1926-06-07

PRIVATE BILLS COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. F. KAY (Brome-Missisquoi) (for Mr. Parent) presented the fifth report of the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the raising, iby way of loan, under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, by the issue and sale or pledge of securities of Canada such sum or sums of money as may be required, not to exceed in the whole the sum of one hundred and fifty million dollars, for paying or redeeming or otherwise retiring the whole or any portion of loans or obligations of Canada and for public works and general purposes, the principal and interest to be a charge upon and payable out of the consolidated revenue fund.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: I would ask my hon. friend to give us a few more particulars as to what is to be done in connection with this money-in Short, how much money is required for retirement of loans, what loans will be retired, and how much is needed for public works and general purposes?


Mr. ROBB:: I will have that information
for my hon. friend on Monday when I move the resolution. I noticed, on receiving a copy of the order paper, that there had been inserted in the resolution "for public works and general purposes," and that was not intended.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That struck me as being a little off.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Water Rights in Railway Belt

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: On January 8, I placed a resolution on the order paper having reference to rural credits. The government having taken kindly to the suggestion and having introduced a bill in harmony with the terms of the resolution, and as the resolution occupies a page and a half of the order paper, I ask leave to withdraw the resolution and save a few dollars or a few cents in printing costs.


Mr. SPEAKER:: By unanimous consent
of the House.
Resolution withdrawn.



CUSTOMS INQUIRY COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I hear some reports of
the government preparing for an early prorogation. I have no information personally as to when the report of the investigation into the Customs department will be brought in, but I express the hope and indeed I assume, that there will be no thought of arrangements for prorogation without providing the most ample time for the receipt of and discussion of that report.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Certainly, that is taken
for granted, I think.



SENATE REFORM

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: May I ask the Prime
Minister if there is to be any action taken this session with respect to Senate reform? If not, when is the next move to be made in this direction and of what character?


Mr. JACOBS:: At the next sitting of the
House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might say to my right
hon. friend that the government would not like to prolong the session unduly by introducing the subject of Senate reform at this stage. My right hon. friend may be sure it will come up in due course.


Arthur Meighen: I should like to know
further, if it is the intention of the government to call a provincial conference on the subject this summer.
(Sir Henry Drayton.]


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I will not say just when but no doubt a conference will be held.


Arthur Meighen: Before another session?


John Warwick King: I would not
say as to that.



NORTH ATLANTIC COMBINE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: Referring to the subject of the Richmond Hill speech of my right hon. friend, is any action to be taken this session with reference to destroying or otherwise impairing the North Atlantic Combine, or any other monopoly by land or sea?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: That is for the Montreal meeting. Keep something for the meeting.


Arthur Meighen: No answer.



WATER RIGHTS IN RAILWAY BELT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr, J. A. FRASER (Cariboo):	I should
like to ask a question of the Minister of the Interior relating to the administration of water in the railway belt in British Columbia, based on the following information:
- In 1912 a Railway Belt Water Act was passed-amended in 1913-under which the Dominion practically transferred to the province the administration of water in the railway belt.
The 1913 act provided that all water within the railway belt should, during the pleasure of the Governor in Council, be administered under the water acts of the provinces in force at that time and it was further provided that the Governor in Council might direct that any act or portion thereof passed by British Columbia after March 3, 1913, relating to water in the province should apply to the water in the railway belt as if such act were enacted by the parliament of Canada. However such order in council had to be published for four consecutive weeks in the Canada Gazette and laid before both houses of parliament within the first fifteen days of the session next after the date thereof and such order in council was to remain in force only until the day immediately succeeding the prorogation of that session of parliament, unless during the session it was approved by resolution of both houses of parliament.

Transferable Vote
Has the procedure outlined in the aforementioned act- been complied with to ensure to licensees valid titles to water in the railway belt of British Columbia? If not what is the position of the licensees of water in the railway belt in British Columbia?
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: I hope on Monday to introduce a bill covering all the questions asked by my hon. friend. The bill is amending legislation which will cover in full all those questions.



IMPERIAL PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: I desire
to call the attention of the government, and particularly the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment, to a return brought down in sessional paper number 155, and bearing reference number 48, relating to the administration of imperial pensions by the Canadian government. This return is clearly incomplete. It contains a copy of a memorandum or letter delivered by the deputy minister in London to the Ministry of Pensions in October, 1925, and the memorandum refers to a letter received from the Minister of Pensions dated July 13, 1925, and to a memorandum accompanying the same. There is no copy of either the letter or memorandum in this return of the date I have mentioned, July 13, 1925. I ask that that be brought down as soon as possible.


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment):: I have no knowledge in connection with the matter but I will be very glad to make inquiry and obtain the information.



CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE-SHIPMENT OF CATTLE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. A. MULLINS (Marquette):: In
reference to the shipment of 116 head of cattle from the experimental farms, by the Donaldson line steamship Carma, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) why the Canadian Government Merchant Marine was not used for this purpose?


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: I have no detailed knowledge of the incident to which my hon. friend refers. We did send some cattle overseas but as to the exact number, the boat carrying them and date of sailing I have no details. If my hon. friend will put his question on the order paper full details will be supplied.



APPOINTMENT OF E. J. SEXSMITH

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles A. Stewart: I promised the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mi1. Edwards) that I would give him an amended answer to his question regarding E. J. Sexsmith. I observe the hon. member is not in his seat but I will put the answer on Hansard. I find that I cannot file the amended answer, and therefore I will give it verbally:
Question 5.-Was E. J. Sexsmith appointed on his merits after competitive examination?
The answer is: there was no examination.
Question 6.-If not, on whose recommendation was he appointed?
The answer is that the appointment was made by the department and is of a temporary character for the purpose of endeavouring to secure repayment of loans issued to Indian soldier settlers.


Mr. HOCKEN:: How many?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who nominated him?



SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: I
think the leader of the opposition has overlooked one great piece of legislation, and I would be interested in knowing what the future of that will be. I refer to the single transferable vote. W'ill there be legislation this session or at some subsequent session in regard to that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say to my hon.
friend that the government would not care to introduce one piece of legislation dealing with elections without taking up the general question of amending the Elections Act. As the government is not contemplating a general election before another session, we thought amendments to the Elections Act might well stand over till next year. If hon. friends really feel concerned about holding an election, we can still arrange to bring in amendments to the law respecting elections.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I take it as an intimation that the single transferable vote will be * introduced next session?


Ernest Lapointe: Speaking for myself, I may say that I am doing missionary work in favour of the measure.
White Bear Indian Reserve


Arthur Meighen: Will the Minister of Justice explain, in view of the previous commitment of the government with regard to the measure, with whom he is doing the missionary work?


Ernest Lapointe: Well, with the other side.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: How is the hon. member getting along?


Ernest Lapointe: Poorly.



WHITE BEAR INDIAN RESERVE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ROBERT McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: I desire to draw the attention of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs to the contents of a communication I have received from the residents of my constituency concerning conditions in the White Bear Indian reserve, near Areola. This is written by the secretary of the Areola presbytery of the United Church of Canada, and with the permission of the House I will read the communication. It is as follows:
To the Honourable,
the House of Commons, Ottawa.
We the presbytery of Areola, in the United Church of Canada, deeply concerned about the physical condition of the Indians, on the White Bear reserve, wish to draw the attention of your honourable House to these conditions, that they may be materially improved. A31 told there are some 235 persons on the reserve, a large number of these are suffering from physical ailments, such as discharging ears, inflamed eyes, diseased tonsils and adenoids, and especially tuberculosis, and while the medical officer is doing all he can to minister to the bodily needs of the ailing, much more needs to be done.
There is quite a number of Indians on the reserve who are tubercular some of these quite advanced, and there is practically nothing being done for them, or to prevent the spread of that scourge. On a recent visit, by some members of this presbytery it was found, that several persons, advanced in years, werein the last stage of consumption, and they had neither suitable food, or nursing, or dwelling place, and know nothing of the precautions necessary to prevent the spread of the disease.
We are aware that there are four government hospitals in the province for the care of diseased Indians, and four nurses to attend to the physical well being of the people. Anji while appreciating the occasional visits of Nurse Colvin to the White Bear reserve, we desire to point out, that the tie which binds Indian parents and children together is 60 strong that the [DOT]former will not permit the latter to enter a hospital, or sanatarium, and all indian adults have such a dread of chloroform, that they are evidently unwilling to enter a hospital for treatment.
We are strongly of the belief that the Indians on the White Bear reserve need in the worst way, a resident nurse, to see to it, that those suffering from any disease have the treatment which the medical officer prescribes, so that they may have a Chance to get well. At the present time, as things are, many of them are doomed to die for lack of a trained nurse, to administer medicine and give necessary nursing.
rMr. Lapointe.]
Of the 64 houses on the reserve, ten have a shingle roof, others have sods or clay, which cannot keep out rain.
He goes on to tell about the tubercular patients sleeping on the floor under these conditions. He then says:
In several of these one-roomed houses, two families or more try to live together. Only two families on the reserve keep pigs or poultry, only one man keeps cows, and the children being raised without milk suffer seriously from malnutrition.
I would ask the minister, first, whether he is aware of the existence of these conditions and if so what explanation he can give. Secondly, if he is not aware of this state of affairs, can I have his assurance that he will properly investigate the subject and, in the event of the conditions being found to be as outlined in this communication, that some steps will be taken immediately to afford the necessary relief?


Charles A. Stewart: I have no doubt that the allegations contained in the letter my hon friend has read are correct so far as tuberculosis is concerned. This is a disease which is very prevalent amongst the Indian tribes, and it is one which it _ is difficult to combat for the very reason outlined in that letter, namely, that the Indians will not leave their homes to go to the hospitals provided for the care of such patients. To establish on each reserve a hospital for this special purpose is out of the question; it would be too expensive. I think I can assure my hon. friend that the commissioner at Regina is fully aware of the conditions on these reserves particularly in Saskatchewan. Recommendation for a nursing staff was made some three years ago, and four nurses are now travelling through the provinces examining Indian children and giving such relief as they can. I am informed that this work has been very beneficial to the Indians, and good progress is being made. It would be idle to deny that there is a great deal of tuberculosis among the Indians, not only in the western provinces but throughout Canada. It is a very serious problem for the department. That, I think, is all I can say in reply to my hon. friend.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: I have allowed the reading of this lengthy letter, but such permission must not be taken as a precedent.

Quebec Fortifications
I realize that there is urgent need for help, the Indians being after all more or less minors and wards of the government. No debate, however, may ensue. The matter is one for the department.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Would not this be a
suitable ease for a special investigation that might prolong the temporary employment of Mr. Sexsmith?


Charles A. Stewart: The hon.
gentleman must really be joking, because Mr. Sexsmith, however estimable an individual he may be, does not possess any medical knowledge so far as I know.



WAR REPARATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Samuel William Jacobs: I want to
ask the Secretary of State whether it is the intention of the government to introduce legislation this year to provide for the diverting of money received under the Dawes plan to the civilian population who suffered during the war. Legislation was introduced last year but upon some opposition being shown by the other side it was rather hastily withdrawn. The matter has not been taken up since and unless legislation is introduced this year it will mean that for another year those people who have suffered grievously will not receive any compensation. In the meantime the government will have this money in their possession.


Ernest Lapointe: There is no intention of introducing such legislation. As a matter of fact the work of investigating the claims which have been sent in is not yet completed, and then it will be a question of policy as to the distribution of the money that comes to this country under the Dawes reparation scheme. I remember the legislation introduced last year, mention of which has been made by the hon. gentleman. The object of that legislation was to empower the government to distribute the money among the various claimants, and it it was contested more generally I think than my hon. friend suggests; I believe the criticism came from all sides of the House. It was contended that we ought to consider very carefully the question whether the country itself should not retain at least part of the money for reparation of losses and damage sustained by the nation as well as by private individuals. However, the matter will have to be determined when the investigation is completed.



QUEBEC FORTIFICATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: I desire to call the attention of the government and particularly of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald, Antigonish) to a condition in the city of Quebec to which reference has been made in the press. It is alleged that the walls and fortifications of Quebec are in imminent danger of falling and of causing, in such a fall, serious damage to life and property. It is also alleged that the walls under the care of the federal government are in a filthy, disreputable and dangerous condition. I would ask the minister if he has any knowledge of these conditions and if he has any intention of effecting a remedy.


Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence):: The situation in regard to the walls of the citadel at Quebec is this. From a military standpoint the citadel has become entirely obselete and the department has no great interest in maintaining it as a matter of defence. The ground, however, is of great historic value and we feel that the *city and province of Quebec might well share in whatever the Dominion government might do in the way of preserving the citadel as a spot of historic interest.
Conferences have been held with that end in view and estimates have been obtained as to what the cost would be of restoring the citadel and maintaining it in a proper state of repair. Those estimates show that the cost would run in the vicinity of $425,000 so that a very costly proposal has to be considered. The department at all times has been ready to confer with the city and province of Quebec as to what steps might be taken towards the preservation of this very interesting, memorial of the past.
My attention has been called to a statement in the press with reference to the condition of a portion of the ramparts and what is known as Rampart street. I desire to say in answer to my hon. friend that the records of the department show that that particular street and its condition are entirely under the control of the city of Quebec which took the street over in 1922 and assumed the responsibility of looking after it in all respects. If anything is wrong in connection with that street the fault is that of the city of Quebec.
There appears in the estimates of this year an item of $10,000 which was rendered necessary in order to prevent the falling of a portion of the citadel walls which would have imperilled lives and property, and tenders have now been called for the purpose of carrying on this work as quickly as possible.

Supply-Railways and Canals



RAILWAY LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Henry Lumley Drayton: We have had several questions as to legislation. There is one in which I am particularly interested and to which I was looking forward with some hope. It was referred to by my right hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie .King) in the course of his remarks. What I have in mind is the legislation to be brought down for the purpose of solving the railway problem. May I ask when that legislation may be expected and what the solution will be?


John Warwick King: I am not sure that I promised legislation.


Arthur Meighen: Oh yes.


John Warwick King: If I made a promise it will be carried out.



CUSTOMS TARIFF, 1907, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of Bill No. 114, to amend the Customs Tariff, 1907.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third-time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Duff in the chair.
RaiLways and Canals-Civil government, salaries and contingencies, $260,155.
Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend was to give us some information on this score.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): My hon. friend wanted to know on the last occasion on which these estimates were before the committee the cost of the comptroller's branch.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The auditing.


Mr. DUNNING:: The whole cost of the comptroller's branch was $82,384,59.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What did it cost in 1921 when it was looking after the Canadian National Railways?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not the figures for 1921. My hon. friend did not ask for that the other day.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is quite true.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am informed that the cost is about the same and the work is about the same as it was in 1921.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have some
difficulty in accepting my hon. friend's answer and when I say some difficulty I mean considerable difficulty. In 1921 the department was actively engaged in looking after the National railways. It had its solicitors to look after it; there was this thing and that thing to be done all the time; the officials were checking accounts and the like. To-day all they are doing, as I understand the matter, is looking after the accounts of the canals. My hon. friend says that the work is about the same.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. The last time the estimate was before the committee I mentioned the fact that during the time the department directly administered the railways the cost to which my hon. friend has reference was charged to the railways directly. In the old Intercolonial days, as will be remembered, that portion of the staff was very largely at Moncton. The same charges relating to accounting are made to-day with respect to the Department of Railways as were - made prior to 1921. The items to which my hon. friend refers were always chargeable to railway accounts, so I am informed. The staff to-day is 103; in 1921, it was 104.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What are the
items that now refer to the department?


Charles Avery Dunning: This is a general
summary of the work it is doing now which will probably satisfy my hon. friend:
The details of operation of the Canadian Government railways and the field supervision of construction and betterments were never matters dealt with in their detail by the departmental staff.
That was the point I was making.
The placing of the Canadian government railways under the National board of operation and management has occasioned no change in the administration of the Canadian Government Railways Act and the other acts prescribing the administration of similar property. The Canadian government railways continue to be operated under the government railways act, the only difference in relation to the departments being that a board of directors of the Canadian National Railways now perform the duties previously assigned to a general manager.
That is the only difference.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend has not grasped my question. My question is:	What railway work has the department
now to do? What is left?


Charles Avery Dunning: Railway matters dealt
with by the department. I have a partial list of them before me. Those matters are: Obtaining authority of the Governor General

Supply-Railways and Canals
in Council for entering into contracts for work to be carried out on the Canadian government railways, executing such contracts and recording in connection with them-


Henry Lumley Drayton: Suppose we just stop at the very first one. When the matter is left entirely in the hands of the board of directors, what is the necessity of having them do their work through this department instead of through the organization which is doing so much more?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is well
aware of course that although the Canadian National Railways is a system, the different parts of it still maintain their individual entities. The title to the former Canadian government railways is still in the crown. The crown must provide the necessary funds. The same recording is necessary in the department now that the work is being carried on by a board of directors as was necessary when the same work was being performed by a general manager; the relationship of the department to the board of directors is identical with its former relationship to. the general manager of the system; and financing, recording and accounting in the department is necessary just as much to-day as it was then in connection with expenditures of that kind.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is quite true, Mr. Chairman, that the country still owns the national railways. It is equally true that it owns the Canadian Northern railway, the Grand Trunk railway and the rest of them; it is also equally true that so far as the Grand Trunk is concerned, its identity has to be maintained by reason of certain contractual obligations which are still outstanding. But the minister is not getting sent in particulars of Grand Trunk finance, nor particulars of all the other properties that are kept distinct, and there is no reason in the world why it should be done here. Look at the farce of the thing, Mr. Chairman, in this case the minister has absolutely nothing more to do with the contracts of the Canadian National system, having regard to the Intercolonial railway, than he has with anything else.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is wrong
there.	[DOT]


Henry Lumley Drayton: Technically so.
But is my hon. friend going to say he is interfering in the busines management of the Intercolonial? If he is not so interfering, all this so-called work is unnecessary. The thing is perfectly plain and simple. We have separate identity in connection with this property; granted. We have got it separate in connection with the different component companies, many of them, and we have got it separate in connection with the Intercolonial railway. But there is no more reason why the department should be interfering with the Intercolonial-if it is interfering-than with any other part of the system. And if it is not interefering, wherein has it any more work to do in connection with contracts for the Intercolonial than it has in connection with contracts for what used to be the Grand Trunk?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am a little surprised
that my hon. friend does not know the situation much more intimately. As a matter of fact, while not interfering in any way with the management of the former Intercolonial railway, the Minister of Railways does have a definite responsibility with regard to that road which he does not have with respect to other parts of the Canadian National system. It still remains the property of the crown. The Minister of Railways is still responsible for its operation, and he discharges that responsibility by ituming over matters Of operation to the board of directors of the Canadian National Railway system. He cannot, however, dissociate himself from responsibility for capital or other expenditures on the property. Under the law they must be made by the Department of Railways and Canals, and the minister is responsible in a different way in connection with that system as compared with other portions of the present National system. I agree with my hon. friend that as soon as we can get refinancing of the whole property, including the old government system, it will be desirable to have the same conditions apply to all of the different entities now comprising the National railways; but until that time comes the Minister of Railways must sign all contracts for work done on the former Intercolonial, on the former Transcontinental and on the former Prince Edward Island railway. His relationship is entirely different to the former government roads from what it is to the companies which were taken over as part of the Canadian National system. I intend, of course, as Minister of Railways, to endeavour to work towards the elimination of those conditions. But so far as the Intercolonial and the Transcontinental are concerned, may I say to my hon. friend that, since he raised the point the other day, I have looked into it, so far as my time would permit, and I find that the work ol the department in relation to those roads has not changed by reason of their becoming part of the Canadian National system. The relationship is only

Supply-Railways and Canals
changed in the particular to which I referred, that the former general manager is now replaced !by the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Chairman,
the minister is very happily confusing matters of form with matters of substance. In matters of form he is perfectly right-if he wants to go on duplicating work he can do so. He has already turned around and said to the management that they can run this government railway. And he can let them run it; or, on the other hand, he can keep up this unnecessary organization and do just what he is doing. There is no more reason in the world why there cannot be agents for the making of a contract for that purpose than there are agents for running the railway and coming to a hundred and one decisions all the time. Then my hon. friend says that there is responsibility here in the crown for capital account. Of course there is; but there is responsibility for everything in the crown. Is my hon. friend going to tell me that in connection with capital account this government has nothing to do with it, whether it be for the Grand Trunk, the Canadian Northern or any other part of the system? He will not tell me that. If he does, he is making a most extraordinary statement. The government is responsible for every single dollar of capital account. My hon. friend knows it, and he himself has said on other occasions that so far as capital account is concerned that is something this parliament is responsible for. Well, if he was right then, it is responsible for capital account in connection with Grand Trunk extensions and contracts just as much as it is here. My hon friend can say: The department takes contracts in my name. So it does. But he knows he can take contracts in the name of his agents just the same. Just simply for the purpose of keeping on this vote of $81,000 he is treating the board of directors as agents only for certain purposes, and for all other purposes he is carrying on the old machinery.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is unfair -I am sure quite unconsciously so. The $81,000 for the controller's office is for the controller and the work of his office in connection with the whole Department of Railways and Canals. If I might be permitted to say so, the argument my hon. friend last Advanced, if sound, is surely an argument for an increase in the staff. If I am responsible as Minister of Railways for all the capital expenditures of the Canadian National, then
(Mr. Dunning.]
naturally I require a larger staff than in former Intercolonial days when the minister was responsible only for the Intercolonial and the National Transcontinental. However, that would be a quibble.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Worse than a
quibble-nonsense.


Charles Avery Dunning: Then the nonsense is
his.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No. My hon.
friend admits that it is a quibble. I say it is worse.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is a statutory
duty here, and as long as the Minister of Railways feels the responsibility which he ought to feel in relation to a statute he will feel a more detailed responsibility with respect to contracts for work done on the former government railway system than he will feel with respect to those portions of the present National system which were formerly operated under private companies. I may say to my hon. friend that formerly he operated for two years or more under the system which still obtains, because it was recognized there, as it is recognized to-day, that until we can put this system together financially, these distinctions must be maintained. We must know how that property stands against which there are no mortgages and no securities, and we must know how each of the various constituent companies stands in relation to the whole. I can assure my hon. friend, however, that I will look carefully into the necessity for this in the future; he knows that I have been but a short time in the department. Since he first raised the matter, a few days ago, I have satisfied myself that this is needed for the present at least. I can further assure my hon. friend that if I find it not needed I will undertake not to spend the amount, and to reduce the staff if a reduction is possible. Further than that I cannot go at present.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend says my argument was one for a larger staff instead of a smaller staff, and then he was good enough to say that his statement was a quibble. He might have gone still further and said that his statement was pure nonsense as well. The minister says that if he is responsible for the capital accounts of all these different lines he will have to add to the staff.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, no.

Supply-Railways and Canals


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, the nonsense is admitted, so we will get rid of that. Then the question arises of any responsiblity for capital as to one part of the system or the other; it arises in the minister's own admission. He now shakes his head; he thinks he has it both coming and going, but things do not work that way. With regard to capital expense the government has the responsibility of seeing to it that the public moneys are not pried loose without parliamentary authority. I think my hon. friend will absolutely agree with that; capital expenditures cannot be made except by the vote of the representatives of the people, and new obligations cannot be so taken up. Does my hon. friend agree with that, or is it his view that new capital obligations can be taken on without reference to parliament? The minister has not yet made up his mind; I think we should know before this item passes, because it is a very simple thing. Will the minister tell us what his view is as to whether capital expenditures should be made and responsibilities incurred without leave of the House?


Mr. SMITH:: I would like to call
to the attention of the minister the railway conditions in the east, referring particularly to the railway service between Mac-can and Joggin Mines, in the county of Cumberland. This line is owned by the Maritime Coa'l and Power Company, and has been described on various occasions as a disgrace to the community and to Canada. The country served is rich in coal, lumber and agricultural production of various kinds. Appeals have been made to me on various occasions to place this matter before the government and ask if they cannot do something to improve this service. It is quite true that this line is not owned by the Canadian National Railways, but it can be secured by them and I am told it has been offered at a very fair and reasonable price. These people have suffered for a number of years because of this inadequate service, and I would respectfully request that the minister take this under consideration in an effort to improve railway conditions in this county.


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot undertake that
we will purchase any more railroads at present. There are a number of ventures, large and small, in various parts of Canada, which desire to fall into the lap of the Canadian National system, one of which is the road referred to by my hon. friend. I would not like to undertake the purchase of any more railways at present; we want to see a little more of what we already have before we undertake fresh obligations in that connection-258
tion. But I can assure my hon. friend that I will be very glad to look into the matter in regard to the operation of the road, and see if anything can be done. Is this line operated by the Canadian National system to-day?


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: No, it is a private line.


Charles Avery Dunning: Then I cannot hold out much hope to my hon. friend of any more railroads being purchased at present.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I am informed from most
reliable sources that this small line is a paying proposition and has been paying for the past number of years. It serves
4 p.m. these mines I have spoken of and also a country rich in other resources. So far as the operation is concerned the Canadian National would not be losing by absorbing this line, which can be secured at a very reasonable figure it is said.


