum. A uniform is supposed to last for two years. This item amounts to $58,961.50. Freight and express charges amount to approximately $17,000 and guarantee bond premiums, $8,000. The other amounts are very small.


Edward Joseph Garland: What about legal expenses?


Georges Henri Boivin: The legal expenses are not
large. There are certain court costs in connection with actions taken by the department. If my hon. friend will look up the Auditor General's report, part D, page 126, he will see the expenditure in connection with a similar vote for the year 1924-25 when legal expenses amounted to only $245.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think when
the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) asked the minister as to the reason for the increase and pointed out that it could not be a statutory increase, the minister said that was quite true; there were no statutory increases, but the trouble was that he had tried to do what the hon. member wanted him to do, namely, to economize and that there had been a cut of $100,000 in the vote. Am I right in so understanding the minister? Because I am afraid he will have to fall back on the old statutory increase; there was no cut in the vote last year.


Georges Henri Boivin: If my hon. friend desires
to say that the vote last year is the same as the vote this year, he is right. What I said was that the amount estimated for this item for 1924-25 was reduced by $100,000 over that of the previous fiscal year, 1923-24, and we reduced it too much. Since that time we have been trying to get along but we find that it is absolutely impossible to meet expenses without increasing the vote. We are not puting it back to the figure at which it stood before; we are increasing it by nearly $25,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend certainly gave me the impression that he had made a cut last year; that he had tried to cut of! $100,000-


Georges Henri Boivin: I have not yet been given
an opportunity to make any reductions.


Henry Lumley Drayton: -and therefore there had to be an increase this time. There certainly was not a reduction under the vote of the year before. In 1921-22 I find it was the same old story. The vote in 1921-22 instead of being larger is smaller; it was only $423,000 while the vote to-day is $480,000.


Georges Henri Boivin: What was the vote in
1923-24?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have just the vote for 1921-22. I keep to that year because it was the year so often talked about in the country by my hon. friend and those with him as the year of the high water mark of extravagance from which my hon. friends were to work down. I find instead, however, that
Supply-Customs

they are always working up. The vote under this head in 1921-22 was $423,000. My hon. friend must get some other excuse. I think he will have to get a third one.


Georges Henri Boivin: I told my hon. friend that in 1924-5 this vote had been reduced by $100,000 from that of the year 1923-24. Since that time it has not been increased and we find that we must increase it in order to prevent asking for supplementary estimates every year. I am glad my hon. friend pointed out that even to-day it is only
10 p.m. $55,000 larger than it was in 1921-22, because that is the admission he has just made. At that time we did not have, as we have now in the Department of Customs, the collection of the sales tax and all the other added forms of taxation. We had not started the inspection of all firms owing sales tax, and as my hon. friend knows, the sales tax is not even yet entirely collected on every line of business. It was not all collected by my hon. friend and his government. My officers are tracing people every day who are not paying and who should pay sales tax. That means all kinds of expenditure, and so when my hon. friend says that the item is only $55,000 more than it was in 1921-22, I think he is paying us quite a compliment.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is extremely ingenious, but the trouble with him is that he always forgets the facts.


Georges Henri Boivin: He is always ready to stand corrected.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I hope my h.on. friend will be a little more careful with the facts. The sales tax was in operation for two years at that time and moreover it was being collected on far more articles than is the case to-day. My hon. friend knows that or certainly he ought to know it.


Georges Henri Boivin: It was not all collected.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is not all
collected now. The minister is not collecting anything more by reason of the increase under this particular item. He knows that in connection with his sales tax where he gets anything more is through his travelling auditors. But I do not care which item that comes under; the point is that there was a larger field of work to be done in connection with the sales tax in that year than there is today.


Georges Henri Boivin: But it was not done.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend may say that it was not done, but it was done fairly well and if we look at the arrears which we have had under this government in connection with the sales tax, we shall have a job to find anything much worse done- favoured people here and favoured people there, suits here and no suits there. All rnj' hon. friend has to do is to go through the returns I had made two years ago in this House to know the absolute truth of what I am saying. The fact is that the vote was less then. I have been trying to find the year to which my hon. friend refers.