Charles Avery Dunning: There are a number of
factors which have to be taken into account in considering whether a privately-owned railroad can be operated as profitably by the Canadian National system. A private road would be able to charge much more for some local rates than would ibe possible under the National system, and in addition they would be able to pay lower wages, generally speaking. The hon. member and those owning the road have a perfect right to put before the minister a proposal referring to the purchase of the line, and if that is done the matter will be examined from every standpoint. That would be the best course to pursue, but I cannot give my hon. friend much encouragement in the way he desires.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I hope the minister is not
insinuating that I am acting for the company in any way.


Charles Avery Dunning: No; I am sorry if my
hon. friend gathered that impression.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I wish to assure him that
I have no connection whatever with the company, nor have I approached the company in this matter. Indignation meetings have been held in this district because of the poor service, and I was asked to bring the matter to the attention of the minister on behalf of those living in that locality.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: If the statements of
the minister are correct, notwithstanding the creation of the Canadian National Railways board and the transference of the Intercolonial railway to the board for operation, we still require a duplicate organization.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not at all.



*Supply-Railways and Canals


George Brecken Nicholson: My hon. friend says
not at all, but just look at these items; chief engineer; assistant chief engineer; structural engineer; travelling auditors; senior assistant engineers; draftsmen and right of way agents. Are these not the executive officers who formerly had control of the operations of the Intercolonial railway? In order that we may clear the matter up, is the House to understand that in connection with matters of bridge construction, engineering, the securing of rights of way and all these matters necessarily coming into the operation of the Intercolonial and Transcontinental railways, the Department of Railways and Canals take charge of and supervise the work, apart from the Canadian National Railways? The minister shakes his head and says no; then why this organization?


Charles Avery Dunning: I explained that matter
fully the other evening when we were in supply on the item; I gave a list of the employees, those exclusively connected with canals, and those who had a little to do with both canals and railways. We need engineers in connection with the canal system of the country. The list which my hon. friend read a minute ago relates to canals. If he refers to the Hansard report of the debate on the other occasion on which this matter was before the committee he will find that I gave complete details mentioning the work of every officer. In the main these officers are doing canal work. The right of way agent is doing, it is true, some railway work as well in connection with the Canadian government railways; but we need a right of way agent in connection with our canal work, especially as long as the Welland canal construction is in progress, because there are expropriation proceedings and acquirements of right of way in connection with that work. Practically all of those to whom my hon. friend has just referred are canal officers, and they are necessary in connection with the canal work, which is a very large work indeed.


George Brecken Nicholson: Some of us have reached the conclusion, or have been led to the conclusion by statements that have been made, that the Canadian government railways were no longer under the control of the Department of Railways and Canals, but had been transferred to the Canadian railway board and had become non-political institutions. But if the minister's statement is correct, before the board of directors or the officials of the Canadian National Railways can determine any matter in relation to rights of way, the construction of bridges or the construe-
tion of branch lines and the direction in which they are to run, and so on, it must come under the direct control and supervision of the Department of Railways and Canals. Consequently we are simply retaining the dual organization. Is there any reason why these railways after they have been under this board for four years, should continue that relation any more than in the case of the Grand Trunk Railway? To say that the one is the property of the Canadian people while the other is not is pure fiction. The Grand Trunk, the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific are just as much the property of the Canadian people. In what respect do they differ? Have the Canadian people no responsibility in connection with the so-called Canadian government railways that they have not in connection with the others? If there is a deficit on one, who pays it? If capital expenditure is to be made on either, who pays it? They are all a direct charge on the Canadian people, and it is purely and simply because of the maintenance of this fiction that we are unable to ascertain just what these railways are costing either to operate or to capitalize. Four years have elapsed since the last act considered necessary was passed in order to round out and complete this system, and practically four years since the present board was appointed to consolidate these railways and make them into one system. And yet to-day we are faced with the fact that the Transcontinental and the Intercolonial, with all the branch lines connected therewith, are still under the direct control of the Department of Railways and Canals, and that the Minister of Railways must, in the final analysis, be responsible for their operation. That is the conclusion from the minister's own statement.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, no. I must protest at such words being put into my mouth. I have explained at least three times on this occasion, as well as on the former one, and may I say again to my hon. friend, that so far as operation is concerned they are absolutely and completely under the board of directors of the Canadian National Railway. Now is that clear? The minister has nothing to do to-day with operation. We are discussing here staff matters. The relationship of the minister to the road is the same as it formerly was, with this difference-that instead of a general manager of the former government lines there is a board of directors. That is the only difference. The departmental relationship is just the same. As to the difference between the former government
%

Supply-Railways and Canals
lines and the lines taken over from other companies I have already dealt with that, I think, on some three occasions. And may I point out to my hon. friend that my responsibility in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific is entirely different from what it is in connection with the Canadian National Railway. It is with respect to the property in a capital sense and with respect to indebtedness in the hands of a receiver; the Minister of Railways is the receiver operating under direction from the Exchequer Court of Canada. There again the property relationship is an entirely different one. I have documents by the score to sign in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, as receiver, dealing with matters entirely different from those dealt with in any other connection, because the same matters affecting other parts of the system are dealt with by the Canadian National railway board. The same is true with reference to the Canadian government railways. The act with respect to the Canadian government railways remains to-day exactly as it was when the Canadian National Railway System was created, and it is not thought wise to change that relationship until it is possible to put the whole system together into one financial entity. So far as staff matters are concerned I can assure my hon. friend, from what I now know, that it will make very little difference after all in connection with the controlling of the railway system. We are taking now the salaries of 93 employees all told in the Department of Railways and Canals who have to do with the administration of the canal system of the country, and also such supervising of canal work as is necessary between the Canadian National Railway board and this parliament. That is what we are talking about. So far as political control of operation is concerned I object in the strongest possible terms to any such interpretation as the hon. gentleman has placed upon my words. The whole railroad system from the Atlantic to the Pacific, so far as operation is concerned, is under the control of the board of directors, and no interference of any kind occurs so far as the minister is concerned.


George Brecken Nicholson: Just in relation to this confusion of the relationship of the roads. My hon. friend brings in the receivership of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and uses that to support an argument in connection with a similar relationship that is maintained in regard to the Canadian government railways or the Intercolonial and the Transcontinental. He again uses that argument, as was done on a 14011-2561
former occasion, to maintain the position that 'because of these relationships and the act at present in existence in regard to the Intercolonial and Transcontinental it is impossible to consolidate these lines for capital purposes. Surely the minister is not going to take the position-notwithstanding thei fact that he has only been in office as Minister of Railways for a comparatively short time-that the receivership of the Grand Trunk Pacific or the act in relation to the Intercolonial and Canadian National railways prevents action, being taken that will bring the whole of these lines into one entity for financing purposes and directly under the control of the board of directors of the Canadian National Railway? The fact that the minister is receiver in form -I repeat in form, and in form only-because of the peculiar conditions under which the Grand Trunk Pacific went into bankruptcy, does not entitle him to take the stand that he does. Why was the receivership created? Because the Canadian people were, in reality, those who foreclosed. The government of Canada were the only individuals that could establish a receivership. It was to protect their own investments or guarantees that the road was taken over. But surely my hon. friend does not mean to tell us that now, after a lapse of four or five years, that condition maintains and that the railways must be continued as separate entities and financed in the confusing manner in which they are at present. I take it it is not in order at this time to discuss the capital expenditure in connection with these railways, but when the proper item comes up we shall see the direction in which this leads. With regard to the political operation, the minister says that the only difference at present is that the board of management or board of directors are taking the place of general manager, and that the minister occupies the same position he formerly did. That is exactly the point I make. The minister gave directions to the general manager as to what the policy in relation to the railway should be, and if the same relationship now exists, then the present ministry gives directions to the board of directors as to policy.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member is again putting words into my mouth. The whole point arose out of the hon. member for West York endeavouring to show that the Department of Railways and Canals could get along with a smaller staff. So far as the staff relationships are concerned the position is as I have indicated. It is not that the Minister
Supply-Railways and Canals

of Railways dictates policies to the management of the railway. I shall say no more about it.


George Brecken Nicholson: I resent the assertion
that I twisted anything or put anything in the mouth of the minister. I took the minister's own words, namely, that the only change in relationship was that the board of directors took the place of the general manager. Is that an unfair statement of the minister's position?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


George Brecken Nicholson: Did the minister not
say that the only change was that the board of directors took the place of general manager?


Charles Avery Dunning: So far as staff relationships and control are concerned.


George Brecken Nicholson: What other relationships are there? If the board of directors occupy the same position in regard to staff relationship and control as the general manager formerly did, am I twisting it when I say that the minister is now in the same relationship to the board of directors as he*was to the general manager?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, you are.


George Brecken Nicholson: Then I cannot understand the English language or the interpretation of the minister's language. His position was perfectly clear.


Charles Avery Dunning: My bon. friend knows
perfectly well what the position is. He can go on talking, but I d'o not think I need talk. The committee understands the position perfectly.


George Brecken Nicholson: I frankly confess that before the minister spoke, and before he stated that it required the same expenditure and the same staff now as it formerly did, because of the same relationship existing, I had been under the impression that the relationship had *changed. But it is on the strength of the minister's own statement that I take the position I do. Going back to the question of capital expenditure, while the minister and the government must be responsible, in so far as the expenditure itself is concerned, its authorization and administration, so long as it remains in the hands of the minister and of the government, political interference with the railways will continue and the severance of that relationship cannot be put into complete practice. That is the position.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister has not told me yet what his views are as to whether or not we have any parliamentary

control of the capital accounts of the railway generally, and whether in his view capital expenditure can be or ought to be entered into without the authority of a vote of this House?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend has stated his question in three different forms, or has asked three different questions-[DOT]


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am trying to get an answer.


Charles Avery Dunning: -each of which would really demand a separate answer. If my hon. friend asks whether the railways can make any capital expenditures without coming to parliament, my answer would be yes, because if it were necessary to come to parliament for authority with respect to every expenditure on capital account we could not run a railway; my hon. friend knows that as well as I do. But if my hon. friend's question is, can the railroad, without coming to this House or without the authority of the minister or the government, undertake capital expenditures which mean entirely new obligations, then my answer is no. He stated it both ways, and is probably trying to get me to say something I do not mean.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is difficult to get the minister to say anything at all, except to make a speech. We cannot get him to answer a question. We would make better headway if the minister would answer the questions instead of making speeches. But it is his privilege to make a speech. If I put it in three different ways, it was an effort to get an answer. We have got an answer. My hon. friend is very much pleased with the answer, and so am I, and his laughter is very well timed. He has given a proper, sensible and correct answer. He has referred to the receivership of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company as one of the difficulties he meets with, and is referring to that in connection with the staff and the vote. My hon. friend is shaking his head. I do not know what he means. I think he referred to it as an argument in connection with his vote. Perhaps he merely referred to it as something nice to talk about. If he referred to it in connection with this vote-and we are on it now-I think we ought to know when the receivership is going to stop. If I remember rightly, we have had a receivership of the Grand Trunk Pacific for about six years. Is that job not pretty well wound up by this time? What is the difficulty in winding up the receivership now? Why should he be troubled with all the papers he has to sign? Can we not relieve him of that obligation?
ttt-mtt A 1Q0R
r? ^
I sympathize with him, but can we not get lid of that receivership now? Receiverships usually are not perpetual, and I think this has run about six years, perhaps not quite that long. Let us get rid of it and save money. What does the minister say as to the receivership?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend complains about my making a speech in answer to his question, and yet he asks a question which could not be answered in a speech of less than half an hour.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I did not know that, but I am prepared to listen.


Charles Avery Dunning: There are some questions which cannot be answered yes or no. For instance, if I asked him when he stopped beating his wife-


Henry Lumley Drayton: Cannot the minister ask something fresher than that old chestnut?


Charles Avery Dunning: With regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific receivership, I do not think we would gain anything by discussing the Grand Trunk Pacific situation at this stage. My hon. friend is as fully aware of the difficulties as I am, and I dealt with the matter fully when the railway budget was before the House. With regard to the general question I am just as anxious as anyone else to have a financial structure created in the shortest possible time for the railway system which will enable it to become, if not at once, at least in the course of time, a financial entity. But I want to tell him what he knows, that that is no light task. It is one of the most complex matters possible, and I assure him that I do not want to be badgered into making decisions too hastily in regard to the course which should be taken. It requires very great consideration and study, not only to choose the right course but to get a complete understanding of all the complexities. I endeavoured to outline the situation when I presented the railway budget. I take it he wants an assurance from me that we are going ahead to do the best we can. I give him that assurance with pleasure. -Beyond that I do not think we should go at present.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When does the minister think we should discuss the Grand Trunk Pacific matter? Of course he could have told us some of the matters connected with it; for instance he could say, "Such an account is unadjusted; there is a disputed balance in another account, and so on, and we think all these things might be got rid of in time. It is not necessary to make a
speech on the question of the Grand Trunk Pacific receivership. I should have thought most matters in dispute outside of the difficulties my hon. friend has in connection with, payment of deferred accounts have gone. Unless my hon. friend says so, of course I do>
not know. When does my hon. friend think, he should give us the information as to the receivership of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Under what item should it come? I shall be glad to postpone the discussion until then.


Charles Avery Dunning: When the main estimates, which are now before the special committee on National Railways and Shipping, of which my hon. friend is a member, are before the committee, when we reach the necessary provision for the Grand Trunk Pacific account, that is the proper place to get details in regard to it. I did not expect to reach those estimates to-day and I have not the detailed information in regard to the matter, but it can be inquired into before the special committee.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not want
to press my hon. friend further with regard to that. What railway accounts does this staff take cognizance of and take into its books?


Charles Avery Dunning: We have five men on
the auditing staff of the Department of Railways and Canals. They have of course to do the usual departmental auditing in connection with canal work. A great deal of work is going on in connection with the construction of the Welland ship canal and this requires work of that character. Their relationship to the railways is that they are required to audit the disbursements of all sums paid out by certificate signed by the Department of Railways and drawn on the Minister of Finance, charging them to whichever of the constituent companies payment is to be made. If payment is to be made to the Canadian Northern, the disposition of it along that line must be audited by our officials. If the disposition is to the Canadian government railway account within the Canadian National system, a certification is required to that effect, and so on all along the line. That is not heavy work. The best evidence of that is the fact that in the whole department we have only five men doing that work in addition to auditing the big expenditures on canals.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know exactly what my hon. friend calls heavy. We used to be told that we were very extravagant

Supply-Railways and Canals
in our administration. If the hon. gentleman had been here in 1921 he would have thought it was simply terrible the way the finances of the country were being run.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did think so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That being so, I am glad to draw something to my hon. friend's attention before he completes his smile. This vote in 1921 was only $194,162 at a time when my hon. friend on his own statement thought money was being thrown away. If it was throwing away money to pay out $194,162 for salaries in 1921, what does my hon. friend say now when lie wants a vote of $28,000 greater? If my hon. friend is serious-and I assume he is-when he thinks that the votes of 1921 were entirely too great, how does he justify a much greater vote at the present time?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is one less of a
staff now than there was when my hon. friend was Minister of Finance in 1921. The increase is entirely due to reclassification which my hon. friend well knows is under the control of the Civil Service Commission.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend must know he is wrong when he says that is entirely under the control of the commission. The minister can always decline; he can always refer back. How much is now being annually paid in connection with this service for pensions and superannuation?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is under the
Department of Finance.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Surely the
department knows. Other departments know. Only the other day we had this up in the Department of Customs and I got my answer without any difficulty. When we talk about comparing costs and when we have people who have been newly appointed at lower salaries than the former ones were receiving, it is also proper to know what it is costing us in getting rid of the former employees. This information is said to be in the Department of Finance. I wonder whether out of the staff of accountants we have in the Department of Railways, costing us $81,000 a year, the truth is that they do not know what is being charged in connection with their department under superannuation and pensions. There are other departments with smaller staffs that know. If my hon. friend wants to draw comparisons, let us get the facts. The expenditures of 1921 that he referred to as being altogether too big-.


Charles Avery Dunning: I never said any such
thing.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Very good.
Then I am entirely mistaken in my hon. friend. He thinks the expenditures of 1921 are most reasonable. He must of course when he is asking for so much more. It is a belated confession and I will let the item go through.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Might I ask the
minister whether his department has given any attention to the needs of settlers along the line of the Greater Winnipeg water district? When the aqueduct for the supply of water to the city of Winnipeg was con-' structed some years ago it was found necessary to build about 93 miles of railway all the way from Winnipeg to Shoal lake on the lake of the Woods in order to construct the aqueduct. After the aqueduct was built all that was necessary was to maintain the railroad for patrolling purposes. A large number of settlers, however, had gone in along the line and they practically insisted that the railway should continue to give service. This service is being operated at a slight annual deficit. The Dominion government itself is securing from the timber lands revenues of something like $25,000 a year. The people of Winnipeg and the members of the board of the district feel that the government ought to do something to meet the operating deficit, either by way of subsidy or by way of land grants that would help out. At the present time the Greater Winnipeg water district is supplying the needs of those settlers without getting any return whatever. Has the minister considered the situation and is it possible to accede to the requests of the district that some provision should be made in the circumstances?


Charles Avery Dunning: The particular case in
question has been brought to my attention by several hon. members from that part of Canada; it is now before the department and I am having it looked into. I must say to my hon. friend what I said to one of the Nova Scotia members across the way a few moments ago; I cannot hold out any hope that we are buying any railways, neither would I say that it'would be a good policy to commence agreeing to pay deficits on any road built by a water district or whatever organization secured a charter to build a road.
I shall be glad to go into the matter with some care and see if there is any way in which the department can properly be of service in the premises.

Supply-Railways and Canals


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am sure the
minister would not care to have the Winnipeg water district pull up their road and leave these hundreds of settlers without any accommodation whatever.


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course there are
legal aspects to that which are now being looked into. A person who owns a road or secures a charter to build a road in this country is under certain obligations. I am not sure exactly what obligations exist in the particular case to which my hon. friend refers, and that is one of the points now under investigation.


Mr. HEAPS:: The road was built for the purposes of the aqueduct and so far as Winnipeg is concerned there is no necessity for its maintenance. But the people who have settled in the area served by the road, and who have done very well at farming, are anxious to have it kept up. Other roads have received assistance from the Dominion government and it is only right that this one should be helped in the same way.


Mr. HAY:: I would impress upon the minister the necessity for doing something in this connection in the interests not so much of Winnipeg as of the settlers in that district. Has the matter of a land grant been called to the minister's attention? I understand that the commission operating the railway would be satisfied with such a grant from the Dominion. There are certain lands reserved along the line for the purpose of assisting the railway in the matter of ties and timber, and the commission would be satisfied to obtain a land grant out of that reservation.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is a part of the
representations that have been made to me in writing and it is under consideration. I do not want to be understood as promising anything in regard to any matter involving the taking over of railways or the meeting of deficits in connection with any line not now operated by the Canadian National system. I can assure the committee that one of the greatest difficulties which the Canadian National Railways have to cope with now is the desire of people all over Canada who own private lines to get rid of them to the National system, not for the benefit of that system but in order that they may get from under obligations of their own. There are far more propositions of that kind than most people have any idea of.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister
is right in that regard: these demands are frequently made and generally speaking they are not profitable. The minister touched a
matter of considerable importance when he pointed out to the hon. member (Mr. Heaps) that certain obligations were involved in the taking up of rails and the stoppage of service on the one hand, and the continuing of operations on the other. I wonder whether he could arrive at some policy in this regard?
Of course, it is exceedingly difficult to make an insolvent firm operate. While our idea in constructing railways is to open up the country for the benefit of the public, the promoter's idea is to make something out of such enterprise. He expects a return from his investment, and in the case of actual loss it is hard to compel operation. But if operation cannot be enforced it is difficult to see why the property should not be salvaged to such an extent as is possible. The Canadian National system itself has gone the length of lifting tracks and so discontinuing particular services. I have in mind the radials around Toronto for the purchase of which the Hydro-Electric at one time made an offer, which was refused. The radial to Woodbridge running up through the county of York has discontinued operating and the rails are about to be lifted. My hon. friend from North Winnipeg will agree that if it is proper for the Canadian National Railway to lift particular rails, simply because some service is not paying, and thus inconvenience the public, it is rather hard to complain if anyone else does the same thing. The minister perhaps will look into that.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have already looked
into that particular case at the request of the hon. member for North York (Mr. Lennox), although my information on the subject is as yet incomplete. Owing to representations which have been made as to the likelihood of persons desiring to purchase, the taking up of the rails has been stopped for the time being.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Suppose municipalities should offer to purchase roads which are really municipal, the government ought to be only too glad to hand them over the burden of providing the service which at present the National system cannot afford. Where the National system is unable to give service some arrangement ought to be made with the municipality.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall of course give
consideration to any suggestion of that kind.


George Brecken Nicholson: Have the board of
directors or the officers of the Canadian National Railways given any real consideration to the question of duplication of lines wherever such duplication now exists? I do not want to go into details and I am not

i
Supply-Railways and Canals
raising the question from any controversial point of view. I know what difficulties have to be encountered. I think however that very material revisions should be made before we can hope to have the Canadian National Railways operating economically. It will be admitted by the officials that there are existing lines that should be abandoned and from which rails, fastenings, and everything else that can be salvaged should be removed. This would tend to a reduction in operating costs. What position do the board of directors and the officials take in relation to that question? As one who has always taken an interest in the Canadian National Railways I have been disappointed in the fact that greater progress has not been made along that line, because we cannot hope to reach a sound economical basis of operation while unnecessary mileage is being retained as part of the Canadian National system.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: Mr. Chairman-
Mr. DUN.NING: I presume my hon. friend is going to make the same point?


William Findlay Maclean: I will wait until the minister is through.
Mr. DUNiNING: It may mean on my part two speeches instead of one-something to which my hon. friend from York objects very much.


William Findlay Maclean: Now, Mr. Chairman, a real question has come up. I admit what the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) has just said, that there are unnecessary duplications on the Canadian National. But there is the wider question, and this discussion gives me an opportunity to reiterate what I have said so often in this House, namely, that our two great railway systems have an enormous mileage of unnecessary duplication. When that duplication is removed by consolidating the two systems there will follow re-routing, which competentrailway engineers say would save an enormous amount of money, improve the service and admit of lower freight rates. What I want to get in the minds of hon. members and of the taxpayers of this country, who have to pay $400,000,000 a year now for this unnecessary duplication, is that the railway problem before Canada to-day is not quite in the limited form in which my hon. friend from East Algoma has stated. Let me put it again before the House and before the country, and I warn hon. members that I am going to continue to do so until action is taken by those in authority. This unnecessary duplication must end, there must be a con-[Mr. Nicholson. 3
solidation, and a new system of re-routing must follow, a system based on using the best grades, the best bridges and the best tunnels of the composite railway. I am advised that this re-routing would improve the service by 40 per cent at least. Out of the economies affected it will be possible to reduce freight rates and pay interest on the whole railway debt of Canada, which I put at $2,000,000,000-or $1,000,000,000 if you like. I do not want the minister to commit himself to my proposal to-day, but he wall be unfit for his office if within a short time he does not take up this question, which if dealt with as I have pointed out would give what the farmers were crying for here the other day -lower freight rates. And with this consolidation of the two railway systems you would get a consolidation of ocean and lake services that would also contribute to the lowering of freight rates.
There has been very little courage displayed in this House in criticism of the railway problem in the direction that I have spoken of, but it is the one problem that the people are thinking about all over the country. Where these duplicate services exist you ride in half empty trains and you realize that all the passengers could be carried on one train. We find duplicate services racing up and down from here to Toronto, from here to Winnipeg, from here to Montreal. This is an insane proceeding. There is my friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) over there. He has to foot all the bills. He knows that what I say is true. He knows it is a problem that must be dealt with by this House, but the attitude of most of us is to sidestep it. The Minister of Railways is not responsible for the present condition of affairs, but he will be responsible if he attempts to sidestep the problem now that he is in a position to deal with it. He came down here as the Napoleon from the west. Now is Napoleon's opportunity. Do not let it be his Waterloo; let him think of some of Napoleon's great victories. Here is an opportunity for the new Napoleon 'from the west to deal with this question. Before the next general election the people will be thoroughly educated and will realize the inaction of hon. members of this House. So I warn my hon. friends-and prospective members of this House that when they appeal to the country for support they will have to deal with this question. I am. quite sure the Minister of Finance will force the Minister of Railways to give him some encouragement that he is taking steps to cut out this wastage. Having said that, I quit for the moment, but as a friend of mine said here the other day, when a certain gentleman

Supply-Railways and Canals
down the way made a speech he was going to make another speech, I say also that it will not be long before I shall repeat what I have said in trying to emphasize the necessity of putting a stop to the present unnecessary duplication of transportation services by consolidating our two great railway systems.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Hudson Bay railway-construction and 'betterments, $3,000,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is not taking that up to-day, is he?


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, I advised many
members who asked me as to the time and date that I would take this vote up to-day. Many are here who are interested in it.


William Findlay Maclean: Go ahead.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There are very few here at present who are interested in the vote, and perhaps that is the reason why my hon. friend wants to go ahead' with it. But I venture to suggest to him it is generally poor policy to do that. This supply was put on at the very tail end of a long order. At least I think it is the last. I should like to be right so I will look it up.


Ernest Lapointe: You are right.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Usually the
government are supposed to pay some attention to the order in which they announce the business of the House. I think my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) will agree with me there also. This is what we were told yesterday we were to do to-day:
Third readings of Bill No. 114 to amend the Customs Tariff 1907,-
I think that bill has been passed.
-and Bill No. 115 to amend the Special WaT Revenue Act;-
I do not think that has been touched.
-second reading of Bill No. 116 to amend the Income War Tax Act 1917;-
A long measure.
-second reading of Bill No. 150, respecting the Chicoutimi Harbour Commissioners; second reading of Bill No. 152, to amend the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act; second reading of Bill No. 153, to amend the Criminal Code; consideration in committee of Bill No. 91, to amend the Immigration Act.
Then merely as a possibility, not as an indication, we were told:
If we go into supply we will take up the estimates of the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Public Works.
Instead of that we are going straight ahead. I did not object to the introduction of the
other item because. I did not think many gentlemen wanted to speak to it, but I know a great many hon. members will speak on this item, and the notice given was merely an alternative that if this long list of business was finished and supply reached, we might go into the estimates of this department.
I do not think the Hudson Bay railway vote should be proceeded with.


Charles Avery Dunning: I find nothing inconsistent in our procedure to-day with the statement of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) on Wednesday evening; there was certainly liberty given to go into supply. My hon. friend reads a meaning which is not in the words:
If we go into supply we will take up the estimates of the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Public Works.
It was in no way contingent upon the other matters referred to going through. I did give an assurance more than a week ago to a number of hon. members on both sides of the House that to-day was arranged on this side for the debate on the Hudson Bay railway, and I am sure that hon. members interested were so advised. I think my hon. friend opposite (Mr. Hay) and others spoke to me, and I am now all prepared to deal with the matter.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know whether the word "if" is a conditional word or not; I had the idea that it was generally so intended. But I am not standing on anything except the ordinary usage of this House. I do not know what the practice of the hon. member may have been in Saskatchewan, whether when he gave a list he stuck to it or whether he always took the end first and otherwise tried to mislead the oposition.


Charles Avery Dunning: I must protest; that is grossly unfair and unwarranted on the part of my hon. friend.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is nothing at all unfair. I read this list as it is printed, and I suggest that if my hon. friend's practice in Saskatchewan was to take the tail and make it the head in order to mislead the opposition, that has not been the practice in this House.


Charles Avery Dunning: Again I must protest; it has not been my practice to mislead the opposition at any time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then my hon. friend should withdraw his statement and go on.

Supply-Railways and Canals


Charles Avery Dunning: I think it is my hon. friend who should withdraw. Surely when a list is presented it is not obligatory upon the government to follow it in every detail. The question asked is as to the business for the next day; the business is stated in any order, and I venture to say that if I looked up Hansard I could find where my 5 p.m. hon. friend has answered such a question in exactly the same way and then, on the succeeding day, taken up the business in whatever order suited him as the minister concerned.. To attribute deceit is surely not fair.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The list is exactly as I read it, with the word "if" included.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes; "if" we go into supply. We are in supply.
Sir HENRY DRA"i TON: I understood you were trying to clean up this order paper; the order paper is pretty well set out here, but it may be that I am wrong in my idea. I simply point out what I read before and what I read fairly, as it is printed, without anything in addition, but so far as I am concerned it is a matter for the government to do as they please.


Thomas Hay: With respect to this item, I think the minister gave notice about a week ago in answer to a question from some hon. member -deeply interested in the question; the minister said this particular item would be taken up when his estimates were next under discussion. Consequently I cannot see how the House has been led astray. I see no reason why this item should not be taken up, since a good many of those chiefly interested in it are present, and I can see no cause for delay at present.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps we will be able to get some particulars here. In the first instance the country is entitled to have -whether some members and their constituents who are particularly interested in this question think so or not-a full discussion of this item, and there will be a full discussion, regardless of any efforts made to force the item through this House. We are entitled to know exactly what the governmental programme is; we are entitled to know exactly how this money is to be applied. The country is also entitled to know how much money is to be spent in carrying out the project as a whole. We have now before us a vote which, as I understand it, is for the present-I will not say requirements, because I do not know what they are, but this vote 
will be used during the current jmar. Then I think we are entitled to know whether it is contemplated to do more than complete the railway, for example, whether in the opinion of the government it will be necessary to supply boats for the service; whether, in case boats are supplied or in any event, it is in the opinion of the government necessary to protect, lighthouse and generally look after these seas in the same way other approaches are protected. We should know what the cost will be, and whether terminals are to be erected at this point. In other words, we are entitled to know the complete particulars of the full commitment. '


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend had put his request for a postponement of this discussion on the ground of courtesy and having regard to the fact that only some ten members of the Conservative party are present in the House on the occasion of a discussion of such importance, I would have been glad to accede to his request. But he put his request on the ground that deception was being practised, and I again call to his attention the fact that more than a week ago, when I was asked a question by an hon. member opposite, I indicated that on the next occasion we were in supply on railway estimates this matter would be taken up. In addition to that, a number of members on both sides of the House spoke to me privately about the matter, and I indicated that it would come up to-day. I quite appreciate that the empty chairs opposite do not mean that hon. gentlemen are not interested in this project and do not desire information regarding it, but they do mean that a certain meeting in Montreal is probably of more importance to them at this juncture. I am not blaming them at all, but if my hon. friend makes his request in his usual courteous manner for a postponement of this item I will be glad to report progress.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend has a way with him, but I thought in the first instance that I made a very quiet request. Then I was told afterwards that I was misinterpreting the English language. I am quite content to throw myself on my hon. friend's mercy and possibly in view of the situation to-day he might adjourn the consideration of this matter.


Charles Avery Dunning: We can take another
item.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am quite
content. You can take another item.


Charles Avery Dunning: Any other item but this.

Supply-Railways and Canals


Henry Lumley Drayton: Any other item but this.
Item stands.
WelJand ship canal construction (revote, $3,000,000)- $14,000,000.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the item carry?


Mr. MURPHY:: I fail to understand why
an item of $3,000,000 is of such importance that its consideration must be adjourned, and a vote of $14,000,000 is to go through without any discussion whatever. Possibly some hon. members can understand the matter-I cannot. If the Hudson Bay railway vote, in view of its great importance, must be adjourned in order that it may be discussed in detail, surely the House is entitled to a full explanation of a vote of $14,000,000.


Ernest Lapointe: Is there anything we may take up?


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course it is rather
embarrassing to find that the whole proceedings of the House must be held up in order to enable a political meeting to be held in Montreal. The government 'has some sympathy with the point made by my hon. friend opposite that if a vote of $3,000,000 is important one of $14,000,000 is surely of greater importance. I am quite willing to permit this item also to stand until it suits the convenience of my hon. friends in Montreal.
Item stands.
Chambly, improvements (revote, $7,500)-$55,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This item calls for an explanation.


Charles Avery Dunning: The items in this vote
consist of the following:
Machinery	$ 2,500
Riley Bridge (Revote)	 3,000
Survey (Revote)	 2,500
Wharf	 45,000
The upper western bank of Chambly canal within the limits of the city of St. John's forms a landing wharf, a portion of which was rebuilt in concrete in 1919. The 800 odd feet of wall piling with sheating, immediately above the Canadian Pacific Railway bridge is now in a very dilapidated condition, old piles and facing having rotted and portions having been carried away. As the foundation is uneven and relatively soft at certain places, it is proposed for the present to sink a stone filled timber crib which, later, after settlement, may have,the portion above water renewed in concrete.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Ours lock, improvements, $50,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: We did not
abject to any of the other votes because they are old and the country is committed to them. But this is a new item and perhaps my hon. friend will explain What is contemplated.


Charles Avery Dunning: The amount required here is to rebuild in part the old lock at this place, which was built during 1847-1848, the intention then being to provide for 7-foot navigation. However, during low water periods, this navigation is not available, and at times boats drawing more than 5 feet 6 inches cannot pass the lock. In 1907, the walls and mitre sills of this lock were found to be seriously undermined, and during the three following years the sum of $75,000 was expended in making repairs. At present this lock is in a worse condition than it was at that time and a certain amount of reconstruction is imperative.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How much navigation is
there through this particular lock?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not the exact
figures but it is used very extensively for the transportation of lumber, coal and hay. It is on the Richelieu river.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Has the minister any idea
what the revenue from this source was last year?


Charles Avery Dunning: AVe do not have any
revenue from our canals; they are free.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Baker's dam improvements, $30,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: This is a new item also. What is the vote for?


Charles Avery Dunning: To renew with concrete
the cribwork facing on the east side of the channel. What is called Baker's dam, in reality guide piers on each side of Baker's channel below Ste. Anne lock, is the only passage for boats of nine feet draft plying between the St. Lawrence and the Ottawa rivers. The inner faces of the cribs, which were built in 1875, are decayed and falling down into the channel, the eastern wall being the worse of the two. It is thought necessary to rebuild immediately this eastern wall.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ontario-St. Lawrence canals, improvements (revote $7,000), $7,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: That is the
usual vote?
Supply-Railways and Canals


Charles Avery Dunning: This relates to the improvement of the upper entrance to Rapide Plat canal, and is to pay off the contractors.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Peters canal, improvements, $6,300.
Henry Lumley Drayton: That also is to cover finishing up?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trent canal, improvements (revote, $155,840), $395,100.
Charles Murphy: I think we ought to have a little explanation from the minister in regard to these improvements.


Charles Avery Dunning: I may say for the information of hon. members from other parts of the country that the Trent canal extends from Georgian bay to Trenton; it will provide a short cut for navigation. The amount required is $44,400 less than was provided last year, and the following are the items
for which the vote is to be used:
Construction lock gates	 $20,000
Dredging and drilling	 25,000
Extension to lock aprons	 5.000
Dam, Elliott's Falls-Gull river	 10,000
Cement for dam Hawk river logslide	 4,000
Eel's lake dam	 11,500
Rebuilding and repairs to reservoir dams.. 10,000 Miscellaneous (revote, $2,500)	 6,500
Severn Division
Staff on construction	 55,000
Young's point section (revote, $35,000)..	..	80.000
Dam at lock 23 (revote, $59,340)	 68,000
Bridge at Atherley Narrows (revote, $40,000).	40.000
Cement (revote, $19,000)	 20,100
Dredging and drilling		35.000
Miscellaneous	 5,000
Total	 $395,100
I can give details of every one of the items to which I have referred if any member of the House desires it.


Charles Murphy: Can you give us any
idea of the tonnage?


Henry Lumley Drayton: In the past we have had to spend a great deal of money on this project, and I am afraid that in future we will have to spend more. What was endeavoured to be done by the former administration in the same circumstances was to make no expenditure except for the 'purposes of safety. We had to make necessary expenditures to obviate the danger of a flood breaking out here or a wall going there or a lock breaking. We had a responsibility there which we had to look after.


Charles Avery Dunning: We have adopted the
same policy exactly. I can on another occa-

sion get the figures regarding the tonnage for all the canals. I am sorry I have not them here, but inasmuch as the expenditure on the Welland canal will come up on future occasions, that will open up a discussion on the tonnage of any of the canals.


Mr. BIRD:: What is the principal commerce carried on this canal?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no large traffic on the Trent canal, because it is not finished in a manner capable of carrying through traffic, but there is considerable local traffic, and a very great many steamers plying for hire and pleasure.


Thomas William Bird: I understand the traffic is
mostly that of pleasure steamers. Does the minister think it is proper for us to keep up an annual expenditure for pleasure steamers? I understand there are about half a dozen a day for commerce. This seems to be a large expenditure.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is referring more to the lower end. I have seen very little mercantile traffic there, but it so happens that at other portions of the system there is some traffic of a business character. I do not think my hon. friend, any more than myself, would to-day go into such a venture. I think he would find himself just as I found myself when I was asked to provide money for works of this kind. The situation is that the works are there. They have been in existence for many years, and there are property rights and that sort of thing. It is an artificial structure for which the country is responsible. My hon. friend's policy apparently is the same as mine was, that is never to spend money except to maintain these public properties in safe condition. There might be loss of life if we did not do that and damage might occur. If the minister follows that course, that is all he can be expected to do.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is all. To cut out this expenditure would be to pave the way for a greater expenditure as a result of abandoning the property. I do not think it would be practical to do that.


Thomas William Bird: I was considerably more
anxious to ascertain what the hon. member for West York thought about it than to get the minister's views. Is he willing to go to an expenditure of almost half a million a year to maintain a waterway which is used principally for pleasure craft, and yet when it comes to a commercial venture like the Hudson Bay railway, to hold the House up

Supply-Railways and Canals
and not permit us to go forward with that vote, which is not greatly out of proportion to this vote, when we consider the object in view.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is wrong. Nothing depends upon the size of a vote one way or the other, but a great deal depends on whether it is right in principle or not. The Hudson Bay railway may be shown to be perfectly right in principle. I myself doubt it. I think I gave a pretty fair offer to the westerners when I was asked what I would do with it, and if the offer had been accepted it would have gone a long way. However, that is a matter of the past. Certain hon. members, before going away, asked me especially to have this item stand. Some of them are very much in favour of the railway, but my hon. friend is not right when he thinks it is held up because it is not taken up to-day. That is not the case. We generally make very much better progress with estimates when members are given an opportunity to state their views. I do not like this item. My hon. friend is hopelessly and entirely wrong. I hope he will not make a habit of that sort of thing. I tried to make it clear that the only reason I was in favour of a vote of this kind was that I could not get out of it, and I ask the minister whether he was holding it down to exactly the same thing, namely, putting in such improvements from time to time, really betterments, as would keep the banks up and prevent flooding of farms and property, and perhaps loss of life, for all of which we would be liable. The structure is there. There is a great deal of difference between that and some other items. The hon. member can see, if he wants to be fair, that there is a great deal of difference in connection with a vote you cannot get out of and one you can get out of.


Thomas William Bird: I do not see any difference in principle at all, because from my point of view and the view of my hon. friend's own leader, the vote on the Hudson Bay railway is one we cannot get out of. I do not want to have any misunderstanding with the hon. gentleman himself. If this request to have this Hudson Bay railway vote held over is merely that it might be the more adequately reviewed, I hays no objection whatever, but I must remind him that for the last four years in this House, the subject has been discussed as no other subject has. Every detail has been brought to light as far as I know, and perhaps one is inclined to be a little too provoked when hon. members hold up this very much overdue item. Those of
us who are interested feel that the summer is coming on, and, unless the Hudson Bay item is dealt with pretty soon, very much of its effect will be lost. That is all. I am very much in sympathy with hon. members who sit behind my hon. friend, and who, like myself, are interested in the item, and I just raise the point on this item, because on the face of it the position seems contradictory, that the hon. member can sit there passively allowing this item to go through-this item for a work which it seems to me is a white elephant-and yet pertinaciously block the more important item of the Hudson Bay railway.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know that I should try to explain to my hon. friend, but I am going to take another shot at it.
I think the Minister of Railways understands it, and I shall try to make my hon. friend understand it. Does my hon. friend think there will be any loss of life if the Hudson Bay railway is not built, and if there is danger of very heavy damage claims being made against the country?


Thomas William Bird: The political aspect-


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend should be above political considerations. He ought to be, but I am afraid he is becoming a very practical politician, and his politics is the Hudson Bay railway. He is perfectly right in looking after it, but I want to point out that the item which has just gone through, as stated by the Minister of Railways himself, is an absolutely inescapable item. We have had to do (the same thing time and again in connection with inescapable items, and the hon. member who is most insistent that the Hudson Bay item should not go on to-day is a gentleman who is going to vote for it-at least he says so.


Charles Murphy: In view of the statement
of the minister that the vote is merely for improvements or keeping in condition the portion of the canal already completed, and in view of his further remarks, I understand there is no intention of completing the portion necessary to make the canal navigable from Georgian bay over the summit. At the present time there is a marine railway over the summit in order to permit boats to be transported over the portages, as we call them in western Canada. I suppose that is the name used in the east as well. There is no intention of making further capital expenditures looking to the completion of the canal to the continuous water.
Item agreed to

Supply-Railways and Canals
Welland canal improvements, $395,100.


Edward Joseph Garland: In view of the other item in regard to the Welland canal standing, I would ask that this one stand also.


Charles Avery Dunning: I would be willing to
allow this to stand but I might explain to the hon. member that this is in connection with the existing canal. The item in regard to the new Welland canal is already standing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, maintenance and operation, $250,030.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
reason for the increase? There seem to be continuous increases.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is an increase of


Henry Alfred Mullins: What are the details?


Charles Avery Dunning: This is altogether for the staff of the board, clerks of various kinds, and the list is a lengthy one. There are ninety in the service of the board as against eighty-six last year. That is, there is provision for four more. There has been quite a little reclassification by the Civil Service Commission during the last year and it is difficult to see where the extra four come in.


Mr. ANDERSON (Toronto):: Is the increase due to increases in salary under the civil service list?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, with the exception of what I have previously mentioned.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think there is a little more than that. I am again looking to the time when my hon. friend rwould have said in the first instance that we were so frightfully extravagant when as a matter of fact we were so much more economical in 1921.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not say that at
all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I thought the hon. member did.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member must have a guilty conscience.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not at all.
There is nothing like knowing that you were much more economical than the other fellow. In 1921 this vote was $190,000 as against $190,150 the year before.


Charles Avery Dunning: Salaries to-day amount
to $206,000.
[Mr. Murphy. 3


Henry Lumley Drayton: I really thought I had a big enough staff when I was running that organization. I have never been turned down by the government in a single request for expenses. I thought I had enough people working there and it was costing the country quite enough money. The then government never stinted the board in an improper way while I was a commissioner.


Charles Gavan Power: Does the hon. gentleman
take into consideration the superior talents of the gentlemen, who now compose the board?


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the minister will take the position suggested by my hon. friend apparently the difference in the cost under different chief commissioners is $60,000 a year. Can we seriously take the suggestion of the hon. gentleman and have the whole of this extravagant increase blamed on the new chairman as is suggested by the hon. member?


Charles Avery Dunning: The explanation asked
for by my hon. friend with respect to the question of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) is precisely the answer required to his own question. There are no less than forty-six statutory increases and increases due to reclassification in this list this year as compared with last, totalling in all over $6,000. Those come about automatically.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose the
minister has not the number of officials for 1921?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, but I shall be glad
to get the information for my hon. friend.


William Duff: Shall the item carry?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Stand.


Ernest Lapointe: When the minister has
been so nice?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the
committee will admit that we have been making very good progress. We should continue just in this frame of mind and the item will stand.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think my hon. friend
will admit I have been more than fair to him this afternoon and unless there is some better reason than merely a desire to secure the number of employees in 1921, I should like to make some progress.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister is making good progress. He has been good but he is good only in spots. He has a way of jumping from one extreme to the other. 1 think we had better call the next item.

Supply-Railways and Canals


Mr. GARDINER:: At this end of the
chamber we can hear nothing at all. I would suggest that the Minister of Railways and the hon. member for West York go outside and settle the question and come back again.
Mr. O'NEILL: While we are on this topic there is one branch more or less overlapping in connection with the handling of explosives. I understand we have an Explosives branch in the Department of Mines but the matter of transporting explosives is under the Board of Railway Commissioners. How much does that service cost? It would seem to be a part of the duties of the Department ol Mines.


Charles Avery Dunning: There are in the department officers in charge of safety and mechanical appliances as well as of fire prevention, but I do not see anything relating to explosives.
Mr. .O'NEIL:	There must be some staff
to see to the proper transportation of ex-: plosives, to prevent for example the coupling of a special explosive car with a passengei train. What does it cost the railway to carry out this service?


Charles Avery Dunning: The Board of Railway
Commissioners lay down certain rules governing the transportation of explosives.
Mr. O'NEIL:	But who sees that they are
carried out?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no officer known especially as inspector of explosives but 1 presume that some of the officials I have mentioned would see that these regulations were carried out. There are many orders of the Board of Railway Commissioners which are not enforced directly by the railways as my hon. friend implies. They become a part of the laws of the country and persons disregarding them are prosecuted in the usual way. I cannot say definitely offhand that there is any officer especially deputed to look after the matter of explosives, and I am very doubtful whether this would be practicable.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is a highly competent body in the United States known as the Bureau of Explosives which is at work more or less all the time on this very question. This bureau devises means for the transportation of dangerous commodities and we have largely availed ourselves of its work. We have also experts of our own in our Mines' branch. There are rules and regulations drawn up by the Board of Railway Commissioners with regard to the carrying
of explosives, and while inspectors are engaged supervising the way in which various articles are carried it would be impossible to say just how much it costs to inspect explosives here and explosives there.


William Duff: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Carried? I am afraid it will be carried on division, and the matter will be opened up again at a time not so convenient to the minister.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have sent for the Minister of Finance.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I will not delay the passing of the item but it will be carried on division if it is carried at all, and it will be opened up again at a time not convenient to the government.


Charles Avery Dunning: It will always be convenient. We will allow the item to stand.
Item stands.
Canada Highways Commission: to provide for payment of staff of Canada Highways Commission including A. W. Campbell, C. E., Chief Commissioner of Highways, at $5,000 per annum, $32,000.


Mr. SANDERSON:: In what way does the Canada Highways Commission co-operate with the provincial commission in Ontario, let us say? What is the extent of the Dominion commission's jurisdiction over provincial highways?


Charles Avery Dunning: The provisions of the
Canada Highways Act involve what is known as federal aid to the construction of main highways in the provinces. The work of the commission is gradually drawing to a close. The legislation covered a stated sum of money over a period and as the work is diminishing the staff is being reduced. Next year we expect to complete the work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to. '
To provide for the payment of salaries and expenses in connection with the St. Lawrence ship canal surveys and investigation, including the Canadian National Advisory Committee, and its employees and including E. B. Jost, $2,500, as assistant to Chairman of Engineering board, and G. W. Yates, $1,200, as secretary, $130,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the personnel of the committee?


Charles Avery Dunning: The officers at the Cornwall office are: 1 division engineer; I assistant engineer; 1 junior engineer; 2 instrument men; 2 rodmen; 2 engineering helpers; 1 stenographer grade 1; 6 gauge readers; 2 labourers. The total including travelling ex-
Supply-Railways and Canals .

penses is 327,510. At the head office the officers are: 1 senior office engineer; 1 office engineer; 2 assistant engineers; 1 electrical power house engineer; 1 principal draftsman; 1 stenographer, grade 3; 1 assistant engineer;
1	stenographer, grade 2; 1 senior draftsman;
2	designing engineers; 1 mechanical and electrical draftsman; 2 extra draftsmen from Cornwall. The total including expenses, stationery, and so forth, is $40,360. In charge of the engineering board-I think my hon. friend is interested in this particularly-there are two board members at 15 days per month, 12 months of 360 days at $50 or $18,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What are the names of these engineers?


Charles Avery Dunning: One is General Mitchell; the other is a French-Canadian whose name I do not know at the moment. Mr. McLachlan of the Department of Railways and Canals is the chairman. He comes under the next item. It 'is estimated he gave 200 days to the work. The balance of the items are travelling expenses.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Where does Mr. McLachlan come in?


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. McLachlan gave 17 days per month to this work. That is equivalent to 200 days a year, and at $50 a day it represents $10,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What are the different committees we now have on the job?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is the national committee to which I made reference-


Henry Lumley Drayton: Excuse me, the national committee is composed of Mr. Me-Lachlan, Mr. Mitchell and somebody else.


Charles Avery Dunning: Those compose the engineering board.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is what I thought.


Charles Avery Dunning: The national committee consists of-I will get the names for my hon. friend; I cannot think of them all now. The Right Hon. Mr. Graham is chairman of the national committee.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not now, is he?


Charles Avery Dunning: He is still chairman. Then Sir Clifford Sifton, Dr. Mc-Dougald, Mr. Ahearn of Ottawa

and there are several others. I will get a complete list for my hon. friend.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then there are some other committees?


Charles Avery Dunning: The inter-departmental
committee-


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who compose the inter-departmental committee? *


Charles Avery Dunning: A member from each of the following departments:	Militia, Railways and Canals, Public Works, Interior, Justice and External Affairs. I am speaking from memory. The purpose of the committee is to iron out the inter-departmental aspects of the St. Lawrence investigation, as it touches so many of the departments of government.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Can my hon. friend tell us what reports have been made, to whom, and what action, if any, has been taken on them?