Georges Henri Boivin: That is 1923-24.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps my
hon. friend has it.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am sorry to say I have
not. I have a statement by the chief accountant which I can read to my hon. friend. I may have been misled.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is right. His government did put on $100,000 for the sake of taking it off afterwards.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to. '
To provide for expenses of maintenance of revenue cruisers and for preventive service, $376,510.
Robert James Manion: How much of this was
spent last year?


Georges Henri Boivin: I think the total amount.


Robert James Manion: I suppose there were the
Usual statutory increases?


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes, they amounted to $6,960. The rest is for the expenses of the cruisers.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will my hon.
friend please give the committee a list of the cruisers and their headquarters?


Georges Henri Boivin: We have now the following cruisers and patrol boats:
Name	Headquarters
Cruiser Margaret, Gaspe, P.Q.
Cruiser Grib, Halifax, N.S.
Patrol Boat Madeline A, Barrington, N.S.
Patrol Boat Buzz, Charlottetown, P.E.I.
Patrol Boat Bernie, Eastern Harbour, N.S.
Patrol Boat Cheticamp, Cheticamp, N.S.
Patrol Boat G., Yarmouth, N.S.
Patrol Boat No. 1, Port Daniel, P.Q.
Patrol Boat No. 2, North Sydney, N.S.
Patrol Boat No. 3, North Sydney, N.S.
Patrol Boat No. 4, North Sj'dney, N.S.
Patrol Boat No. 5, Richibucto, N.B.
Patrol Boat No. 6, Sydney Harbour, N.S.
Patrol Boat No. 7, Port Hood.
Patrol Boat No. 8, Boulardie, C.B.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Are those all the boats we have at present?


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes.

Supply-Customs


Henry Lumley Drayton: : What boats, if any, have we doing similar work on any of the Great Lakes?


Georges Henri Boivin: We have none.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is there any
patrolling of exports from Belle River and adjacent places?


Georges Henri Boivin: No, they are not patrolled.


Henry Lumley Drayton: :	Are they patrolled in any other way?


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes they are carefully
watched and an export entry is taken for every shipment of goods received, with the name of the boat and a description of the cargo. That information is given to an American officer in accordance with the terms of the treaty with the United States concerning smuggling.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Since when?


Georges Henri Boivin: Since about September, 1925, when regulations were made under the treaty. Some slight changes have been made in the instructions issued to the officers since the regulations were put into force. We have endeavoured to prevent export entries to Mexico or Cuba when the liquors were to be loaded at a lake port. These export entries were never accepted, but were replaced by new export entries prepared and signed by a duly authorized agent of the shipper at the port. My deputy has now issued instructions that the export entry or entries showing the United States to be the ultimate destination of the goods must accompany each shipment from the time it leaves the distillery in Canada.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: When was that regulation
made?


Georges Henri Boivin: If my hon. friend is referring to the regulation forbidding the exchange of export entries, it was issued on February 13.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Are there no regulations
as to the size or the kind of boats by which these shipments must be consigned?


Georges Henri Boivin: No. The only clause in
the treaty is that we shall not allow shipment of any kind of liquor from a lake port on a boat which cannot reach the destination to which it is cleared.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Is there any patrol
preventive service on the Pacific coast?


Georges Henri Boivin: On the Pacific coast we have a rented cruiser which is operated by the department in the same manner as our patrol boats on the Atlantic. There have been complaints of smuggling in British Columbia, and I think the service will have to be improved fhere by the addition of other patrol boats.


Samuel William Jacobs: Why do you not use the
Canadian Merchant Marine for that purpose?
Mr. BOIVIN.: Those boats are too large.


Peter McGibbon: How many seizures have been made on the Atlantic?


Georges Henri Boivin: Some of our boats have been very successful. The Margaret, for instance, has made several seizures, and several of the other patrol boats have reported infractions of the law to preventive officers on shore and thus enabled them to make seizures. I am frank to admit, as I have already done to-day, that the preventive service is not what it should be. I am not getting the results that we would like to get from it. I hope by closer co-operation with the provincial authorities to do much better.


Peter McGibbon: Can the minister give
the committee any idea of the number of seizures?