Charles Avery Dunning: This is some of the work completed:
The survey of the St. Lawrence river from Lachine to Montreal, begun in the former year has been completed.
Additional borings have been made along a proposed
route for a canal between Lachine and Nuns island.
Additional borings have been made along the location of a proposed dam across the river at the foot of the Lachine rapids.
A group of 14 borings to rock along the line of the proposed navigation and power channels have been made at the head of lake St. Louis.
Topographical surveys have been extended on both sides of the river between Lachine and Monti eal, particularly in the stretch of the country between Highlands an Verdun, on the north side, and between Cauglinawaga and La Tortue on the south side of the river.
Ten additional borings have been completed along the route of a proposed canal between Hungry bay and the St. Lawrence river.
A number of borings have also been completed along the south shore of the St. Lawrence river, near Cedars, and in addition a line of 12 borings has been completed along the site of a proposed dam across the river at the head of Cedars rapids.
A number of borings were made along the south side of Co tea u rapids.
A number of borings have been made on the site of a proposed power house at the head of lake St. Louis at Cascades point.
The topographical information obtained in the section between lake St. Louis arid lake St. Francis was extended on both sides of the river, and also extended so as to include the islands in the river.
Many additional meterings of flow of the St. Lawrence river at Iroquois point have been made, and a number of precise lines of water levels have been run, and also continuous water elevation records have been secured at control points in the river.
In the international section of the St. Lawrence river, the American section has completed a survey of the river from Kingston to Iroquois, and also between Barnhart island and Cornwall. They have also undertaken a very extensive boring programme which is partly completed. In this boring programme is included an extensive investigation into the character of the foundations of the proposed Long Sault dam. Two vertical shafts have been sunk on either shore

Supply-Railways and Canals
for a depth of about 100 feet. From these horizontal borings underneath the Long Sault rapids are being made.
There have been two formal meetings with the United States engineers since March 31, 1925, with all members present, and six other informal meetings were convened to adjust details of field and office investigations.
There is a great deal more.


William Findlay Maclean: What depth of
channel is it proposed to secure to give shipway from Montreal up to lake Ontario?


Charles Avery Dunning: A thirty-foot channel.


William Findlay Maclean: When will that
be arrived at?


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh!


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend
has given me a list of what has been accomplished. From what he said I suppose a lot more had been done.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. in continuation of
the same line of work.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Are the surveys complete in any section yet?


Charles Avery Dunning: Not yet.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: And never will be either.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. member says they never will be completed.


Charles Avery Dunning: I never said so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, the hon.
member for Provencher. I wonder why he says so. I hope he is wrong.	.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I say so because every
year we are voting the same amount for all these works.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is a
sad thing. Can the minister define how much work is yet to be done?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is estimated that the
board of engineers will be able to make a report to the national committee some time this fall. Of course it will be necessary, as my hon. friend knows, for the national committee to meet with the American national committee with regard to the International features involved. We want to be thoroughly prepared with our side of the case, and I presume the Americans, with their customary efficiency, are also taking care to be thoroughly prepared, so far as the international section of the canal is concerned. All of this work is necessary in order to enable each nation to determine whether or not the project shall be gone on with in the manner in which it has been projected in various quarters.


William Findlay Maclean: But we have a
distinct declaration, have we not, that the Welland canal is to be deepened to thirty feet? When are we going to get an assurance that the lower St. Lawrence will be similarly deepened in connection with this international proposal which we are now considering?


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, if these
things were just as easy to do as they are to talk about and project, I might be able to answer my hon. friend with some definiteness, but this is an immense project.


William Findlay Maclean: I know.


Charles Avery Dunning: We have had some experience of its immensity in connection with the section we have ourselves undertaken in enlarging the Welland canal to a thirty-foot channel. That has been under way now for five years.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Much longer.


Charles Avery Dunning: Some of it was done in
war time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It was started
before the war and stopped during the war.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. I think I am safe in saying it will be at least three years before that will be completed. This gives an idea of the magnitude of the Whole project, because the Welland is only one of the canals necessary to its completion. All the assurance I am desirous of giving the committee at this time is that if this preliminary work is done properly, it will ensure that no money will be wasted ultimately, should the joint project between the two countries be proceeded with. All this work is necessary, first in order to determine whether we should undertake it, and secondly in order to have a reasonably correct basis upon which to design the necessary works when the proper time comes.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is it, then, the determined policy of this government to undertake the joint construction of the St. Lawrence deep waterways?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, it is not the determined policy of the government to do anything of the kind. All the work going on now is a necessary preliminary to the determination of any policy.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister mentioned the possibility of the joint construction of this work, although he may not have intended to do so.



Supply-Railways and Canals


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sorry, but I cannot hear my hon. friend. He complains about not being able to hear us, but I cannot hear him.


Edward Joseph Garland: I would
welcome the minister if he moved further down this way. In his remarks just now the minister referred to the joint construction of this work. I thought it possibly a slip on his part, and I simply wish to make sure that it is not the settled policy of the government to undertake with the United States the joint construction of this work.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not intend to
convey that any commitment had been reached. When I referred to the joint construction I said the investigations now going on were necessary to enable a policy of any kind, including such a policy as the joint construction of this work, to be determined upon intelligently. There has been no commitment of any kind made by the government of Canada to do the work, either jointly with the United States or alone. The investigations now proceeding are in order to enable us to reach intelligent decisions with regard to these very matters.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Has the Canadian case
been pretty well prepared, and when will it be completed? And can the minister give us any idea as to when the joint meeting of the two national committees will be held, so that we may have some idea as to when it will be possible for us to reach a decision on this very great and, to my mind, very necessary problem.


Charles Avery Dunning: I indicated1 a while ago, possibly while my hon. friend was out of the chamber, that we hoped to have a report from our engineering board to the national board for Canada some time this fall. Then it will be for the similar American board to arrange to meet with our board. I do not think this matter should be hurried; it is one of great national importance and will, undoubtedly, involve tremendous financial commitments. It may be that the committees of the two nations will have sufficient technical information late this fall to be able to meet and discuss the matter, but further than that I cannot at present estimate progress. With regard to the preparation of our case, it is going on now; it can hardly be called the preparation of a case, because it is really the securing of engineering data.


William Findlay Maclean: Then the thirty-foot Welland canal stands on its own bottom, and I think can be justified in view of the

great improvement which has taken place in the shipping of grain. If you get the grain down to lake Ontario in deep channels it will probably lower the freight rates, and so while there may be some doubt as to the future I think the idea of a deep Welland canal is sound, and I would like to see it finished at the earliest possible date.


Mr. EULER:: The new Welland canal is
usually regarded, I take it, as a link in the greater scheme of the deepening of the St. Lawrence waterways. If the balance of the scheme should not be proceeded with, either jointly or separately by the Canadian government, would the minister say that the large sum of money now being expended on the new Welland canal is justified, and if so, in what way? I just wonder whether it would pay to bring the grain through the new Welland canal to the other end of lake Ontario. Will we get advantages from the construction of a new Welland canal which will justify the expense if the whole scheme is not proceeded with?


Charles Avery Dunning: I would prefer that this
discussion should take place on the vote for the Welland canal, which at the request of some hon. members was deferred this afternoon.


William Daum Euler: I simply brought it up because it was right in line with the preceding remarks.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, but we were really wandering away from the point. I will probably have to give the explanation two or three times during that discussion, so perhaps we might leave it until then.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Charles Avery Dunning: Some information was asked for, Mr. Chairman, before adjournment regarding the names of those who compose the national advisory committee. The following is the order of reference with regard to that committee, under order in council of May 7, 1924:
To consider generally whether or not the project would, if completed, be beneficial to Canada, whether the benefits which might accrue and the pecuniary returns, direct or indirect, which may be anticipated from it are such as to counterbalance its disadvantages, if any; whether Your Excellency should indicate a readiness to enter into discussion with the United States of America looking towards the negotiation of a treaty for the carrying out of the necessary works, and what should be the character of the stipulations which any such treaty should contain.

Supply-Railways and Canals
That briefly is the duty of the national advisory committee regarding the St. Lawrence waterway. As to the members of that committee I now have a list which I did not have at hand before. The Right Hon. George P. Graham is at present the chairman. The other members are: Thomas Ahearn, Ottawa: Hon. W. E. Foster, St. John, N.B.; Beaudry Loman, Montreal; Edward D. Martin, AVinnipeg; Doctor Wilfrid L. Mc-Dougald, Montreal; Hon. Sir Clifford Sifton, Toronto; Major General John W. Stewart, Vancouver; and Hon. Adelard Turgeon, Quebec.
The members of the national committee for the United States have been appointed by the president as follow's:	Hon. Herbert
Hoover, Secretary of Commerce, Chairman; William C. Breed, attorney-at-law, New York City, former president, New York Merchants' Association; James E. Davidson, Bay City, Michigan, Vice-President, American Shipbuilding Company, Bay City; James P. Goodrich, Winchester, Indiana, former governor of Indiana; James R. Howard, Chicago, Illinois, formerly president American Farm Bureau Federation; James D. Noonan, American Federation of Labour; Stephen B. Davis, AVashington, D.C., counsel; Charles P. Craig, Washington D.C., executive secretary.
Then as to the Joint Engineering Board, the members of the Canadian section are: D. AV. McLachlan, chairman, Department of Railways and Canals; Olivier O. Lefebvre, Chief Engineer, Quebec Streams Commission, Montreal; Brigadier General Charles H. Mitchell, Toronto.
The members of the American section of the Joint Engineering Board are: Brigadier General Edgar Jadwin, chairman; Colonel AVilliam Kelly and Lieutenant-Colonel George E. Pillsbury.
There was some question as to the other committee which is co-ordinating the various departments of our own government in regard to the several matters touched by this problem. The chairman of that committee is Colonel Biggar, government counsel. The Department of Finance is represented by Mr. Russell, with Mr. Viets as alternate; the Department of National Defence by Brigadier-General A. G. L. McNaughton; the Department of Public Works by Mr. K. M. Cameron, with Mr. Coutlee as alternate; the Department of the Interior by Mr. J. T. Johnston; the Department of Marine and Fisheries by Captain F. Anderson, with Mr. MO ll-257,i
V. W. Fomeret as alternate; the Department of Railways and Canals, by Mr. E. B. Jost; the Department of Trade and Commerce by Mr. Gordon AYrong; the Department of External Affairs by Doctor O. D. Skelton.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: The reason I asked to-day whether we would be likely to come to a joint decision on this matter was the fact that in the United States at the present time there is a very strong agitation to dig an all-American canal, and as far as one can judge from the newspaper reports that project is receiving a great deal of support. If that canal is ever built co-operation between Canada and the United States for the construction of the St. Lawrence canals would of course be ended. For that reason I think it is of the utmost importance that our case should be prepared, and that we should call upon the United States to come into conference with us and reach a decision whether we are going to carry out this work or not. I regard it as one of the most important moves ever made by the Dominion of Canada. It would give to the cities of Montreal and Quebec, I think, supremacy as the grain exporting ports of the world, because this canal would drain not only our own northwest but a very large part of the northwest and central west of the United States; and if there was the necessary depth to accommodate vessels of large draft we would have a volume of commerce going down practically all the Great Lakes and through the 'St. Lawrence, probably, to Quebec. That would make that route perhaps one of the most important in the entire world. The benefit I anticipate would be this: I do not think very many tramp steamers would come from the ocean to the head of the lakes, although there might be some. I imagine the economical method of handling grain would be to load boats at the head of the lakes with 500,000 bushels, as there are vessels with that capacity. Those vessels would proceed to the city of Quebec or Montreal and break bulk there, filling perhaps three or four tramp steamers that were ready to take the cargoes. There would be some volume-perhaps a considerable volume -of package freight going up the lakes if you will visualize the possibilities of this route as I have hastily tried to sketch it I think it will be admitted that this is the greatest project Canada ever faced for the development of her own trade and for the draining of trade from our neighbours to their advantage' and to our profit. The estimated cost of this work is about $250,000,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.

Supply-Railways and Canals


Horatio Clarence Hocken: What is it?


Charles Avery Dunning: Do you mean the whole cost?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I understood the estimated cost was $250,000,000. I am not including the Welland canal in that 'but I am including the other work on the lower St. Lawrence. It has been pointed out by Mr. Gardener, of Chicago, who has given a great deal of study to this question-has the minister got the figures of the total cost?


Charles Avery Dunning: When I said, "No" I
had in mind that my hon. friend was not including the Welland canal.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: No, I was not including
the Welland canal.


Charles Avery Dunning: The preliminary estimate of the cost of the portion from Kingston to Montreal is $252,000,000.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That is what I had in
mind. Now, Mr. Gardener points this out- I met him here a little more than a year ago and had a long interview with him. The plan he suggested for financing the enterprise is a joint commission of United States and Canada that would construct the work and operate it afterwards without profit. The commissioners would have to be paid, and no doubt there would be a considerable staff to operate the canal and keep track of all the accounts; but if this work can be constructed by the two governments jointly and operated at cost we would have not only an ample waterway but one that could be used under the very best conditions. Looking at it in this way, in the broad view as it affects every province, with perhaps the exception of British Columbia, enabling us, as it would, to draw so much trade and traffic from our neighbours, I say this is the most important project Canada has ever faced in the way of transportation. I would urge the minister therefore to press upon the commissioners the necessity of bringing the other nation into conference and of reaching a conclusion from our standpoint as quickly as possible. I think the conclusion would ibe in favour of the canal; at any rate I hope so. We ought to know before the agitation for the allAmerican canal through the State of New fork is carried very much further.


Charles Avery Dunning: I might repeat what I
said this afternoon with reference to the time the Joint Engineering Board will probably report. With regard to the all American project, I am informed the initial estimate of cost for the all American canal is in the neighbourhood of $600,000,000, so that there are a few discouraging factors.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: A few hundred million
does not mean very much over there.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps not. There is
no power development possible on the all American route. I do not want to enter into a discussion now of what the possible benefit of the St. Lawrence ship canal might be. The national advisory committee will investigate that point and obtain the information, and I do not want to anticipate by any too-glowing prophecies what the detailed result of the examination will be. I can assure my hon. friend that I will expedite the inquiry so far as is consistent with performing thorough work in connection with the problem. It is very important we should know all that it is possible to find out about it before a decision is reached.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
date of the report of the International Joint Commission? I think the commission made a report some time ago recommending the adoption of the scheme.


Charles Avery Dunning: December 19, 1921. I
will read an extract from the recommendation which will show that we have given attention to that and followed it up. The quotation reads:
In a matter of such unusual magnitude, involving engineering factors that are more or less debatable, and affecting the interests of many millions of people, too much care cannot be taken to ensure the adoption of plans that will be beyond reasonable criticism, both as to the general scheme of development and the working out of its details. It is therefore desirable that before any steps are taken to carry out the commission's recommendations, the plans of the engineering board, together with such comments or criticisms or alternative plans as have been filed with the commission by other engineers, should be referred back to the board enlarged by other leading members of the engineering profession, to the end that the whole question be given that further and complete study that its magnitude and importance demand.


William Findlay Maclean: How many
years will the consideration be held up?


Charles Avery Dunning: I indicated this afternoon that, so far as I could see, the engineering committee should be in a position to report some time next fall. Then it will be a question of the National Committees giving consideration to that report from the point of view of the nation appointing it. International action of course will result.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In connection with this
project, I am not at the moment going to offer any opinion as a private citizen whether or not Canada should adopt the scheme and go ahead.

Supply-Railways and Canals


Charles Avery Dunning: Neither am I.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should say that this is
not the time or the place, in the absence of information, to do it. The time is close at hand, if it has not already arrived, when something of a fairly definite character should be determined. The minister read an extract from the report of the International Joint Commission in 1921 which indicated that a reference of the problem, which had already received very considerable study, should be made back to an enlarged or extended group of the engineering profession.
I think that proposition is perfectly sound.
I am not going to offer a single criticism of the members of the engineering profession forming that board, but I do wish to offer a criticism as to the wisdom of the appointment of the additional board, superimposed upon the engineering board. There is another board composed of Sir Clifford Sifton, Dr. McDougald, of Montreal, and the other gentlemen named, some of whom I think are very estimable gentlemen and probably highly qualified, and some much less qualified. The impression has been in my mind for some time, and has been emphasized somewhat to-night, that this board is a sort of tactical board, a board of policy-


Charles Avery Dunning: Strategy.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, that is a sacred term which should not be dragged into these sordid matters. I would say a board of policy, a board of tactics, a board which-if I am doing the minister an injustice he will I am sure hasten to correct me-would meet and consider the problem. It was no doubt felt that when the engineers or technical men got through with their part of the work and passed their report to this superimposed board, there might be, in the study of it, indefinite and interminable delay for years to come. Frankly I think this matter is of such great importance that the complete technical information of the department should be placed before this House as early as possible. I understand the care that is necessary, but the International Joint Commission report was made about four and a half years ago, and the study for that period of four and a half years by this engineering board is almost sufficient to supply us with the necessary technical information. I should like to suggest that parliament should be placed in possession at an early date-I would say at the next session of parliament-with the fullest possible draft of all the engineering problems solved, so that they might judge of the merits of the matter from a national standpoint. I am not prepared to offer any
opinion. It would be utterly futile for me to attempt to suggest it, but I think we should have before parliament this information. I agree with my friend from Toronto (Mr. Ilocken) that this is perhaps one of the most important matters that has been brought to the attention of, not the House, but the country, for many years. It is going to be difficult to work it out from a constitutional and economic standpoint. The expenditure of this money from year to year is warranted and desirable only if there is a definite objective in mind and I hope the. engineers' report or reports, because I apprehend it would not be necessary for them to. complete and exhaust every problem before, bringing in some report-


Charles Avery Dunning: Would my hon. friend advocate an interim report from the engineers?	.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not advocating it; so far as I can recall, I have not spoken to an engineer on this subject except last year to one or two who were not on the board, very eminent men. If the engineers said that it was inadvisable I would not offer my opinion against theirs. But if the engineers are prepared to make an interim report on any branch of the whole problem it is important that parliament be seized of that information. I again wish to place before the minister my suspicion that the national advisory committee is the fifth wheel to the coach. I do not want the minister to give me that betraying smile again, but I think he has suspicions of the same character.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps my hon. friend will let me state my own suspicions and not put them into my mouth.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is rather friendly and brotherly assistance I am giving to the minister, because I know it would be awkward on that side of the House to express such a suspicion and I would not expect the hon. gentleman to do so. This fifth wheel to the coach, this advisory board, may be the medium through which this problem will be delayed. There are large interests in Canada opposed to this; there are others very strongly in favour; but parliament should at the earliest possible day have the fullest information so that parliament itself may determine the wise course to pursue.


William Findlay Maclean: In the meantime we have to carry on what we have in hand, namely, a deeper waterway from the upper lakes to the St. Lawrence. That includes what is now under way, the deepening of the Welland canal to a depth of thirty feet-and we

Supply-Railways and Canals
have been told this evening that this is to be completed within five years. This is an important work and it must be carried on. There is, so I understand, a proposal under consideration to get deeper water for larger vessels carrying grain as far as Prescott and I would be glad if the minister would say something about that. We ought to continue until we get twenty or twenty-five feet of water right into the port of Montreal. I understand the cost would be greater to get the required depth below Prescott. Hav'ng the information that it will take a long time to frame a policy in regard to the St. Lawrence deep waterways; \ye must go on with and press for an extension and a deepening of the Canadian waterways which can be used in the meantime jointly by the United States and ourselves, the United States to be contributory to the cost of keeping them up.


Charles Avery Dunning: With regard to the
question of the hon. member for South York, the canal works are being put down to a depth of thirty feet, but the maximum depth of the reaches will be twenty-five feet. As I indicated this afternoon, the work on the Welland canal will be completed in four or .five years. I can assure the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) that whatever smile I had on my .face was not at the advisory board but at the board of strategy on that side of the House to which reference has occasionally been made. I can understand my hon. friend being rather suspicious of boards of strategy after the experience of a little while ago. The national advisory committee has a serious purpose. As regards the suggestion which my hon. friend made that possibly the engineering reports would be sufficient and that we should got no further, he ignores the fact that technical men working on the engineering end of the problem cannot be expected to take into account all the economic factors resulting from the operation of such a waterway. Neither can they be expected to be able to give adequate consideration to the international political questions involved and there are many questions of that nature.
The terms of reference in the order in council which I read just after we resumed at eight o'clock give an idea of the work of the national advisory committee. Further, the whole of Canada will become responsible to this great work if it is undertaken, and therefore the national advisory committee contains representative men from other sections of Canada than the section in which the work is contemplated. For instance the Maritime provinces will have to bear their

share of responsibility of this large sum of money and there is a representative from the Maritime provinces. There is a gentleman from Vancouver. The port interests of Montreal, Quebec and Toronto are also represented.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Who represents Toronto?


Charles Avery Dunning: Sir Clifford Sifton. In the United States there is a similar body whose duty is to deal with this matter. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre appears to doubt the bona tides of a national advisory committee in connection with this matter. Frankly I think it is absolutely necessary that a body of representative men who are willing to devote their attention to this matter and to consider in detail all the reports should advise the government with regard thereto after studying the various phases of the question. The United States have found the same course advisable; the distribution of the members of their national committee is almost similar to the distribution of our own, and the national advisory committee has a serious purpose in view.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Another reason why we should speed this up- is that at the present time the city of Chicago and some of the states between that city and the Mississippi are agitating for enough water to operate a barge canal. There is great resistance to that from Michigan, Ohio and some of the other states.


Charles A. Stewart: They got it yesterday.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Chicago got it?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: If that is settled, of course my point is gone.


Charles A. Stewart: The bill passed congress yesterday.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is not settled but the bill went through.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: The bill to give Chicago 10,000 cubic feet of water?


Charles A. Stewart: To give it sufficient water for a barge canal.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I think that is exceedingly regrettable, because two or three feet of water will be taken from the Great Lakes in order to operate that canal. If reports that are abroad are correct Sir Clifford Sifton, who is one of the national advisory committee, has secured a charter for the Georgian bay canal, would he be entirely impartial as

Supply-Railways and Canals
against his own interests in considering this question? I would think a man who held a charter for a canal by the Georgian bay and French river would not be very much disposed to see another canal constructed on the St. Lawrence. As regards his representing Toronto, he is a resident there; that I think is about the extent of his representation of the city of Toronto. I should not consider it a very proper position for such a man to take. However, I am not the keeper of his conscience, nor have I had anything to do with his appointment. But I would remind the minister that this man has a considerable personal interest in another direction, and he is being called upon to make a decision in this matter.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am informed that the
vote which went through congress yesterday is for the purposes of investigation only and not for construction.


William Findlay Maclean: It was $35,000,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: There must be some
misunderstanding. I understand that the vote is merely for the purpose of investigating the all-American canal in connection with the St. Lawrence and also the barge canal proposal from Chicago to the Mississippi.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: It is to be hoped that
Chicago will not get that water; it will take two or three feet from the lakes.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will do everything
reasonable to expedite the work now going on, and of course parliament will have the right next session to get information regarding whatever communications are received by the government.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Have the
advisory committee done anything yet?


Charles Avery Dunning: They have held two meetings and will consider such reports as reach them and to deal in the meantime as far as possible with subsidiary problems.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then reports
are reaching them from time to time.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not yet.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It would appear that if we are making progress at all it is exceedingly slow. The minister was not here when this matter was discussed in previous years; otherwise he would recollect that there was a general belief-it was not by any means confined to opposition members-in Ontario, at any rate, that the government had persistently stalled in connection with this
matter. That is the belief to-day. The government have appointed different committees to make sure that nothing shall be done at the moment. This matter has been in the hands of the government ever since they came in; the report is dated December, 1921. The House has no information of anything done by the government, nor is there any evidence of any action having been taken. All we do know is that sums of money are being voted every year. The committees are there, but nothing is being done one way or the other, notwithstanding that the application for the Morrisburg development was made long ago. The engineer can tell the minister whether I am right or wrong, but the Ontario HydroElectric offered to develop the power at their own cost, and at the same time further navigation without any charge to the government. Notwithstanding this, nothing has been done, although the work can be carried out, without expense to the Canadian taxpayer, wholly by those who require the use of that electricity. The engineer can tell the minister whether I am wrong.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am getting the information.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Am I wrong?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is not
correct.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is incorrect about the statement?


Charles Avery Dunning: Possibly by hon. friend
does not know that the construction at Morrisburg is on the international section of the canal and without the co-operation of the United States government development is not possible.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I did not say it was. The fact of the matter is that everything is being done to prevent co-operation with the state of New York, which is actively interested in this undertaking. These large committees are successfully stalling. That is the plain truth. There is a third party ready to go ahead at its own expense and develop the power for the benefit of the people, and in such a way as not to injure but, on the contrary, to assist navigation. I quite admit that it is necessary for the state of New York and the government of the United States to consent, but I know very well that at the time these plans were prepared New York was just an anxious as is the province of Ontario to get the work done. There are always interests opposed to development in any country.

Supply-Railways and Canals
Vested interests are opposed to development in the United States, just as they are opposed to development in this country. There are corporations whose interests lie in one direction and corporations who are interested in other ways. The minister has made no reference to the matter drawn to his attention by my hon. friend (Mr. Hocken), who pointed out that according to his information Sir Clifford Sifton was in control of the Georgian bay ship canal.


Charles A. Stewart: He did not have the charter at the time of his appointment.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The appointment is so stale, he has been in the position so long, that the minister is absolutely right. But is that any reason why he should1 be kept on? If there is a clash of interests, ought not the government to look into the matter? This is nothing new. The newspapers have made the same charge and it has never been denied. There is a direct interest on one side, absolutely opposed to the interest of the people in securing development of power on the St. Lawrence. Sir Clifford Sifton, we understand, controls or is interested in the Georgian bay ship canal project. Why? The Minister of Justice will correct me if I am wrong when I say the company claims that, while it was incorporated originally for the purpose of improving waterways, it has the right to all water powers on the river and particularly to such water powers as are generated in the improvement of any waterway. And that company to-day has before the government plans which, if approved by the government, would according to legal opinion enable the company to levy toll for all time on the users of power generated by the waters of the Ottawa in the province of Ontario and Quebec. There is therefore a direct relation between the delay in this matter and the interest of the company. Doctor McDougald is also interested in the electrical business, as we know, lor he was here last year in connection with the Carillon matter. It is common knowledge. I believe that these gentlemen who are interested in the development of sites along the Ottawa are perfectly sincere in thinking that they have a right to charge tolls which can only be increased in value by delays on the St. Lawrence, but they are put in positions of responsibility where they can prevent St. Lawrence development. My hon. friend paid no attention to what was said. Surely he will agree that the last people in the world to be represented upon a project which has as its
[Sir Henry Drayton.)
end the development of electricity, just as much perhaps as navigation itself, ought not to be those who are directiy interested in seeing that that development does not take place. We have had no action yet at all.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is not so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then what action have we had?


Charles Avery Dunning: I will reply when my
hon. friend has finished.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Very well, I
should like to have the information now.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is hardly fair in saying there has been no action yet, because this afternoon I read in detail exactly what has been done by the engineering board.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh yes, that!


Charles Avery Dunning: That! That is one
of the most important things to be done. With regard to the membership of the national advisory committee, if my hon. friend's information with regard to Sir Clifford Sifton is as correct as that with respect to Doctor McDougald, I am not disposed to discuss it. The fact that Doctor McDougald was interested a year ago in a power application which did not succeed is surely no evidence that for all time to come he would be an unsuitable person, on a national advisory committee when he is chairman of the Montreal Harbour Commission. I have no knowledge that Sir Clifford Sifton does control or is interested in the Georgian Bay Canal Company. Personally I do not attach so much importance to it as my hon. friend does. The national advisory committee is a large committee. No one will deny Sir Clifford's business experience and executive ability; no one will deny that in that respect he is a great Canadian; no one will deny that he has rendered distinguished service to his country as a cabinet minister and also in the work of conservation, to which I understand he has given very valuable service. The point of private interest, if it exists, is worth considering, but I am not taking the mere statement as proof that such interest does exist.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know;
I saw it in the papers. It is worth inquiring into.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend accepts as true all he reads about me in the papers-


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not.

Supply-Railways and Canals


Charles Avery Dunning: -and if I accepted as true all I read about him in the papers, we would not think so much of each other as we now do. However, the point is worth considering, and I shall be very glad to have it cleared up.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railways and Canals-chargeable to collection of revenue-staff and repairs, $2,389,390.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What are the
appropriations not required?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is part of last
year's vote which was not used.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was it
for?


Charles Avery Dunning: Staff and repairs for all the canals.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I see, it is a
general vote, nothing is allocated.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railways and Canals-miscellaneous-surveys and inspections-canals, $20,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What was spent on that last year?


Charles Avery Dunning: The whole amount.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Surveys and inspections-railways, $50,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What was spent there last year?


Charles Avery Dunning: It was all spent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I should just like to know what we are doing in surveys and inspections of railways now to spend $50,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: Included in that vote
there has always been an item of $15,000 for the operation of the government cars. There are also some staff items here amounting to $11,400.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What are they?


Charles Avery Dunning: Office engineer; principal clerk, that is, ranking as such and acting as private secretary to the deputy minister; one account clerk; three stenographers and typists. Telegraph, telephone, express and so forth, account for several small items. Parliamentary travelling expenses are also charged to this vote.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Apparently
"surveys and inspections" are not surveys and inspections at all.


Charles Avery Dunning: Apparently that is its
title. It is an old vote and I will have to look into it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We will not
worry about the nomenclature, we will try to find out the facts. Apparently this vote is largely to run government cars.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, partly. There is
$15,000 for maintenance, and $11,000 for operation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Just over $26,000. That would be for the maintenance and operation of private railway cars?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How many cars are there?


Charles Avery Dunning: Exactly the same as
when my hon. friend was in office.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My memory is
so short. What is the number?


Charles Avery Dunning: Five.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How are they
apportioned now?


Charles Avery Dunning: The Minister of Railways. the Minister of National Defence, the Prime Minister.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And the others are free lances?


Charles Avery Dunning: Just exactly the same
as in my hon. friend's time; we have changed nothing in that regard.


Mr. FORKE:: I do not think the government and the opposition will quarrel over this item.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Why don't you come in
here?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder if my hon. friend is serious in the implication of that remark.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not hear the remark ; what was it?


Henry Lumley Drayton: That the opposition was just as anxious to support this vote as is the government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, what else is it? What is the idea; what is the implication?


Robert Forke: You might not be very
pleased about it, and yet not quarrel over it.

Supply-Railways and Canals


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not quarrelling, but if my hon. friend is serious I see a chance here to save a little public money. I think these cars should now be struck off.


Robert Forke: I did not think the case
was so hopeless.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is very much more serious in making a joke than in looking after his business here or in considering votes. If he thinks this number of private cars should be cut down I certainly agree, and if he is not prepared to go the whole way will he go half way and move that three of the cars be discontinued and that the vote be reduced accordingly? We could very well do without them now.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Let the other two
be placed at the disposal of the members of the House.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know that that would be wise either; I think they would become greater bones of contention than they ever have been in the past. Of course my hon. friend has looked after himself rather well; he always had the Defence car.


Eugène Fiset: I never used it in
my life.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend would not use them; he knows they are nuisances. There he was in the Department of National Defence and he did not use this car at all. He should join with me in trying to get rid of three of these nuisances.


Eugène Fiset: That is what I am trying to do.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then I have
one supporter in my effort to save a little public money, in the person of the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset). Now I wonder if the hon. member for Brandon will not be supporter No. 2 and agree that we should get rid of three of these cars.


Robert Forke: I said the hon. member
would not quarrel but I must have been mistaken. I do not know exactly what he wants me to do. I made a mistake in thinking he would not quarrel, that is all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was just trying to find out how far my hon. friend would go in his love for economy. Here we have a case where admittedly we can get along with less cars; we have two which are absolutely not apportioned for busi-
9 p.m. ness purposes. I quite agree that the Minister of Railways requires a private car in his business; I think it is
'
a very nice thing for the Prime Minister to have a ear to run around in, but I think we should stop just at the point where we have looked after the Prime Minister and the one other minister who has any real use for a private oar. However, if my hon. friend will not support me I think the best thing to do with this item is pass it on division. We will have an opportunity later on of moving to strike it out altogether, when we will have perhaps a little better representation. Perhaps by the time it is passed on division the ideas of economy of the hon. member for Brandon will triumph over his love for the Liberal tag, and he will be able to shoot a rat with a Liberal tag on it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I may have been guilty of giving wrong information, and I would just like to check up. I did make a mistake; there are four private cars instead of five. The fifth car is owned by the railway.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Only used, not owned.


Charles Avery Dunning: The railway carries the maintenance; all we do is provide for the attendant.


Ernest Lapointe: The only criticism I
have heard is that we, the present ministers, are not using the cars as they were used in former times.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then, Mr. Chairman, we are getting on in our Dutch auction. Of course the Minister of Justice will want to cut off the overhead now being used to pay attendants for waiting around offices, while they never have a job. Surely he will join me.


Ernest Lapointe: No, I will not.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I think the government
should accept the suggestion made by the hon. member for West York. It is all the easier to cut it down from four to two instead of from five to two, because we only cut off two cars instead of three.


Charles Avery Dunning: Surely we can look at this matter seriously and without being .sensitive about it. As my hon. friend has stated, it is a perfectly proper thing for the Prime Minister of this country, whoever he may be, to have a private car. It is absolutely necessary, in travelling, because no man who is badgered as much as is the Prime Minister could possibly get along in this country without having some place to which he could retire and do his work. The general consensus of opinion also seems to be that the Minister of Railways requires a car, and then we have two spares.

Supply-Railways and Canals


Henry Lumley Drayton: And a third
which can be used.


Charles Avery Dunning: The third is a pretty
poor car; I think my hon. friend knows which car it is. However, I should say that only yesterday I received a request for some courtesy in the way of a private car for a very prominent official of the British government, an under-secretary, as a matter of fact, which office in England is next to cabinet rank, as my hon. friend knows. This gentleman is coming to this country for the purpose of conference with the officials of the government. Normally one of these spare cars would be used to extend such a courtesy. I hesitate to appear as a defender of what in some quarters is regarded as an extravagance, but I think there are many other places where we could more easily cut down than on an item of this kind. I felt somewhat diffident in saying anything about it until my hon. friend admitted that the Minister of Railways almost had to have this accommodation, and that being the case I though I might say just a word or two.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: You should always have a spare tire.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the minister indicate those places where we could better save money? If he will only tell us where those places are we will let this item go and get after bigger fish.


Charles Avery Dunning: That work has already been done. If the hon. gentleman belonged to a government which included the present Minister of Finance, he would know what cutting to the bone means.


William Duff: Carried.


Henry Lumley Drayton: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railways and Canals-railways employees' provident fund, $50,000.
George Brecken Nicholson: Before this item
passes, as a matter of information, would the minister explain just what is involved here?


Charles Avery Dunning: This is the provident
fund of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway. The act creating this fund provides for the payment to retiring employees on these particular lines of a monthly allowance of 1^ per cent, for each year of service, of the average monthly pay received by such employee for the eight years immediately preceding his retirement, such monthly allowance to be not less than $20. Because
of the fact that the cost of living has greatly increased since the passing of this act in 1907, such minimum rate of $20 a month was found to be inadequate and great hardship and even privation were being suffered by those who had been retired under the provisions of the act at the minimum rate. Pending the consideration of a general pension scheme for the Canadian National Railways, provision has been made annually since 1921 for the purpose- of affording to these former employees of the crown some measure of temporary relief. The number affected as at December 18, 1925, is 456-that is the old pensioned employees, if my hon. friend is following me -divided as follows: 225 employees granted a maximum allowance of $10, bringing the minimum pension to $30 instead of $20; 201 employees have been given an increase from their pension allowance which ranged between $20 and $30 up to $30. The increase allowed the latter class amounted in some cases to only a few cents and in other cases to $9.75. The fund from which such pensions are paid is made up of contributions from the men and from the government. In the early stages the government contributed dollar for dollar with the employees, but when the $100,000 mark was reached the government's contribution became fixed at that amount with the consequence that now by far the greater proportion of the fund is made up of the men's contribution. The vote itself is identical with the vote of last year, and the provision is as I have stated.


George Brecken Nicholson: Could the minister say approximately how many employees there are on that portion of the Intercolonial, or does this include the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island railways?


Charles Avery Dunning: The entire Intercolonial
and Prince Edward Island railways, but my hon. friend should bear in mind that the 456 retired employees affected are only those who were retired at the minimum pension originally of $20 a month, and this provision is used entirely for raising the allowance to a more generous figure consequent on the increase in the cost of living.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: What is the total number of men on pension on the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island railways?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sorry I have not
that information at hand, but I will get it for my hon. friend. Of course, those who retire are retired under the provisions of this act to which I have just referred, the act of 1907, and must qualify in accordance with its provisions.

Supply-Railways and Canals


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I gather from what the
minister said that this is only a part of the pensioners, and that there are a great many others who have been pensioned.


Charles Avery Dunning: This consists only of
those who were retired at the minimum allowance of $20 per month.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: What I would like to get
at, if I can, is the number of men employed on these railways and the number that have been pensioned.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will get that information for my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, maintenance and operation of, $250,030.
Henry Lumley Drayton: That item was discussed this afternoon and alowed to stand.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the statutory
vote.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh no, the
chairman has gone back to the vote that was allowed to stand.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend wanted
information as to the cost year by year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The year 1921 was the year I was speaking of.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will go back to 19161917. To illustrate the gradual increase. I suppose the increase is attributable to the reasons I mentioned this afternoon. These are the fiscal years with the amount in each case in round numbers:
1810-17.
1917-	18.
1918-	19.
1919-	20.
1920-	21.
1921-	22.
1922-	23.
1923-	24.
1924-	25.

There is a gradual upward movement until 1924-25. when there was a reduction of over $11,000 in that year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Go ahead.


Charles Avery Dunning: I gave 1925-26. It was


Henry Lumley Drayton: For 1925-26, it is $244,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, there is an error
somewhere.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is an error in
my hon. friend's estimates.
[Mr. iMnniiig.'l


Charles Avery Dunning: This is actual expenditure. The amount I gave for 1924-25, was


Henry Herbert Stevens: What about 1925-26?


Charles Avery Dunning: I will get that information for my hon. friend. In the meantime perhaps we could take Item No. 108.
Trent Canal construction (revote, $19,000), $19,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is a revote.


Charles Avery Dunning: Both are revotes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I think we had better get the other matter adjusted.


Henry Herbert Stevens: While the minister is getting the exact figures I was going to ask if the increase in this vote for the railway commission of $5,671 is for the fixing up of the room of the new commissioner, Mr. Thomas Vien. I know it was very luxuriously fitted up and I was wondering whether the expenditure came under this item.


Charles Avery Dunning: The increased expenditure is entirely due to reclassification and statutory increases in salaries.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Perhaps the adorning of
these chambers came out of the public works vote.


Ernest Lapointe: I think you are right.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Probably when the Public Works votes are under consideration we will discuss this item.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: It is very ordinary.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Something like the Sultan of Turkey, I am told.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Welland ship canal construction: To provide tor payment to P. Lyall and Sons, Construction Co. Ltd., of compensation on account of washing rock excavated from Sec. 4. before crushing for concrete and not anticipated at time tenders were called, for 207,500 cu. yds. at 70c., $145,250.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I think we should give some consideration to that item.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend wants
complete information?.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes. We have done pretty well in getting rid of the small items.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not complaining at all; I appreciate the treatment accorded me in that respect. This vote is for extra compensation to the P. Lyall Company on

Supply-Railways and. Canals
account of having to wash the rock excavated from section 4 before crushing for concrete.
I do not know that I need read the pertinent sections of the specification forming part of the P. Lyall Construction Company's contract.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Usually in a
case such as this we ask the minister to produce the file, and I would ask him to do so. It is one of those things which may be all right and may be absolutely wrong.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall be glad to produce the file. Could I save time by reading the engineer's report on the matter?


Henry Lumley Drayton: If my hon. friend will produce the file it might be passed at once.


Charles Avery Dunning: The engineer's report
reads:
The contractors for sections Nos. 3 and 4 are obligated to supply all crushed stone needed for sections Nos. 1 and 2 under contract with Mr. J. F. Porter, and this supply has precedence over any rock needed for sections Nos. 3 and 4.
When the contract for sections 3 and 4 was awarded in June 1922, no excavation had been started in section 4, but excavation in section 3 was well under way and the rock excavated therein, containing no clay or other objectionable matter for concrete, was all sent to the crusher. In none of our borings in section 4 did we find rock of a character different to that found in section 3, and it was no doubt on this assumption that the contractors put in their unit tender prices.
Acting on this assumption we did not force the contractors to reserve all stone excavated from sections 3 and 4 for sections 1 and 2 and we allowed them to use a large portion of it for concrete work.
Contrary to all anticipation, it is now found that the southern end of section 4, from Stations 360 to 397, has a rock formation intermixed with thick vertical and horizontal seams of brown clay and silt rendering necessary the washing of the greater part of the rock before allowing it to proceed to the crusher.
A very close tab has been kept of the extra cost to the -contractors of this washing, as detailed in division engineer Lazier's report of August 25th. 1925 and engineer in charge Grant's report of September 25th, 1925.
From these compilations it is found that some 374,500 cubic yards of rock have, or will have to be washed, at an estimated extra cost to the contractors of 70 cents per cubic yard, representing a total extra cost of $262,150.
I do not know how the claim would stand on legal grounds as, in order to protect the crown against dishonest contractors, the specifications have been made extremely rigid and arbitrary, but in equity at least I believe that the department would be well justified in allowing the contractors the extra cost, as established by us, of two cents per cubic yard for all rock excavated from Section No. 4 which we have ordered them to wash before sending it to the crusher.
Otherwise, bona fide contractors will in the future have to raise their unit tender prices to provide for even the most improbable contingencies.
That is signed by the chief engineer. The item in connection with that was dealt with by my predecessor prior to my coming down
here, and naturally my reaction in connection with it was to make a careful inquiry. The contracts of the department are most rigid; they have been developed over "a long period of years from the experience of contractors finding a hole in their contract and that hole being plugged, and other holes being found and plugged in succeeding years, until now the contract is so rigid that there is no possibility of the contractor getting through it at all. It is very doubtful whether the contractor could in any court collect this extra money, in spite of the fact that we ordered him to do something which was certainly not in his contract, but which had to be done if the rock was to be fit for concrete work at all. Most hon. members know that foreign material, such as clay, mixed with rock in concrete work simply destroys the concrete and makes it of no use. I shall be glad to bring down the information and let the item stand to have the file produced, or we can pass the item and bring down the information later; either course will suit me.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like to ask two
questions in relation to this. It will be noted first that the price is 70 cents a yard for the washing of this rock. That cost may include the handling or part of the handling of the rock in addition to the mere washing. The rock would have to be handled in any case. I point that out to the minister, because the figure of 70 cents a yard seems to me to be an excessive figure for the additional cost that would be necessary in washing this rock. The other point I wish to bring to his attention is that the engineer's report indicates that in number 4 section, contrary to expectation, and also contrary to the results of previous borings, it is now found in actual work that there are in the rock formation certain areas comprising seams of clay and silt, consequently, the excavation in all probability will be cheaper and less difficult than in the case of solid rock formation. That may or may not be the case, but the matter should be carefully considered and if there is a saving in the cost of excavation because of the material being softer and less difficult to excavate, such saving should be deducted from this figure of $145,000 or the total figure which the minister indicated a moment ago of some $250,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: The engineer points out to me that it is not a lump sum, but a unit price contract. When earth is excavated the contractor is paid only for excavating earth; when rock is excavated he is paid for excavat-

Supply-Railways and Canals
ing rock. A very close tab is kept on the expense. The file will reveal that, and I had better bring down the file. I will agree to let the item stand or have it passed subject to bringing the file down.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It would be
better to bring the file down first.


Charles Avery Dunning: We will let the item
stand and bring the file down later.
Item stands.


Charles Avery Dunning: As regards the railway
commission item, which was allowed to stand for further information, I may say that the amount spent last year was $240,388.58.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How did the
minister manage to get rid of that?


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not manage to
get rid of it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How did the
board manage to get rid of it? This just shows when you get the facts how completely the minister's idea that this was a gradual increase in salaries is out of place. His own figures show a jump in the department last year from $212,000 to $240,000. The minister was wise in stopping at 1925 when he was giving the figures. Will he say why the expenses of that department should increase $28,000 in a year? Because that is what his figures show. The matter is getting worse instead of better.


Charles Avery Dunning: In the previous year, for some unexplained reason, the expenditure declined by $12,000. As between 1924-25 and 1925-26 the expenditures increased, as my hon. friend says, as much as they went down and $12,000 more. My hon. friend stated this afternoon that as chairman he was never refused the necessary appropriation to carry on the work of the Board of Railway Commissioners. This government has not taken the position of refusing what the board considers necessary. I will, however, in view of the increase, give the assurance that during the coming year I will take occasion to consult with the board in regard to the gradually developing expense in connection with their work. It it were possible to bring the board here we would probably find that the investigations they have under way are of a far-reaching and important character, and they might supply us with information beyond that which I have given. The increase

from last year to the coming year is accounted for, as I said before, by statutory increases in salaries and civil service reclassification.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why does my hon. friend want to go above the high-water mark of $240,000? It is going up again.


Charles Avery Dunning: That was the figure supplied by the board with respect to their needs.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Has the old rule that members of the board had to give all their time to the work and engage in no other occupation been abrogated?


Charles Avery Dunning: Not to my knowledge.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I understand the deputy chief commissioner went to England on a legal case. I was just wondering whether the rule had been abrogated.


Charles Avery Dunning: The case in question is one which the present deputy chief commissioner had in hand at the time he assumed that office, and as a matter of justice to his client he could not very well drop it. He was accordingly permitted to make that trip, but the rule has not been abrogated.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Are there any other cases to be wound up?


Charles Avery Dunning: Not that I know of.


Henry Herbert Stevens: At whose expense will he go to England?


Charles Avery Dunning: At his own, of course.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 154, to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved the second reading of Bill No. 150, respecting the Chicoutimi Harbour Commissioners.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Duff in the chair.

Chicoutimi Harbour Commission
On section 1-Short title.
Henry Lumley Drayton: When the resolution was under discussion the minister gave two reasons for the incorporation of harbour commissioners: first, request from the people of the locality concerned; and, secondly, request from the member representing that locality. Is there any other ground he can suggest?


Mr. CARDIN:: I may add, the importance of the locality and the developments which, as in this case, have already taken place. It is difficult to draw the line between ports that require and ports that do not require harbour commissions. To a great extent it must be a matter of choice on the part of the people affected. I realize of course that there are important ports in Canada which are managed without the assistance of harbour commissions, and I may assure the hon. gentleman that if a request comes from any such port there will be no resistance on the part of the government. In this case the people are satisfied that the business of the port can be carried on to better advantage if a commission is appointed. The committee will understand that no expense devolves on the government. The commission is expected to operate on its own revenues, and if assistance should be required at any tame application must be made to parliament. This bill does not provide for any advances, the object being merely the incorporation of the commission. I would remind my hon. friend that even in such ports where there are no commissions the government is very often obliged to make expenditures. There are in Canada certain ports that handle only grain and coal, but the vessels calling at Chicoutimi will carry cargoes of various descriptions. The important point, however, is that the government is not committing itself to any expenditures; as I say, if any assistance is needed later on the commission will have to come to parliament. Where expenditures are made in ports that are not under the control of commission, the money is spent through the Department of Public Works. I do not think I can give any further reasons for the appointment either of this commission or of harbour commissions generally.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was merely
trying to find out what the policy was. This may be a good place for a commission; I do not know. These harbour commissions sometimes work well and sometimes they do not. I was anxious to ascertain whether there was any other reason for the bill than public clamour, but apparently there is not.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is the desire of the
business men of the locality.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If they ask for it they get it.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, just as I would grant the request if it came from any other quarter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: From a cursory glance
at the bill I fancy it is modelled after the acts incorporating the Montreal and Vancouver boards.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is practically a copy
of the Vancouver act.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the magnitude
of the business now handled at this port? What are the customs returns as to tonnage in and out?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have no information regarding the customs revenues, but the harbour dues collected last year amounted to $7,192.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What salaries will be paid?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No salaries.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Interpretation.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Are these definitions the
same as those in similar bills?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Absolutely; they have been, taken from the others.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Harbour limits defined.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I have a little experience in matters of this kind, and I should like to know whether the government has carefully ascertained the limits in this case. The section refers to "all tidal waters of the Saguenay."