Georges Henri Boivin: The number of seizures of
liquor smuggled in from the ocean to the Maritime provinces during the open season last year was about forty. There should have been a great many more.


Mr. HEAPS:: There is one question I would like to ask the minister. If I understand these estimates correctly, in the two columns it just shows the estimates for the fiscal year. Is it not possible to have another column showing the amounts spent during the last fiscal year?


Georges Henri Boivin: In making up the estimates we have followed the usual custom, and the amount expended during the last fiscal year has never appeared. My hon. friend will find, however, that the expenditures detailed in the Auditor General's report correspond exactly with the votes in the estimates for the previous year. He can find in the Auditor General's report under the same number a description of the expenditures made under eadh item voted last year.
.Sir HENRY DRAYTON:	No, the year
before.


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes, the year before. There is always an intervening calendar year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is nearly right; he is only out a year this time.
Supply-Public Works


Georges Henri Boivin: It is only a slip of the
tongue.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend 'has made the same slip several times before. A person trying to follow the books would be hopelessly lost if he followed my hon. friend's directions. I wonder if the minister, in the course of his investigation, found out the number of ports to be looked after, the ports of export in the neighbourhood of lake St. Clair and the St. Clair river-Detroit, Windsor and so on?


Georges Henri Boivin: I have not. That would
come not under this item, but the next one. W'hat I am willing to offer my hon. friend is this: I will get a complete list of these ports which should be watched by preventive officers, and I will not ask to go any further to-night. After we have passed this item of $376,510, we shall let the remainder stand for further discussion. I will have the list of outports to-morrow.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I take it the
suggestion is that we stop business now?


Georges Henri Boivin: No, just pass this item and
then take up another department.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I see no reason
why we should drop this and go to something else. We allowed the government to take up estimates to-day without a motion, and I see no reason why the government should now call some other estimates, just for the purpose of obviating a motion. That can be the only reason.


Ernest Lapointe: No. If my hon. friend
will permit me, we desire to have at least one other department go on with its estimates Thursday and Friday. It may be necessary to ask the Minister of Customs to be in the House all day Friday and even Thursday, and it would hardly be fair to start other estimates on those days. If my hon. friend will allow the Public Works estimates to get down tonight so that my colleague the Minister of Public Works will be able to go on with his estimates the latter part of this week if necessary, I think everything will be all right.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Frankly, I do
not remember any particular reference by the government as to what t/hey intended to take up. I am perfectly content, however.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, we mentioned
Customs and Public Works.


Robert James Manion: I do not wish to doubt
the minister's word, but I certainly was in the House and I do not remember the Prime Minister mentioning Public Works.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. It is in Hansard. The Prime Minister said1:
To-morrow is government day. We purpose taking such motions as may be on the order paper and then to proceed with supply. We will take up first the estimates of the Department of Customs, and if we do not occupy the entire day with those estimates, we will take up the Department of Public Works.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then under
those circumstances I have no right, of course, to object, but if we do that I would suggest that we rise now. We have done pretty well, and these two items are so closely connected one with the other that I think we should now rise, report progress and then call an item in Public Works to accommodate my hon. friend.


Ernest Lapointe: The consideration of this item will be suspended, that is all.
Item stands.
Public Works-public buildings-Nova Scotia :
Halifax-Bellevue	building-improvements
and repairs	 $ 4,000
Halifax Immigration building-payments to Department of Railways and Canals for
accommodation	 25,000
Halifax Quarantine station-repairs and improvements	 5,000
Halifax Rockhead hospital-repairs and improvements	 2,250
North Sydney-Quarantine station-alterations
and repairs	 2,350
Pictou-public building-addition and repairs.	9,000
Stellarton-public	building	 10,000


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have now a suggestion to make to my hon. friend. I do not think this is a very serious item, so I think we could pass it now, and adjourn. That would probably save time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, seconded by Mr. Robb:
That on Wednesday the 17th of March and every subsequent Wednesday until the end of the session the House shall meet at three o'clock in the af'ernoon.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Questions
Mr. LAPOINTE moved the adjournment of the House.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What business
to-morrow?


Ernest Lapointe: Private members' day
to-morrow.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.	.
Wednesday, March 17, 1926