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: From a certain point.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, but they are more or less undefined. The tidal waters might over a considerable distance interfere with private properties and interests, creating difficulties to be coped with later on. Has the government checked the boundaries which are so indefinitely fixed in this section?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The matter has been considered by the officers of the department and I am assured that there will be no interference with private property.
1068	COMMONS
Chicoutimi Harbour Commission


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would merely add that I think it is in the interest of the government that the upper boundary should be fixed by something more than merely the movement of the tide.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Officers and employees.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This of course provides for what is the usual equipment of a first-class harbour. The government is going to be faced with the necessity of financing this.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, the harbour commission will finance itself through its revenue. Of course if it has to ask the government for anything it will have to come before parliament.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We hope so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Has the government considered the desirability of retaining some control over salaries and expenditures in connection with the harbour commissioners?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The salaries to be paid have to be fixed by by-laws, and those bylaws will have to be approved by the minister.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is my hon. friend quite sure that is right? That is the understanding which I had myself, but I notice that to a question put recently by one of the hon. members for St. John information was refused as to the salaries paid by the commissioners of Quebec harbour. Now, it would be highly improper to refuse that information if it was a matter of government business. I have not the question in my mind exactly, but I think my hon. friend has. Surely the House has a right to take action as a committee of parliament,-a term of which this government is so fond. We cannot do so if the position is taken that it is something we are not concerned with. My hon. friend probably recollects the question and answer?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do. I am not quite sure that the harbour commission to which my hon. friend refers is on the same footing as the Vancouver Harbour Commission or this commission. My hon. friend will find that under subsection (d) of section 11 the commissioners may by by-law provide for:
The compensation or salaries to be paid the officers, assistants, engineers, clerks and servants appointed by the corporation;

And further on he will see that the bylaws will have no force or effect until they are confirmed by the Governor in Council. So the salary by-laws will have to be approved by order in council. I am not sure that there is a similar provision in other cases.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Can my hon.
friend tell the House just exactly the grounds on which he refused to answer the question. I have referred to in regard to the Quebec Harbour Commissioners? Was not that a matter of public business?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We took the ground that according to the policy which had been followed by this government, and I believe by the preceding government too, certain information could be withheld, for example, by the officers of the National Railways, which they considered of a confidential nature. We followed the same principle because we contended that the salaries, being paid out of the revenues of the port, were rather of an administrative nature, and therefore the commissioners were entitled to secrecy as to them. I must admit that I am not so strong with respect to that case.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Let me hasten
to assure my hon. friend that he is quite wrong. I have no doubt representations were made to him as he says, but what was withheld, both by the previous government and by this government-although this government has withheld far more-in connection with the railways was in relation to questions of competition, where if the information had been given out competitors could have taken advantage of it. But even in that case it was confined entirely to current business, never to capital account, although this government extended it to questions of capital account. My hon. friend will see how absurd it would be for him to take the position that there is any analogy between the two cases. The harbour commissioners of Quebec have no competitors. My hon. friend says the salaries were paid out of the revenues of the port. Who is paying those revenues? The taxpayers of Canada.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Not only the taxpayers of this country, but also the owners of foreign vessels.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But foreign
vessels do not come there unless their owners are making some money out of the traffic. The ultimate Canadian consumer is paying every cent of it. But over and above all that, there is a tremendous deficit there every

Chicoutimi Harbour Commission
year; we cannot get our interest, and we are carrying that port. I hope my hon. friend will see that that position is reconsidered. I point out to him that it is absolutely at variance with what he himself thinks ought to be done and what he is doing in this very bill. It is information to which the public is entitled, and I am quite sure my hon. friend will see that an answer is given to the question I have referred to.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Of course the information will be open to the public in this case.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And in the
other too.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am ready to consider
it. I do not know how the law stands with respect to it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is entirely in his own hands. It is not a question of law, it is a question of what is right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
On section 11-By-laws.
Henry Lumley Drayton: We should take this section paragraph by paragraph.
Subsection 1, Paragraph (a) agreed to.
Paragraph (b)-Regulation and control of
vessels.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That seems to
be a very broad clause.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is the ordinary clause.
It is included in all the other Harbour Commission Acts.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then I do not suppose any trouble will come of it, but I think it is rather broad. It covers the regulation and control of each and every matter in connection with vessels navigating the harbour. I should have thought the harbour commissioners could only control matters in connection with the mooring, berthing, discharging or loading of vessels.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is the usual clause;
you will find it in the Vancouver and other harbour acts.
Paragraph (b) agreed to.
Paragraphs (c) to (k) inclusive agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
On section 12-Payment of rates as to seagoing vessels.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is the same
standard?
14011-25S


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, the same thing.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 13 agreed to.
On section 14-borrowing powers.
George Brecken Nicholson: It seems to me that
this is the important clause of the bill. This measure has to do with a harbour or port from which the total revenue last year amounted to some $7,000. By this bill we are setting up a full fledged harbour commission and making provision for a staff of engineers, clerks, officers, and everything they may need, and by clause 14 we are giving -them authority to borrow money, subject to the ratification of the Governor in Council. We are simply inviting this commission to spend money, to put it plainly; we are simply saying, "Here is the opportunity; now go out and issue bonds and debentures for which the Governor in Council will be responsible, with which to put on all the frills in connection with this' harbour."


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My hon. friend is mistaken; the government is not responsible unless we decide to take responsibility through a bill which will be brought before parliament. But there is no responsibility under that clause.


George Brecken Nicholson: Perfectly true, but we are setting up this organization to control that port, and when they come to the government and say, "We must have a loan of $100,000 and if we do not get it we cannot do the work" you will have to give it to them.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Parliament will have to
judge that.


George Brecken Nicholson: The government is
authorizing this commission to go ahead and organize that port in their own way. True, it is subject to ratification by the Governor in Council, but in the passage of a bill of this . character, I submit that if the minister will just go back and think of what has taken place, past experience will show that in every case where this kind of commission has -been set up the usual result follows, and the government of Canada becomes responsible for its expenditures -which just accumulate from year to year. That is why the general list of expenditures is increasing.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Suppose there is no harbour commission at Chicoutimi and that on account



Chicoutimi Harbour Commission
of developments which will take place in that neighbourhood within four or five
10 p.m. years the population of the district increases to fifteen or twenty-five thousand or more; if they come to this government or to any other government asking for wharves to be built or dredging to be done in Chicoutimi, who is to refuse them? Probably they will not have to come, because the traffic will be developed by that time. My hon. friend says there is no commission which has not come to parliament to borrow money; the commission of Three Rivers has not yet come before parliament.


George Brecken Nicholson: The minister is mistaken.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is very young.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The harbour commission of Three Rivers was established three or four years ago.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What about Vancouver?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think I may say that Vancouver is going to take care of itself very soon.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It has always paid its interest.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: So the government has no responsibility at all. When there is sufficient traffic at Chicoutimi to justify it we will have plenty of opportunity to look into this thing and to discuss the needs when these people come before parliament-if they ever come-asking for assistance or asking to have the right to borrow some money, but at present they are not asking for a dollar. They only want to form some kind of corporation to look after the needs of the port, and these people are to administer the harbour according to the revenues they are receiving at present. These moneys for which they are authorized to issue debentures are guaranteed by the revenues receivable or the property controlled by the corporation, so we take no responsibility at present.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister should be able to tell us what this money will be raised on, what property the commissioners have.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The revenues or property receivable or controlled.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am referring
:o the property to be charged by these mortgage bonds to be issued. How much money
fMr. Cardin.]
have we now invested in Chicoutimi which we would be handing over to the commission 

because we are handing over all our property there?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What does it amount to?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I could not tell at present.


Ernest Lapointe: May I say that the harbour of Chicoutimi will do the work for not only Chicoutimi but for the adjoining district as well, including Bagotville, St. Alphonse and that new city of Arvida which was created this winter, where there will be a population of thirty thousand within two years and one hundred thousand within ten years, according to the officials of the Aluminum Company. This company is there building a plant the total cost of which I understand will be in the neighbourhood of 8100,000,000. It is a stupendous work which is going on in that territory. The Duke-Price Company are building a huge pulp and paper plant, and there is also the surrounding district to be considered. It is understood that it is the most promising section of the province of Quebec and that is a very moderate statement. The Aluminum Company have already given orders for a number of big ships and are going to operate them. These ships will bring the raw material from South America for the operation of their plant in Chicoutimi. Ultimately the Saguenay river will become one of the most important avenues of navigation.


George Brecken Nicholson: I think everyone appreciates that, and anything I may say with respect to this matter is not intended in any way to minimize the importance of the harbour. But the point is this: I take it that the port of Chicoutimi has been administered by a harbour master up to now.


Ernest Lapointe: It would until a very few years ago.


George Brecken Nicholson: Exactly. There must have been a harbour master at Chicoutimi the same as there is in the case of hundreds of other ports of a similar character throughout Canada. But it seems to me that when you create a commission of thi3 character you immediately set up a spending body. You appoint a commission of three men. It is all right to say they are not going to get salaries, and that they will have to finance themselves, but I make the prediction that before a year, or perhaps two years, we will

Criminal Code Amendment
find that this body has issued bonds and debentures for which, in the final analysis, this government will become responsible and they will have to pay to the extent of a very large expenditure. I ask hon. gentlemen to watch and see what will take place.
Sections 15 and 16 agreed to.
On section 17-Seizure and detention of vessels.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Where is the
authority to be found for the limits defined in this section?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In the shipping act.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The right of
seizure and detention is given not only in the harbour limits but anywhere in the province of Quebec. We have something very different from that, of course, in Vancouver. What is the limit in Vancouver? The province of British Columbia?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, the province of British Columbia and that part of the ocean over which we exercise jurisdiction.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 18-'Seizure and detention of goods.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: These are the customary
clauses.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 19 agreed to.
On section 20-Service of process.
Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister is quite clear that all these sections are modelled after clauses in other bills?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. That is the absolute information given me by the officers of the department.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As far as I can get the effect of the sections as we go along, they seem to be in harmony.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 21 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 153, to amend the Criminal Code.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon. Mr. Duff in the chair.
On section 1-Unlawful associations, publishing seditious books.	.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Will my hon.
friend kindly explain the purpose of the section?


Ernest Lapointe: These two sections which we intend to repeal were added |to the Criminal Code in 1919. I do not say that they were placed in the act on account of events in Winnipeg, although it was done after those events. But it was explained at the time that owing to the period of unrest through which the world was passing it would be important to place those sections in the act which, if not enlarging the powers already given under the clauses relating to sedition, would at least make them more definite in certain ways. It was further explained that they were intended to replace to a large extent, certain provisions which had been made during the war under the War Measures Act by way of orders in council. Since that time labour in general, but especially organized labour, has continually and strongly complained about these two sections. Every year since I have been a member of the government representatives of the Trades and Labour Congress, when they came annually to present their suggestions to the government, have asked that these two sections might be repealed, leaving the situation as it was prior to 1919. They have always feared that the sections in question would be directed against the activities of labour unions, although those who are responsible for the insertion of the sections in the code always claimed that such was not the intention. At all events we have already in the code sufficient protection as to everything against which we should be protected in the matter of sedition. We have those precautions in section 87 and also provisions concerning unlawful assemblies. We find provisions in section 130 regarding sedition, oaths or engagements in societies; in section 132 against seditious words, seditious libel and seditious conspiracy, in section 135 against any libel on a foreign sovereign, and in section 136 against publishing false news. Sedition under the British law, of course, is an old offence, but there has never been a strict definition of sedition. I think it was in 1880 that the British commissioners who. were entrusted with the work of drafting the English code inserted a clause defining seditious intention. That clause read as follows:
An intention to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the person of Her Majesty, or the government and constitution of the United

Criminal Code Amendment
Kingdom or of any part of it as by law established, or either House of Parliament, or the administration of justice; or
to excite Her Majesty's subjects to attempt to procure, otherwise than by lawful means, the alteration of any matter in church or state by law established; or
to raise discontent or disaffection amongst Her Majesty's subjects; or to promote feelings of ill will and hostility between different classes of such subjects.
This was not made part of the British code; parliament rather preferred to let the tribunals decide as to sedition under the common law as the practice had always been in the past. The same thing happened in Canada. When our Criminal Code was introduced in parliament there was a clause similar to the one which had been drafted by the commissioners of the English code. Here also, after a good deal of discussion and criticism, both in committee and in the House, the clause was not accepted, and we were left with the old British law concerning sedition and governed by the common law of England. This has always worked well in Canada, as well as in Great Britain, and I am firmly convinced that the sections which were added in 1919, on account, as was said at the time, of the unrest which prevailed in the world, are not at all necessary. I asked the officers of the Department of Justice to ascertain whether any prosecutions had ever been made under these sections, and I was told that they could find no record of any.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We were told
in the debate the other day, which was provoked on a question of privilege, that people were prosecuted in Winnipeg under this section.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, that is a mistake.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. member for North Winnipeg said so. It may be a mistake but the statement was made.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think there was any case before the court under those sections.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It was under the Immigration Act.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Winnipeg
proceedings were taken under the old law.


Ernest Lapointe: 
Henry Lumley Drayton: If I understand
the hon. minister, his position is not that he has any objection to the law against the use of force, violence, terrorism or physical injury to any person or property, or the provision respecting the overthrow of governments, but what he is doing is to strike out the unnecessary provisions in the act.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The first section repealed is a provision against the use of force, violence or physical injury to any person or property. What section of the code covers that case?


Ernest Lapointe: Sections 133 and 134.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, the minister is repealing 97A.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
existing section wliich covers that?


Ernest Lapointe: Sections 133 and 134.
The provisions of the code relating to utterances which have a tendency to produce feelings of hatred or ill-will between different classes of a community have always come under the provision relating to sedition under the common law.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How does section 133
read?


Ernest Lapointe: 
Horatio Clarence Hocken: Were any of those trades
unions able to explain to the minister's satisfaction how these clauses now in the act could apply to them?


Ernest Lapointe: Well one of the grounds of their fears was the use of the word "force", coupled with the word "industrial or economic change." They claim that certain courts have expressed the opinion that a strike, for instance, would come within the meaning of the word "force", and that this section might be used against labour unions in an industrial difficulty where resort is had to strikes in order to secure an economic change.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I do not agree with that.
But supposing that is the case, why could that section not be amended by striking out that particular part of it and leaving the section to operate against men who come in here to advocate setting up such a system as they have in Russia?


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend may
be sure that the Criminal Code as it was and as it will be left- will be sufficient to protect the citizens of Canada in that respect. I am far from being sure that these sections have improved our code. I think the British system with regard to this is better than the United States system. These are really copies of the United States law in this matter and I am in favour of the British system.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If I may supplement what the minister has said with regard to the objections of organized labour, I should like to quote a paragraph or two from the 1920 report of the proceedings of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada. They had taken the advice of Mr. J. G. O'Donoghue of Toronto with regard to the bearing of certain of these sections. He gives his reasons for his objection to these two words "force" and "terrorism" which had been made use of in connection with the Winnipeg trials.
Judge Metcalfe's charge to the jury in the Russell case contained the following:
Mr. Russell gave us his idea of a sympathetic strike. He said, "When a dispute originates between an employer and his employees, and when the labour organizations see that organization being beat, they come to their assistance by calling a strike to force their employers to bring force to bear upon the original disputants to make settlement." That is Russell's definition given in the boa. . . . Force, force, force.
The comment is made:
A court would be quite justified in interpreting the word in its natural or dictionary sense.
As for the word "terrorism", some light can be thrown upon the interpretation of it by that given in the Winnipeg case of Rex vs. Russell. There Judge Metcalfe says:
"To walk around about, for instance, to a place where people are employed in large numbers, and to 'boo', gentlemen of the jury, as much terror may be inspired through that as by two or three fighting ohaps coming along with bludgeons. Take it from me, in strikes you can incite terror without hitting a man over the head. You can incite terror of starvation; you can incite terror of thirst. Is not that quite as effective as inciting by bodily violence? Your stomach will bring you quicker than a crack on the head sometimes. If it is possible that picketing can be done in this country, then the lawful method of picketing is so ineffective that it is a reasonable inference that in strikes of this class, unlawful means would be intended to be applied. Sometimes it has a deterring effect upon people's minds by exposing them to have their motions watohed, and to encounter black looks."
The last couple of lines show the possibilities of the word "terrorism."
But apart from the question of altering these two words, I should like to call attention in the sections to be repealed to several phrases which I think any hon. gentleman will come to realize are not such as we would like to leave in the laws of this country. In defining an unlawful association one section speaks of any society that advocates the use of force. Again that word is used, but force may be economic force. What do we mean by force? Further, there is this provision with regard to the property of such unlawful association:
Any property, real or personal, belonging or suspected to belong to an unlawful association. . . may, without warrant, be seized or taken possession of. . . and may thereupon be forfeited to His Majesty.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: A trades union is not
an unlawful association.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is the point. Trades unions are afraid of being classed as unlawful associations because they may at a time of crisis such as a strike urge the use of economic force.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That is, a sympathetic
strike?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Which has been determined in Great Britain to be unlawful.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, it has not.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That is the judgment
which was given in the late strike.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There has been no decision of the courts on that. I am sure

Criminal Code Amendment
that no one would suggest the desirability of having it in our laws that simple suspicion should be the ground for confiscation. As a matter of fact, although the incident did not come directly under this law, I know of a case in the city of Calgary where an English worker of a superior type had been collecting a library over a period of ten or twenty years and had brought that library with him to this country. Some official - ssuspected that there was something dangerous in it. That library was seized without warrant and confiscated, and that man, who happens to be ran alderman in the city of Calgary, has been unable from that time on to get it back. If this law were in force that kind of thing could become general.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That was not done under this law.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No. I said that
did not come directly under this law, but if this law were retained and acted upon, that kind of thing could become general.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Has anything of that kind been done under' this act?


James Shaver Woodsworth: As the minister
has said, no action has been taken under this law since it was enacted. The act further provides that anyone associated with an unlawful association is liable to imprisonment. Again you have a beautifully indefinite phrase: "associated with." The janitor of a hall in which was held a meeting of an association which was suspected to be unlawful might be charged with being associated with that organization and liable to imprisonment. Further:
If it be proved that the person charged has (a) attended meetings of an unlawful association. . . it shall be presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary that he is a member of such unlawful association.
That seems to me a most outrageous clause. If an association is holding a street meeting and someone comes along to listen to what has been said, he is then presumed to be a member of such association and the burden of proof lies with him. We used to be taught that a man ought to be regarded as innocent until he was proven guilty. According to this legislation the thing is reversed and the very fact that he attends a meeting is presumptive evidence that he belongs to an association. Further, any owner of any theatre or other building in which a meeting is held, although he may know nothing about the matter, may be dragged in because there has been this meeting of an unlawful association.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It reads "who knowingly permits", which is contrary to what the hon. member has just said.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What I meant to say was that the owner of a hall may know the name of an organization, but it is very difficult for him to determine whether or not that organization is unlawful. He may rent his hall or he may be afraid to rent it for fear of being dragged in. A little further down section 6 reads:
If. [DOT] * . any justice of the peace is satisfied. . . that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that any contravention of this section has been or is about to be committed, he may issue a search warrant-
And so on, to seize and carry away books. That is going still further. How any justice of the peace can be more of a mind reader than anybody else, and can determine beforehand whether a crime is going to be committed, I do not know.


George Brecken Nicholson: Will the hon. member read the first two lines of the section?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The section reads:
If any judge of any superior or county court, police or stipendiary magistrate, or any justice of the peace-
I emphasize the last mentioned because he is an inferior officer.
-is satisfied by information on oath-


George Brecken Nicholson: He does not need to be a mind reader in that case.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is not all.
-that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that any contravention of this section has been or is about to be committed,-
Et cetera. How can anyone swear that a crime is about to be committed?


Ernest Lapointe: Swears that he suspects.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think the minister would go the whole length with the hon. member.


Ernest Lapointe: We really do not need these sections in the code.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Suppose that as
between different nationals in this country or as between religious bodies prejudice ran high: you can understand how readily some petty police magistrate might get the idea into his head that someone was about to do something dreadful. Would it be reasonable that he should have power immediately to order seizure of property in such a case? In this connection I might quote from a judgment of Lord Camden, who held that search warrants were contrary to the fundamental

Criminal Code Amendment
Anglo-Saxon rights of personal security and property:
Where is the written law that gives any magistrate such a power? I can safely answer there in none, and therefore it is too much for us without authority to presume a practice legal which would be subversive of all the comforts of society. . . If suspicion at large should be on a ground for search especially in the case of libels, i.e., seditious publications, whose home would be safe?
We may well take the judgment of Lord Camden on such a point. It is provided further in the code that any person who imports into Canada from any other country any such literature shall be liable to twenty years. I remember an instance several years ago in which a friend of mine wrote to me with regard to a book which he had ordered from England and which had been seized in the customs. On inquiry of the customs officer I found that this book was regarded by the postal authorities as seditious, notwithstanding the fact that it was published in England and that copies of it were on the shelves in some of our public libraries. I wrote back to my friend and told him that he might consider himself lucky that he was not serving twenty years in the penitentiary inasmuch as action could have been taken against him under this legislation in the Criminal Code.
To a large extent our policy after the Great war and subsequent to the Russian revolu-toin, when people were very much afraid of what might happen throughout the world, was almost as repressive as the legislation which was adopted in Great Britain a hundred years previously after the Napoleonic wars. In this connection I would quote from May's Constitutional History of England touching the legislation of 1792. At page 33 he says:
The influential classes, more alarmed than the government, eagerly fomented the prevailing spirit of reaction. They had long been jealous of the growing influence of the press and popular opinion. Their own power had been disturbed by the political agitation of the last thirty years, and was further threatened by parliamentary reform. But the time had now come for recovering their ascendency. The democratic spirit of the people was betraying itself, and must be crushed out in the cause of order. The dangers of parliamentary reform were illustrated by clamours for universal suffrage, annual parliaments, and the rights of man; and reformers of all degrees were to be scouted as revolutionary. . . It was a crisis of unexampled difficulty, needing the utmost vigilance and firmness. Ministers, charged with the maintenance of order, could not neglect any security which the peril of the time demanded. They were secure of support in punishing sedition and treason; the guilty few would meet with no sympathy among a loyal people. But, counselled by their new chancellor and convert, Lord Loughborough, and the law officers of the crown, the government gave too ready a credence to the reports of their agent: and invested the doings of a small knot of democrats-chiefly working men- *with the dignity of a wide-spread conspiracy to
overturn the constitution. Ruling over a free state, they learned to dread the peo-ple, in the spirit of tyrants. Instead of relying upon the sober judgment of the country, they appealed to its fears; and in repressing seditious practices, they were prepared to sacrifice liberty of opinion. Their policy, dictated by the circumstances of a time of strange and untried danger, was approved by the prevailing sentiment of their contemporaries: but has not been justified in an age of greater freedom, by the maturer judgment of posterity.
That summary of conditions which prevailed in that time of unrest may well suggest to us that possibly we have been carried away by some such fear and that the time has come for us to follow more nearly the practice that obtains in Great Britain.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I should be the last to
suggest that there should be any restriction in the operations of properly organized trades unions. The trades union has in the social system a place which is firmly established, and he would be a judge of very tyrannical and questionable judgment who would read into trades union disputes anything of the character suggested in what the hon. gentleman has quoted. He has cited the conditions that prevailed after the Napoleonic wars. But are we not in a somewhat different position to-day? There is at this time a nation of between 130.000,000 ' and 150,000,000, the purpose of whose government is to upset the government of all other nations. A world revolution is the policy of the Russian government; there can be no doubt of that. This they declare to be their policy, and instead of applying their own resources to the improvement of internal social conditions they send vast sums of money to other countries to stir up strife with the end in view of precipitating revolution. In the strike which has just concluded in England large sums of Russian money were offered, and in one or two instances accepted, and the offer was not made to assist in winning the strike. I do not think anyone would suggest that.


Ernest Lapointe: It was declined.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: It was from the Russian government. It may not have come through their officials.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It came through the Third Internationale, which controls the Russian government.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It came from some of the Russian trade unions.


George Brecken Nicholson: There is no such thing as a trade union in Russia.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get into a discussion of
Criminal Code Amendment

Russian affairs, but if the hon. gentleman would read the report of the British trade union delegation that investigated conditions in Russia he would find there are very extensive trade unions in that country at the present day.


Ernest Lapointe: We are running away from the bill.
Mr. H0CKEN: I know we are, but I am coming back to it. I want to show why I think there is necessity for some part of that clause. Whether the money came officially from the Russian government or not, this much must be admitted-Mr. Trotsky and the rest of the Russian dictators are just as tyrannical as Napoleon or the czars of Russia ever were, and it was Russian money that was sent to Great Britain in order to organize a revolution and so overturn the present social system. There cannot be any doubt about that, and my argument is, Sir, that while we have 130,000,000 people controlled by revolutionists, who, not satisfied with that they have accomplished in their own country, are keenly anxious to upset constitutional government in all other countries, we must have some law on our statute books to protect us from their activities. The Soviet emissaries are found not only in Great Britain, but in this country, in the United States, in China, in Japan and in India, in fact they are scattered all over the world, and when this Dominion may be made the special object of their attack nobody can tell. I am one of those who believe we are bound continually to have reform, to advance in our social life; but eveiy proposal to that end should be tried and its merits proven before it is put into operation. This is the very opposite of revolution. There has been evolution in our social and industrial life during my time that is really remarkable. When I contrast the conditions under which we now live with the conditions under which I grew up as a boy, I find they are immensely improved to-day. All this goes to show that the process of evolution is proceeding in industry as well as in all other spheres of human activity. I think that is the proper form of procedure. But when we find men who are determined to bring about world revolution and to establish what they call the "rule of the proletariat" in every country of the world, and using the resources of the national treasury of Russia to bring about that violent change, then I say every country that desires to preserve its institutions is warranted in enacting the necessary protective legislation-not to apply such legislation against its own citizens who

may be conducting an industrial strike, but to keep out aliens whose only desire is to create dissatisfaction and stir up discord in an effort to upset the government of the country.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Would not our immigration laws prevent them getting in?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: No. I am entirely sympathetic towards trade unions and the orderly development of our industrial system, but I am absolutely opposed to anything in the shape of revolution.


Ernest Lapointe: May I tell my hon.
friend that this bill is not desired by the extremists to whom he is referring but by the Trades nad Labour Congress, which has been asking for such legislation as that which I am now presenting to the House. As my hon. friend says, we must encourage legitimate labour organizations.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: When speaking on the Winnipeg strike some years ago, I took the opportunity of saying, that the extremists do not like the legitimate labour organizations, because they do not want any agreement with capital. Well, the labour unions which my hon. friend desires to encourage, as I do myself, claim that those two sections are directed against them. I do not say they are altogether right in that contention, but that has been their grievance ever since those sections were enacted, and, as I have said, I firmly believe they are not necessary for the purpose which they were intended to effect. I repeat, since 1919 seven years have elapsed, and not once have those two sections been invoked.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say to my hon. friend who is directing this bill-and I am speaking entirely for myself; I have not consulted by colleagues other than to speak to those immediately adjoining me to-night-that I would be quite agreeable to the repeal of these two clauses, particularly in view of the assurance that he gives, in which I am quite certain he is sincere, that the offences covered by them are fully covered in the general law which has been on the statute books for many years. Now, I address myself more directly to the observations of my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and the school of thought he represents, because we might as well talk frankly about these things; and I concede he has the right

Criminal Code Amendment
to hold whatever views appeal to him-what alarms me is this: but before expressing my views let me quote subsection (1) of section 97A, which it is intended to repeal:
Any association, organization, society or corporation, whose professed purpose or one of whose purposes is to bring about any governmental, industrial or economic change within Canada, by use of force, violence or physical injury to person or property, or by threats of such injury, or which teaches, advocates, advises or defends the use of force, violence, terrorism, or physical injury to person or property, or threats of such injury, in order ,to accomplish Such change, or for any other purpose, or which shall by any means prosecute or pursue such purpose or professed purpose, or shall so teach, advocate, advise or defend, shall be an unlawful association.
Now, my hon. friend extracts from the old sections a paragraph here and there. Prior to his rising to his feet I had marked certain clauses and I was going to suggest to him that certain portions which I think extreme should be changed. But I direct his attention and the attention of the House to this point:	You have got to read that
section in its entirety, for what it is intended to deal with is the heart and kernel of the attempt that was made not only in Winnipeg, but also in Vancouver, in Calgary and in other centres of Canada where it did not really come to light. The section was drafted to cover the type of organization actually in existence in the form of corporate bodies, deliberately intending to wreck the governmental institutions of this country by violence. There is no question of that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I want to register an objection to that. May I say a word here ?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not think it quite the courteous thing to interrupt.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Very well, I will wait until the hon. gentleman is finished.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I always give way to anyone who wants to interrupt, but I think one might be allowed to finish one train of thought. At that time organizations-yes, an organization of a nation wide character- physically visible in Winnipeg, Calgary and Vancouver and known in other sections of the country, was in existence with the deliberate intention of wrecking our constitutional, democratic form of government by violence. There is no doubt of that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Would you give proof of that?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not going to be drawn into an argument; I do not think anyone will question it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I question it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend will
surely not suggest for a moment that he does not know what I have said to be absolutely correct.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I certainly deny it in toto.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am sorry my hon. friend does so, because I had a fairly high regard for him, though differing from his economic views and from his socialistic views. There are a great many persons for whom I have a personal regard but who hold these extreme views, honestly I believe. But that does not prevent me from expressing my absolute abhorrence of the process or processes which they purpose to adopt, and there can be no doubt but that that condition existed in Canada when this law was passed. Fortunately for Canada, for Germany, for Austria and for the Balkan states which change so frequently; fortunately 11 p.m. for old England and for the United States, though to a less degree, and fortunately for many of the principal countries of the world, the time has passed for the moment when this force or association of forces is very serious or menacing. But the time was only a few years-ago when it was exceedingly menacing.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: And it may be again.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, and it may be again.. Now, Mr. Chairman, we have on our statute books and in the Criminal Code very many sections which I might say are useless and unnecessary so far as the average life of the ordinary citizen is concerned. But why are they there? They are there to meet a possible contingency which may arise; some evil-designed person or group of persons may set out to perpetrate a crime against society, and therefore we protect society by these provisions in the Criminal Code. That leads me to the suggestion that the very language marked here for opprobrium and condemnation will be found in other sections of the Criminal Code. Although I am not a lawyer and may be entirely wrong, I will hazard the guess that one of the expressions used a moment ago-"or is about to be committed''

which was used as a reason whv this clause should be wiped out, will be tound in other sections of the Criminal Code; it must necessarily be there. I will appeal to my friend the Minister of Justice, and I am sure he will sustain me. If one suspects that the crime of murder or arson or grand larceny or something else is about to be committed-


An hon. MEMBER:: Or smuggling.

Criminal Code Amendment


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, or smuggling-there rests upon that person a duty to do whatever may be in his power to prevent it, and he may get a search warrant through the proper processes. I noted in my bill certain words; one of the things I cited was this phrase, "without warrant", in one section. I have always been very strongly opposed to giving wide license-I did not use the word "liberty" -to peace officers to make searches without warrant; I think we cannot be too careful in that regard. But because I support that principle, and have done so during the fifteen years I have been in this House, I do not want to be classified as one who condemns the structure of society as we now have it, and the institutions we have to-day. I do not want to associate myself, for instance, with a wholesale condemnation of the intent of this legislation, which was passed in a time of stress.


Ernest Lapointe: I don't want to, either.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am sure my hon. friend does not. That is one reason why I find myself in a somewhat difficult position. I know that my good friend (Mr. Heaps) who is extreme in his views in regard to this and kindred matters will, when this is repealed- and I am prepared to support its repeal on the grounds advanced by the Minister of Justice-go through this country and acclaim it as a victory for the school of thought which he represents in this House. That is one of the reasons I find a dislike, if I may use the word, to support it. If my hon. friend and those associated with 'him would take the stand taken by the Minister of Justice; if he would take the moderate stand he adopted in his language to-night I would gladly associate myself with him in bringing about the repeal of this measure. But I am apprehensive that its very repeal will be used throughout Canada within the ambit of those who follow the Third Internationale, if I might use that name in a broad sense, as a victory and an encouragement to them to carry on their agitations.
I have one other thought .'before I sit down. The experience since 1918, the year of the second revolution in Russia; the experience which is not limited to Russia but which centres there because Russia was chosen as a plastic and suitable place to bring their schemes into existence; the experience the world has had of that doctrine, warrants us in setting our faces unswervingly against this propaganda and its extension here or wherever an effort may be made to spread it. It should also be 'borne in mind that the doctrines of the Third Internationale, against 
which this legislation was directed, are not the doctrines of the masses; they are not the doctrines of democracy or the proletariat. They are the doctrines of a very narrow group of highly educated but wholly unscrupulous individuals who are seeking for power and who exercise in Russia a more rigid and more arbitrary power than has ever been exerj cised within the last hundred years by afiy government on the face of the earth.
I am quite aware that in answer to this statement it will be advanced that the government of Russia to-day is moderate, and that it has qualified its former drastic measures. That is true. Why? Because in the face of an overwhelming world-wide antagonism, not in the ranks of a few capitalists or others but among the rank and file of the people of a dozen countries, in the face of an overwhelming influence from that source they were forced to abandon their extreme economic standards and views and come in large measure back to the normal economic views held in other countries. Yet the avowed intention of the Third Internationale, which still stands behind and whose hand still overshadows the Russian government, is still there. I have a great faith in the people of Canada and have often stated that I do not think such a doctrine can ever find root and succeed in this country; but there were times and there were places where it had such a measure of success that it made a great many of us falter in our confidence in its inability to succeed. So while I personally feel inclined to accept the very moderate and, I think, very reasonable view advanced by the Minister of Justice, I do not wish to allow myself to be associated with the suggestion that this legislation was evil or that its intent was evil; and it is only with the assurance that our liberties are safeguarded in other ways that I would consent at all to agree to its removal.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not wish to
delay the passing of this section by speaking at any length, but as the last speaker has directed his remarks to me rather than to the bill, I cannot allow his statements to pass without adding a few words. I would say distinctly that I am not under trial or on the defensive at all. It always amuses me to find the assurance with which some hon. members of this House undertake to lecture other members. Some of them are apt to get very hysterical about Russia. I do not know why Russia should be introduced into this discussion. While the hon. member for Toronto West Centre was speaking I recalled that I had seen in the Graphic a few days ago a rather interesting

Criminal Code Amendment
illustration showing that in England, they do not get quite so excited about these things. This was an illustration of the unfurling of the Soviet flag at the Shakespeare celebration at Stratford-on-Avon. Evidently the Russian officials, one of whom was the official trade representative of Russia for some time in Montreal, were participating in a tribute frohn that country to the great British poet. I do not know why in Canada-other than because we are so near to the hysterical United States-we have to become so excited about Russia. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) spent the greater part of his speech in denouncing the Third Internationale which, according to him, is wholly unscrupulous, one of the worst institutions that has ever existed on the face of the earth, and incidentally he tried to associate me with that body. Well, I may say very frankly, without criticizing the Third Internationale or defending it, that I belong to an organization that has no affiliation whatever with the Third Internationale, and if the hon. member would take a little trouble to read the labour papers he would find that the organ of the Third Internationale sometimes criticises very severely the organization which my comrade and I represent because we are so far from being in harmony with their position.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: What organization do you represent?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Independent
Labour Party of Manitoba. We were both elected on its platform, and as my comrade (Mr. Heaps) suggests, we have had the opposition of the communists in the political field. So it is always just a little bit amusing to those of us who have been at all near the inside of the labour movement to hear the perfectly wild statements made by some honourable members-statements which they would be ashamed to make if they had any real knowledge of the situation. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre seeks to associate me with the Third Internationale after he has denounced it in round terms and states that I belong to a certain school of thought, that I am extreme in my views. Well, I have tried to express myself as clearly as possible during the last five years in this House, and I have said here the very self-same things that I have been saying up and down the country.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, only a part of them.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, the self-same
things. I will allow the hon. member for Vancouver Centre to read the very charges
made against me a few years ago and I affirm with confidence that he will say that my statements outside are not any more extreme than the statements I have made here. The other night when I suggested a capital levy for the extinction of the war debt, which is a part of our programme, one hon. gentleman stated that it savoured of Moscow. It is the first time in my life I have ever heard that the extinction of the war debt by means of a capital levy was ever advocated in Moscow. As a matter of fact we took the proposal from the programme of the British Labour party.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: In Russia they took it
all.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Quite so; there
they did not wait for a capital levy,


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: That is, a capital levy
from those who became millionaires during the war?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes. We took the proposal from the British Labour party, but that is characterized in this House as savouring of Moscow. That is the kind of talk in which some hon. members indulge. Without entering any further into the matter, because I thought we had got through with the Winnipeg strike last night, let me make one or two comments, with regard to the assertion- simply the bald assertion-made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. I do not blame the hon. member. I know how widely such statements were circulated by the press at the time. But I should like to suggest to him that I was as closely connected with that strike as most men. I was not officially connected with it, I did not arrive in Winnipeg until the third week of the strike. But I knew the labour situation intimately at the coast; I knew intimately the men in Winnipeg, and I want to say that there was not one scrap of evidence adduced during the six weeks of the trial that showed there had been any preparation whatever to overturn the government by force of arms. Knowing the inside of the movement as I do I will say this: While there may have been a few individuals who made outrageous statements-I do not deny that-there was no such conspiracy as a great many have imagined.
One other word on this subject and I am through. The hon. gentleman would try to make out that I am advocating the use of force. I would say to him and the House very frankly that on principle I am opposed to the use of force. The political organization which I represent is opposed to the use

Criminal Code Amendment
of force. That is one reason why we are criticized some times by the representatives of the Third Internationale. We carry our views in that regard to this extent:	We are
opposed to military force in settling disputes as between nations just as we are to its use in the settlement of disputes as between classes. And the irony of the whole situation is that some of us who during the years of war were accused of everything under the sun that was bad because we opposed force in settling international disputes, have later been accused of the advocacy of force in the settlement of class disputes. I repeat that personally I am opposed to force and further that in advocating the wiping out of th:s legislation I am not urging or defending the use of force for the attainment of the objects of labour. I would say to the hon. member opposite that if the labouring people are agitating as some of them do, sooner or later force will have to be used; why are they doing it? Because they have learned the use of force from those who control our government to-day. They say that if force was used in whipping the Germans, force is also justified in securing our rights. I think their logic cannot very well be disputed.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: You are advocating force.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: What are you doing then?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think any hon. member who has listened to my speech will say that I have not advocated force. I would say that many of the labour people have learned the use of force from those who employed it during the war.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That is the government.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, and having
learned the lesson, they say that if the only way of defeating the Germans was by mean3 of force, and if the only way of settling other international disputes is by force, then the means of settling class disputes is by force.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: You believe that?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, nor do I believe it is the way to settle international disputes. That is why I am voting for disarmament all along the line.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will my hon. friend dispute the fact that the strike in Seattle, the possession of that city for several days by a certain group, the general strike in Vancouver and the general strike in Winnipeg, were car-

ried on by the application of force, without quibbling as to what form of force? My second question is, was not my hon. friend in favour of and supporting ali three strikes?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am afraid we are digressing from the bill before the committee, but with regard to that word "force" there was no armed force-


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is a different thing. '


James Shaver Woodsworth: No armed force in the Winnipeg strike.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There was forced possession.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There was a concerted effort on the part of the labour people in general, or a sympathetic strike.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And physical possession.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Absolutely.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Physical possession and
physical control of the management of the community.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Since my hon, friend has asked me the question, I do not believe there was any real connection between the Seattle strike and the strikes in Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Oh yes there was, directly.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would admit that at that time there was a good deal of general unrest all over and there was a feeling after the war that we had come to the time when we should settle things on a new basis. The manufacturers and others were talking of reconstruction and the labour people were talking of reconstruction, only-I will adfndt this- that the word they most commonly used was "social" or "economic" revolution, which is a technical phrase in all socialist literature, and which means that since a hundred years ago we had an industrial revolution which changed production from individual to collective production, it had to be followed by another revolution, economic and social which would give democracy in industry. Does that answer the question?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


George Brecken Nicholson: I am very much in
the same position as my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre. I am prepared to accept the assurances of the hon. Minister of Justice that there are provisions in the Criminal Code that take care of the situation that this

Criminal Code Amendment
enactment was designed to take care of, and that words and phrases in this enactment which were prepared perhaps hurriedly and which are too strong should be eliminated. For instance, in the very first paragraph the word "force", which is used in two places, could have very well be left out, and the clause would have carried identically the same meaning and served the same purpose. The positions of the labour organizations, and particularly the railway brotherhood, have been referred to, I would like to point out that the movement that this enactment was designed to correct had for its purpose the destruction of these very organizations. I am not going to follow my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre. I read into the record a couple of evenings ago a statement, in which it was clearly set out that the first purpose of that movement was the destruction of organized labour. Those who wanted to bring that about recognized that organized labour stood as the main barrier in their road to the progress they desired to make, and the whole movement, originating as it did in the western and northwestern United States and in western Canada was designed-for what? To seize the railways, to seize industry and municipal government, and eventually to seize the government of this country, following _ out their nurpose. Now it is true the agitation has to some degree quieted down, if I may use that expression, but let us not lose sight of the fact that, although it has quieted down, it nevertheless exists. There are so-called Sunday schools in this country, in many towns in northern Ontario and in our cities. They are taking the boys and girls from these towns, wherever they can get them, into these so-called Sunday schools, to teach them the doctrine of the destruction of the present system of government in this country, and these organizations are being financed to a very considerable degree by the Third Internationale and the Soviets in Russia. My hon. friend has frequently referred to what the labour movement desires, and in that regard I take it he presumes to speak for the labour people in this country.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, I represent
primarily a certain group in "Winnipeg; I do not claim to speak for all the labour people.


George Brecken Nicholson: I represent a certain
group in one constituency, but my hon. friend the Minister of Justice referred to the Trades and Labour Congress, for which everyone, I think, who cares for well-ordered relations between all classes of people has the highest
regard. Let us see what the president of the Trades and Labour Congress has to say with regard to' this so-called labour movement represented by the Labour party. On the 9th of April, Mr. Tom Moore, whom we all know very well, made this statement:	[DOT]
There is a trades union movement and a labour movement, both of which are distinct. The political movement, because it was the younger of the two, was courted by the communists, but the labour political party is in no way representative of organized labour in Canada.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I call attention to the fact that Mr. Tom Moore was commenting on the Canadian Labour Party, not on the Independent Labour Party of Manitoba?


William Duff: At this time of the
night I think we should come back to the clause under discussion.


George Brecken Nicholson: I am endeavouring to
point out some reasons why we should go a little slow and why I. while accepting the assurance of the Minister of Justice, want to make it clear that although labour organizations to some degree have objected to words and phrases in this act, its purpose was m protect the labour organizations themselves and through their representatives at the time this enactment was being put into the statutes of this country they approved every single action that was taken. That is my point.


Ernest Lapointe: They did not.


George Brecken Nicholson: The official repre- .
sentatives of the labour organizations-
Mr 'LAPOINTE:	At the time they made
representations before a committee of the House that was dealing with this matter that they were opposed to it. Mr Moore said so at the following meeting of the Trades and
T nKrviir if^nTVPTPS
'Mr NICHOLSON:	I will accept what my
hon. friend has said, but those of us who were in the House of Commons, as the Minister of Justice, was at the time these enactments were being put through, know there was very little time for representations to be made.


Ernest Lapointe: I know that.


George Brecken Nicholson: I want to say, speaking with knowledge, that associated with those who were responsible for bringing this about were representatives at least of the railway brotherhoods of this country, in order to check not the strike but the incipient revolution that was taking place. I do not wish to
Criminal Code Amendment

oppose the passage of this clause. I am accepting the assurance of the Minister of Justice, nevertheless we require on our statutes now, just as rigidly as we did then, laws that will prevent the dissemination of the kind of agitation that has for its purpose the advocacy of the use of force, that is going on quietly and that will break out the minute the opportunity comes. Let me say just what the hon. member for -Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has said, that the danger in connection with repealing this legislation is that those people who have had some slight fear of this act will feel that they have now been given an opportunity to continue with the class of propaganda that they were disseminating before, and the same thing may break out again.


Thomas William Bird: Just in a few words I wish to associate myself with the members who have been single-handed in advocating this measure. It would be a pity for us to leave those gentlemen to fight this battle alone, because after all it is the battle of all of us. this measure which is giving us an amount of liberty which is long overdue. I totally dissociate myself from the sentiments as expressed by my hon. friends to the right. The regrettable thing about extremes is that one extreme begets another.
. Curing war time there was a vast upheaval in people's ideas; democracy kicked over the traces, and there was an explosion here and there throughout the civilized world. Most people took it calmly because such thkws . had happened before; but people of a certain timidity of disposition, of a certain conservative cast of mind, immediately became hysterical, went to the other extreme and wanted to divest the people of the liberties which they had. I thought we were so far removed from the disturbing scenes of war time and the aftermath of war as to be able to look at these things calmly, but I am afraid the hon. member for Vancouver Centre and the hon. member for East Algoma are still under the influence of that .period. I was struck by the paralled1 which the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Hocken) drew with the period just after the Napoleonic wars. He said:	"In those times there was
no international organization trying to overthrow governments and constitutions." But he was altogether wrong. At that time minds just like his were putting forward exactly the same plea that he has to-night, that we must curb liberty, the time-honoured liberty of the people, because they have conjured up some imaginary force that is undermining democracy.

I call to mind an incident which illustrates my point. The government of that time in England actually hired spies to dog the steps of, not communists, not bolsheviks, but respectable and prominent citizens. I remember the story of one spy who had a big nose and who was detailed to watch the movement of no less persons than the poet Woods-worth and the poet Coleridge. One summer day these two innocent gentlemen were engaged in the open air in a discussion of the works of the philosopher Spinoza. The spy crept up close to them and heard them talk about Spinoza. He went right away to the authorities and said that those men were guilty, they were talking about "Spinozy." You may read the records of that time and you will find that in England there were certain people who displayed the same hysteria, the same extremity of feeling, that has been manifested by our hon. friends to-night. They conjured up the same imaginary forces gnawing awa3' at the foundations of society, and in every forward step of the slow advance of the people's liberties you have had unfortunate people of this extraordinary timidity of mind. Sometimes it is inherent; sometimes it is acquired through enjoying a position of special privilege-because the privileged classes have never taken kindly to revolutionary ideas; they have always tried to isolate them as fast as they have appeared, to wall them around, to put them behind bars. But they have never succeeded, because thosq ideas are essentially dynamic and sooner or later they burst forth again.
I stood up more particularly to put myself squarely alongside our friends who are advocating this measure of liberty, and I think the government can be congratulated on coming out straightforwardly and espousing it. After all they are doing justice to the principles of Liberalism for which they stand, as I understand its history and its meaning. In the last few days we have witnessed a deluge of contempt aimed at our hon. friends opposite from Winnipeg. I for one resolved that I would take the first opportunity of associating myself with those members of parliament. While they do not represent any well organized political force, they represent, after all, certain political ideas; and although I cannot associate myself with some of those ideas, yet I am a strong admirer of the position taken by these hon. members from Winnipeg. I believe they are the fore-runners of a host of men who will some day sit in this chamber and place the views of labour before parliament as they should be placed.
I sometimes feel, when organized labour is

Criminal Code Amendment
being attacked, that in fact some organized effort on the part of democracy is criticized. A good many of us in this group, in pressing the claims of organized farmers, have sometimes been classed as bolsheviks.. This word is always dragged in when any sign of advancing liberty in seen. Drag in the word ' bolshevik ", try to stigmatize any effort with the name Russian, and the thing is killed. That is the idea. Certain specific ideas aside, there is a strong feeling of affinity between the movement which I represent and this movement of labour as represented on that lone bench opposite; and personally, although I have nothing politically to gain thereby, I do not want any opportunity to pass without putting myself alongside these men who, I believe, in their own way and according to their own light, are fighting the age-long battle of liberty for the people.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Notwithstanding the remarks of the member for Nelson (Mr. Bird), I am not yet persuaded that the bill is entirely vicious. He has done his best to convey that impression to anyone who desires to approach the matter from a proper business and administrative point of view, but I am not yet convinced that it is so completely undesirable. I still have before me the sensible remarks of the Minister of Justice, and I prefer to remember them rather than allow myself to be altogether drawn aside from the proper consideration of the bill, as I should be if I attempted to follow the peregrinations of the hon. member for Nelson. By the way, that hon. gentleman strayed considerably from the bill and was not called to order, although my hon. friend (Mr. Nicholson) was, before he had gone half as far away from the subject.


Thomas William Bird: I was following the bear
tracks of the hon. member's colleague (Mr. Stevens).	[DOT]


Henry Herbert Stevens: That hon. member will
probably have something to say before the committee rises.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Because errors
may have been made in the past is no reason why the matter should not be adjusted, but the minister will agree with me that the objection urged against the old legislation is to a large extent wholly unfounded. For example, the word "force",'so greatly objected to in section 97A, would have to be read in conjunction with the words that follow, ''violence or physical injury." It is real force which is condemned. The minister will agree
with me further that there is nothing new in trying to prevent crime. Is there any doubt about that?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Absolutely not, unless we find it in the mind of the hon. member for Nelson. Unless we accept his views' we cannot see anything wrong in attempting to prevent crime. I entirely agree that if anyone thinks the operations of legitimate trades labour unions are imperilled by that section, then the section should be amended. But I must confess I am utterly at a loss to see what danger lurks in the words I have quoted. The other day when discussing a kindred subject, the amendment to the Immigration Act, the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) stated that all the provisions that were being deleted were immaterial; it was merely a question of procedure, all the offences being covered in the code. I understand from my hon. friend to-day that all changes which were being made in this bill were, again, changes in relation to procedure and did not affect the crimes involved. In his view, every offence which is covered by the sections we are now striking out is included elsewhere in the law as enacted in the code.


Ernest Lapointe: I think so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, but the
other day when discussing the other bill my hon. friend interrupted the Minister of the Interior to say that not all of the offences would be retained.


Ernest Lapointe: I thought at the time
he was making a mistake. Part II of the code was mentioned in the bill, and of course these two- sections are in that part. That is what I meant. But so far as the offences themselves are concerned I still believe they come under the other sections as well.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I take it then, that we are not now declaring that force and sedition are not crimes, and that murder is merely a pleasant pastime. We were merely providing in the Immigration bill that as a matter of procedure people might not be sent out of the country without being first convicted.


Ernest Lapointe: They must be convicted.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So that the
change made in the code is a mere matter of verbiage; it does not alter the existing law. Is not that true-right through?


Ernest Lapointe: Absolutely.

Criminal Code Amendment


Henry Lumley Drayton: In other words, no new offence is being created.


Thomas Hay: If we are to discuss the bill
for the rest of the night I want to say a word or two, not from the constitutional view but from the point of view at least of a loyal citizen. Like the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), I can see no good reason whatever, and certainly no good reason has been advanced by any hon. members who have spoken, why these sections of the Criminal Code should be repealed. It is not often that I take up the time of the House and I trust that the committee will bear with me while I quote these sections. The matter is more important than many of us realize and we should be careful before altering the code or substituting for the existing sections any others that may be proposed. The first clause quoted by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, 97A, reads:
(1) Any association, organization, society or corporation, whose professed purpose or one of whose purposes is to bring about any governmental, industrial or economic change within Canada, by use of force, violence or physical injury to person or property, or by threats of such injury, or which teaches, advocates, advises or defends the use of force, violence, terrorism, or physical injury to person or property, or threats of such injury, in order to accomplish such change, or for any other purpose, or which shall by any means prosecute or pursue such purpose or professed purpose, or shall so teach, advocate, advise or defend, shall be an unlawful association.
I cannot see why that subsection should be removed from the statutes. I think it is perfectly proper, for it is a safeguard to constituted authority. I would also quote section 97B, and ask the Minister of Justice to give some reason for its repeal:
(1) Any person who prints,, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, o-r offers for sale or distribution any book, newspaper, periodical, pamphlet, picture, paper, circular, card, letter, writing, print, publication or dooument of any kind, m which is taught, advocated, advised or defended, or who shall in any manner teach, advocate, or advise or defend the use, without authority of law, of force, violence, terrorism, or physical^ injury to person or property, or threats of such injury, as a means of accomplishing any governmental, industrial or economic change, or otherwise, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for not more than twenty years.
I cannot imagine why the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) should advocate the repeal of that provision. To my mind it is a perfectly reasonable section and should not be repealed. There is no doubt that some changes might be made in the act so long as the sections to which I have referred are not altered.
A minute ago the hon. Minister of Justice said that the repeal of these sections was not advocated by extremists. I must disagree with

him, because from my own personal experience I am satisfied that he is mistaken. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy) read an article last night, which was published in one of the Winnipeg papers shortly after the strike, stating that the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), who was an alderman at that time, acted as chairman of a meeting in Winnipeg at which the Union Jack was deposited under the rostrum and the red flag hoisted in its stead. Now, Mr. Chairman, I believe anyone who could be a party to sueh a proceeding is an extremist. And the hon. gentleman is one of those advocating the repeal of these sections. Therefore when the Minister of Justice says this amendment is not advocated by extremists, I cannot agree with him. In this connection may I read a report from the Manitoba Free Press of March 1, 1921, of a meeting held in the city of Winnipeg? I am sure that after hearing what was said at that meeting the Minister of Justice will agree with me that the speaker referred to was an extremist. This is the report:
Before W. A. Pritchard had launched upon his address, a group in the audience struck up the strains of the "Red Flag", the rest of the audience rising and joining in the song.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said he was opposed to force, and yet these are the words used by Mr. Pritchard, a gentleman closely associated with him:
"Quite a lot of water has passed under the bridge since the benign old man said 'One year' " was Mr. Pritchard's opening remark. "The scrap of 1919 was of a considerable magnitude, and if I read the signs of to-night, there seem to be more scraps to come.
I want to tell you that the real enemies of labour are the traitors within our ranks. Declare war upon these skunks and tell them that it is a war to the knife, and knife to the hilt. When we kill them we will dispose of the finest weapon that the master class has ever employed."
Now, surely the Minister of Justice will agree with me that some at least of those who are advocating the repeal of these two sections are extremists of the very worst kind. My hon. friend from Nelson (Mr. Bird) a short time ago said he was proud to line himself up beside these men who have been fighting "the age-long battle for labour and liberty." What kind of liberty were they asking for? What kind of liberty do these sections curb? Simply the liberty to destroy That is the purpose of the law which it is sought to repeal. As representatives of the Canadian people are we willing to repeal this law which safeguards the loyal citizens of this Dominion? While I would not object to the law being amended in some form, I believe that these two sections should stand on the statute book.

Railway Belt Water Act


Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to take exception to the contention of the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hay) that some of those supporting this bill are extremists; I would simply point out that they are not being tried here to-night. I am in favour of the principle that the fewer restrictive laws the better. I have the assurance of the Minister of Justice -and I have his permission so to state to the House-that the sections of the Criminal Code as well as the common law already contain provisions dealing with just such offences as are provided against by the particular sections which are sought to be repealed by this bill. With that assurance I am personally quite satisfied to support the bill, on the ground that as far as possible we should cut out unnecessarily restrictive laws or regulations, having in mind that proceeding along that line we tend to extend throughout the country greater harmony and good feeling.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Intentions not seditious.
William Duff: Shall the clause carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does my hon. friend think we are too sleepy to consider properly section 2?
Mr. GARlLAND (Bow River): Speak for yourself.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I remember a very eloquent appeal made not very long ago by the hon. member who has just spoken on the question of late sittings and the like. But if he wants to sit up late to-night he might again speak for himself. In the meantime the usual practice has been to adjourn at about 11.30; if the government say we are going to sit to other hours, all right; we will know.


Ernest Lapointe: I really beseech my hon. friend to be lenient. Why not get this bill through? The really contentious clause has been adopted now, I think, and the remainder will be very short.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Lumley Drayton: You know it is sometimes very hard to understand my hon. friend from the remarks of his supporters, with their hear, hears.


Ernest Lapointe: I want to be judged on my performance.



UOll-259

Henry Lumley Drayton: I think my hon. friend's performance is good. Let us finish the bill and go home.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
On section 5-Right of appeal of Attorney General.
(Mr. LAPOINTE: This passed the House last year.
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Scrip frauds.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Why were
there no prosecutions under this?


Ernest Lapointe: As my hon. friend remembers, we passed that clause last year and it was rejected by the Senate. The right hon. leader of the opposition has agreed to its adoption.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We were anxious that that should go on.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, and I inserted it in my bill to give the hon. member for Peace River a chance.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.58 p.m.
Monday, June 7, 1926.
The House .met at two o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Edmonton, Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 171 to amend the Railway Belt Water Act.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Explain.


Charles A. Stewart: In 1910 there was a conflict in the province of British Columbia as to who had jurisdiction in the railway belt with respect to water rights. That was settled by an appeal to the Privy Council, and in 1913 legislation was passed by this parliament, bringing the whole matter into conformity and empowering the province of British Cohmrbia to supervise the granting of these rights. Since that time amendments have been made to the British Columbia Water Act. One of the provisions

Private Bills

of the Railway Belt Water Act was that water rights in the railway belt could be placed by order in council under provincial administration. That situation prevailed until 1924, when British Columbia passed a consolidating act, and all we are doing now is to bring our legislation into conformity with the legislation of that province and making it retroactive in order to cover some omissions that may have occurred between the passing of the amending legislation and the passing of the order in council by the federal government.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no
change really in legal status or jurisdiction?


Charles A. Stewart: No.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first lime.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 155, from the Senate, respecting Dominion Electric Protection Company.-Mr. Marcil.
Bill No. 156, from the Senate, for the relief of Samuel Wexler.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 157, from the Senate, for the relief of Samuel Lehman	S'touffer.-Mr. Mc-
Clenaghan.
Bill No. 158, from the Senate, for the relief of Robert Douglas Ian McLeod.-Sir Henry Drayton.
Bill No. 159, from the Senate, for the relief of Mary Margaret MeColgan Vinnette Gray-don.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 160, from the Senate, for the relief of Alexander Charles Boyd.

Mr. Ladner.
Bill No. 161, from the Senate, for the relief of Charles Day.-Mr. Baker.
Bill No. 162, from the Senate, for the relief of Albert Wilson Denning.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 163, from the Senate, for the relief of Margaret Lambert.-Mr.MoClenaghan.
Bill No. 164, from the Senate, for the relief of Jessie Patterson.-Mr. Bel1! (Hamilton West).
Bill No. 165, from the Senate, for the relief of Ernest Ashton.-Sir Henry Drayton.
Bill No. 166, from the Senate, for the relief of Evelyn Christine Stewart.-Mr. Maclean (York).
Bill No. 167, from the Senate for the relief of Ernest Love.-Mr. Speakman.
Bill No. 168, from the Senate, for the relief of Charles Stanley Reed Riches.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 169, from the Senate, for the relief of Mona Aileen Davies.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 170, from the Senate, for the relief of Elizabeth Wright.-Mr. McClenaghan.

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

Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Under what authority do railway companies operate what is known as tho "permit system" on all grains routed to tihe ports of the Pacific coast?
2.	Is the government aware that the existing elevator facilities at the port of Vancouver are not being used to anything approaching full capacity?
3.	In the opinion of the government, are the reasons advanced for the issuing of "permits" and the restriction of export, sufficiently well established?
4.	Has the government received representations from Pacific coast grain dealers and others that the "permit system" militates against the free movement of grain via Pacific coast ports, and also prevents the establishment of a stable cash grain market at the coast ?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	The powers of the railway company under the Railway Act.
2.	The government is aware that they are not being used to full capacity.
3.	No information.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


VANCOUVER PUBLIC ELEVATORS
Mr. LADNER:: 1.	Is the government considering the leasing or selling of any of the public elevators at Vancouver to what is commonly known as the wheat pool, or have any representations or opplications with respect to tihe same been made by the said wheat pool or any one on their behalf?
2.	If so, what are the terms of said representations or applications?
3.	Has the Vancouver harbour 'board reported to the government in the matter?
4.	Was their report unanimous?
5.	What are the grounds of tihe opposition of said Vancouver harbour commissioners?
6.	If the government is considering a lease or sale of any of the public elevators at Vancouver, has the government by advertising for tenders or otherwise afforded an opportunity .to the puiblic or other firms to submit offers?
7.	Was the production of grain in Alberta last year over 110,000,000 bushels and in Saskatchewan, west of Maple Creek, over 75,000,000 all of which can and should be shipped via Vancouver if the train facilities there were sufficient?
8.	Did the total elevator service at Vancouver last year handle only 50,000,000 busheils of grain or thereabouts ?
9.	Is the policy of the government to increase the elevator facilities at Vancouver or decrease them by leasing our public elevators?
10.	Is the government aware that the cash grain market (established at Vancouver as a result of demands from Alberta farmers) cannot function properly with less than the existing capacity of "public" storage?
11.	Is it a fact that the Spillers elevator hereto operated as a "public" elevator will almost certainly be operated as a "private" elevator under its new ownership?

Questions
12.	Do public elevators at Vancouver act as a protection for independent exporters, shippers and farmers and would elevator No. 2 'be hopelessly inadequate for this purpose?
13.	Are the Vancouver harbour commissioners' elevators at Vancouver self-supporting and have all fixed charges been paid by the port?
14.	Is it the intention of the government to lease the grain elevators at the port of Quebec and have said elevators been seif-suppirting and have all the fixed charges in respect to the same been paid?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Verbal representations on behalf of the wheat pool have been made respecting the leasing of one of the elevators at Vancouver.
2.	Generally the terms of the representations or applications were a request for the leasing of elevator No. 1 operated by tbe Vancouver harbour commission.
3.	The chairman has reported on behalf of the board.
4.	Answered by Number 3.
5.	The view of the board as represented by the chairman is that the interests of the wheat pool will for the present be well served by the present system of operation without in any way impairing the service available to the general public using the harbour facilities.
6.	Should the commissioners with the approval of the government, decide at any time to lease any of the public elevators at Vancouver, the matter will receive consideration.
7.	The total estimated production of grain in Alberta in 1925 was 195,277,000 bushels. The available statistics for Saskatchewan do not disclose the production of grain in that province west of Maple Creek.
8.	The total grain received at elevators during the year 1925, was 33,512,302 bushels.
9.	It is not the policy of the government to decrease the elevator facilities at Vancouver.
10.	The government is aware that the successful functioning of the cash grain market at Vancouver in relation to the existing elevator capacity depends on the quantity of grain that may be offered for shipment through that port.
11.	The government has no information.
12.	The elevators at Vancouver were provided to accommodate in so far as their capacity will permit the exporters, shippers and producers of grain. Whether elevator No. 2 would be hopelessly inadequate for that purpose would depend on the quantity of grain that would be offered by exporters, shippers and producers.
13.	Since the commencement of operations by the Vancouver harbour commissioners, the elevators have been self-supporting. All fixed charges together with charges for sinking fund have been paid by the commission.
14011-259J	.
14.	The government has not considered the leasing of the grain elevator at the port of Quebec. The said elevator has not been selfsupporting, nor have all the fixed charges in respect to the same been paid by the Quebec harbour commissioners.


AUTOMOBILE SEIZURES
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	How many automobiles has the Department of Customs under seizure at present?
2.	How many automobiles smuggled into Canada have been seized by the Department of Customs and are now in its possession?
3.	How many of said automobiles have been claimed by insurance companies under the plea that they had been stolen previous to crossing the border?
4.	Why does the Department of Customs refuse to return said automobiles to the owners after their claims have been clearly proven?
5.	Is there any agreement between the Canadian government and the United States for the recovery of said automobiles ?
6.	If so, what is this agreement and when was it concluded ?


Hon. Mr. BOIVIN:: 1.	289.
2.	161.
3.	25.
4.	Department does not refuse to * return said automobiles to the owners after their claims have been clearly proven. When said automobiles have been forfeited to the crown release is offered pending decision and conditional on exportation to the United States on payment of expenses of seizure and keep. Where automobiles have not been forfeited by decision the claimants are obliged in addition to file relinquishment of claim of person in whose possession the car was found at time of seizure.
5.	Yes.
6.	Article III' of treaty for the suppression of smuggling operations along the international boundary between the Dominion of Canada and the United States and assisting in the arrest and prosecution of persons violating the narcotic laws of either government and for kindred purposes, ratified 17th July, 1925.


INTERNATIONAL PARLIAMENTARY COMMERCIAL CONFERENCE
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Why is it that Canada alone among all the overseas dominions, oar countries of the world, is unrepresented at the International Parliamentary Commercial Conference now going on in England?
2.	Is the government aware that Australia and New Zealand have three representatives, Africa one, and India three, and Canada, none, and that some thirty-two other countries are represented with a view to drawing world's trade?
3.	What is, or will be, done in the matter?
Questions


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	This conference is an unofficial gathering in which members of parliament of any country take part in their personal capacity and at their own expense. It is not a conference of government and the Canadian government has not therefore required to consider representation.
2.	The government has no official knowledge as to the number of members of parliament of various countries who have taken part in the conference, which is held not for the purpose of drawing world's trade but to discuss various phases of commercial legislation of general interest.
3.	Answered by No. 1 and 2.


TORONTO HARBOUR IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. SPENCE (Maple Creek):: How muc-h money has been expended by the Dominion government on harbour improvements at Toronto since 1911, including grants to the harbour board?


Ernest Lapointe: From 1st April, 1911, to 31st March, 1926, $9,260,857.93. No grants issued to harbour board.


DOMINION REVENUE
Mr. DOUCET:: What were the revenues for the years ending March 31, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925 and 1926, respectively, from the following sources: Sales tax; stamp tax, income tax; interest on investments and balances; excise ; liquor and alcohol; other sources under excise tax; revenues from the postal service throughout the country; revenues from custom duties; total revenues from all sources?


James Alexander Robb: Obdinaby Revenue
-	1920-21	1921-22	1922-23	1923-24	1924-25	1925-26Customs Import Duties-	$ cts. 27,203 40 11,280,565 02 168,387,368 90	$ cts. 19,551 00 10,554,524 31 110,913,318 59	$ cts. 22,736 28 12,265,457 79 121,515,176 05	$ cts. 40,462 38 13,031,515 55 122,050,296 41	$ cts. 38,480 80 12,030,754 86 108,151,590 47	$ cts. 63,903 84 14,542,491 11 129,322,698 45
179,695,137 32 16,428,333 37	121,487,393 90 15,800,748 80	133,803,370 12 15,746,900 72	135,122,274 34 13,621,475 85	120,220,826 13 12,073,954 62	143,929,093 40 16,573,949 90
						
						
	163,266,803 95	105,686,645 10	118,056,469 40	121,500,798 49	108,146,871 51	127,355,143 50
Excise duties							
	5,757,463 31 84.301 32 2,468,475 53 28,843,343 72	6,224,060 52 58,279 10 2,628,995 28 27,994;776 69	7,985,808 57 62,930 70 2,549,600 72 25,666,605 04	9,367,887 23 85,073 61 3,278,407 27 25,874,941 51	9,389,535 98 106,233 72 3,539,020 66 25,978,389 60	10,928,078 03 108,637 50 3,839,173 67 28,492,991 44
						
						
						
						
	37,153,583 88 35,217 19	36,906,111 59 150,905 03	36,264,945 03 502,948 58	38,606,309 62 424,562 29	39,013,179 96 409,690 73	43,368,880 64 445,331 61
Less refunds							
	37,118,366 69	36,755,206 56	35,761,996 45	38,181,747 33	38,603,489 23	42,923,549 03
Excise taxes-						
	16.699,956 71 7,022,949 19 38,114,538 84 17,480,560 12	3.276,895 56 2.983,384 50 61,518,751 13 6,123,582 66	2,776,729 80 5,535,190 93 91,262,254 13 8,415,717 75	4,397,315 89 8,771,285 15 100,990,076 SO 9,510,168 75	4,748,100 62 9,325,887 95 66,707,369 96 8,549,479 34	5,582,764 02 10,051,116 94 74,014,076 44 9,566,391 66
						
						
Other sources							
	79,318,004 86 514,905 68	73,902,613 85 246,125 02	107,989,892 61 1,507,174 53	123,668,846 59 2,992,470 70	89,330,837 87 3,520,120 45	99,314,349 05 1,117,581 35
						
						
	78,803,099 18	73,656,488 83	106,482,718 08	120,676,375 89	85,810,717 42	98,096,767 71
						
	46,381,824 31 40,841,401.25 24,815,246 28 26,706,198 46 16,453,596 48	78,684,354 80 22,815,666 58 21,961,512 64 26,402,299 15 15,990,213 33	59,711,538 37 13,031,461 80 16,465,302 91 29,016,771 02 16,088,641 97	54,204,027 99 4,752,6S0 89 11,916,479 11 28,865,374 25 16,740,198 27	56,248,042 82 2,704,427 37 11,332,328 50 28,782.535 52 15,206,066 88	55,572,547 93 1,175,138 34 8,535,085 77 30,334,575 02 16,730,935 06
						
						
						
						
						
	434,386,536 60	381,952,3S6 99	394,614,900 00	396,837,682 22	346,834,479 25	380,723,742 36
						
* Books not yet finally closed for the year.
JUNE 7, 1926	40SS
Questions
Questions


ACCREDITED HERDS
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	How many veterinary inspectors have charge of the test of accredited herds in each province?
2.	What number of cattle passed the test in each province during this last year?
3.	What proportion among those that have shown a reaction after the first, test and were not slaughtered, have after reacted at the second test?
4.	Among the reacting and slaughtered cattle what proportion has been considered as affected with tuber-cuilosis by the inspector of carcasses ?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	In addition to other duties, the following inspectors carry on tuberculin testing under the accredited herd plan:
Prince Edward Island	 2
Nova Scotia	 1
New Brunswick	 3
Quebec	 18
Ontario	 32
Manitoba	 21
Saskatchewan	 14
Alberta	 15
British Columbia	 10
2.
Prince Edward Island	 1,701
Nova Scotia	 1,831
New Brunswick	 2,298
Quebec	 46,582
Ontario	 55,773
Manitoba	 13,034
Saskatchewan	 5,755
Alberta	 3,885
British Columbia	 2,748
3.	None. Reactors are not retested.
4.	91.5 per cent.


CARLETON POINT LIGHTHOUSE KEEPER
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	Has Mr. Louis Bujold resigned his position as lighthouse keeper at Carleton Point, Quebec, and when?
2.	If so, has his successor been appointed, and whom?
3.	Was such appointment made by the Civil Service Commission and when?
4.	Were returned men applicants for that position?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3	Answered by No. 1.
4	Answered by No. 1.


PRINCE RUPERT PUBLIC ELEVATOR
Hon. Mr. MANION:: 1.	Will the government elevator at Prince Rupert which has been leased to the wheat pool, be operated as a mixing house?
2.	Will the government table the agreement under which the elevator at Prince Rupert has been leased to the wheat pool?
'Mr Rnhh.I


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	The government elevator at Prince Rupert, which as been leased to the wheat pool, will be operated in accordance with the agreement entered into on the 31st day of March, 1926, a copy of which will be laid on the table of the House.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


HOME BANK DEPOSITORS
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What amount has been paid to Home Bank depositors (having accounts over $500) under the Home Bank Credit Relief Act, 1925?
2.	Has the total money voted to the relief of the Home Bank depositors been spent?
3.	If not, what amount is still outstanding?
4.	How many Home Bank depositors with accounts of less than $500 received relief?
5.	How many Home Bank depositors with accounts cf more than $500 have received relief, and what is the aggregate amount paid out by the government with reference to questions Nos. 4 and 5?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Paid to depositors with claims over $500, $1,334,623.46.
2.	No.
3	Balance of vote available for payment, $754,S21.94.
4	. 23.277.
5.	2,984; aggregate paid to depositors, $2,227,203.96.
Noth.-The figures given above as to amount and number of payments are those reported by the liquidators according to their books as at May 31, 1926.


KINGSVILLE HARBOUR MASTER
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	Who was the harbour master at port of Kingsville, Ontario, in 1925?
2.	Who occupies the position of harbour master at port of Kingsville, Ontario, now?
3.	When was he appointed?
4.	Under whose recommendation was he appointed?
5.	What salary, wages, or fees are made in connection with the position?
6.	How many applications were made for the position when it was last filled?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	There was no harbour master at the port of Kingsville, Ontario, in 1925.
2.	Nobody.
3.	4, 5, and 6. Answered by Noes. 1 and 2.


LEAMINGTON HARBOUR IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	Has the government under consideration the expenditure of any moneys for harbour or pier improvements, ar breakwater construction for port at Leamington, Ontario?
2.	If so, what is the initial expenditure?

Questions


John Warwick King: The only
expenditure under consideration at present is $1,100, being the estimated cost of repairs to existing structures.


PELEE ISLAND WHARF
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	How much .money was expended in the construction of the -wharf at Pdee island, Ontario, during . the year 1925?
2.	Under whose supervision was the work earned
on ?	.	,	.
3.	Was Mr. Norman McCormick engaged in any capacity with construction work? If so, in what capacity?
4.	What rate of wages did he draw, and how long was he employed?
5.	Were any supplies purchased from Mr. Norman McCormick, or through him?
6. If so, to what extent was purchase made?
7. Were any purchases of any supplies made from Mr. Ralph Hariris, either direct or indirect?
8.	If so, what supplies?
9.	How much was expended ?
10.	What was the total cost of the construction of the wharf or pier at Pelee island?
11.	Has there been any complaint that the work is unsat isfac tory ?
12.	If so, what steps has the government taken in the matter?


John Warwick King: I.	$27,970.49 for construction of extension to west pier.
2	and 3. Work supervised by Norman McCormick, inspector of construction under the direction of district engineer H. B. R. Craig.
4.	(a) $5 per day. (b) May 4 to September 13, 1925.
5,	6, 7, 8 and 9.-No information as contractor supplied all materials.
10.	$75,704.71 from 1908-1926.
II.	No.
12.	Answered by No. 11.


PELEE ISLAND STEAMSHIP SERVICE
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	What subsidy is granted to the steamer Pelee Island, or the company operating the steamer Pelee Island, which plies between Kingsville, Leamington and Pelee Inland, Ontario, and Sandusky, Ohio?
2.	When was the first subsidy granted, and how much per year?
3.	What increases have been made from time to time, and when were they made?
4.	Why is a subsidy granted, and what is it supposed to be applied on?
5.	Has there been an investigation made as to whether the people of Pelee island benefit from the subsidy, or whether private individuals reap discriminating advantages ?
6.	If discrimination was ascertained from investigation, what would be the attitude of the government?
7.	Would they, or could they compel lower fares and cheaper rates, or would they be inclined to decrease the subsidy?
8.	How many months per year is the steamer supposed to operate to obtain full subsidy ?
9.	Is there a subsidy granted for winter mail service to Pelee island? If so, how much and to whom?
10.	How does it compare with boat subsidy?
11.	What company operates the steamer Pelee Island?
12.	To whom is the subsidy paid?
13.	What kind of company operates the steamer Pelee Island?
14.	Has the department any record of dividends paid in the years 1923, 1924, and 1925, by said company?
15.	If ndt, could some information be readily obtained ?
16.	Has there been any complaint from residents of Pelee island, to the effect that there has been diiscrimination ?
17.	If so, by whom, when were they made, and what action has been or will be taken by the department?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	The name of the steamer on this service is Pelee, not Pelee Island. The subsidy for the year ending March 31, 1926, was $11,000. No contract has yet been entered into for 1926-27, but the estimates for this year contain a vote of 19,000 for this service.
2.	The first subsidy for a service on this route was $1 500 per annum and was granted during the fiscal year 1906-7.
3.	The subsidy was increased as follows: 1909-10, $5,000; 1914-15, $8,000; 1922-23, $11,000.
4.	The subsidy is granted to enable a steamship service to be operated between Pelee island and the mainland for the transportation of mails, passengers and freight.
5.	No information.
6 and 7. No discrimination is permitted on any of the steamship services subsidized by the government.
8.	Eight months.
9.	A semi-weekly winter mail service was performed during the season just ended by Mr. Guy McCormick at a cost of $2,000 per season, under a temporary agreement pending the awarding of a regular contract for which public tenders are at present being invited.
10.	No information.
11.	The Windsor & Pelee Island Steamship Company, Limited.
12.	The Windsor & Pelee Island Steamship Company, Limited.
13.	A steamship company.
14.	No information.
15.	Under the terms of the contract, the contractors are called on to furnish to the government such documents, information and evidence as may be required to show the volume, extent and value of the trade carried on by the subsidized steamer.
16.	No.
17.	Answered by No. 16.
Questions


HARROW EXPERIMENTAL FARM
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	What was the total cost of operating the Harrow, Ontario, experimental farm, for the year 1925?
2.	What is the total amount expended up to date on the Harrow experimental farm?
3.	How many people are engaged on the farm?
4.	From whom was the land purchased?
5.	How many acres, and a.t how much per acre?
6.	Who are employed on the farm at the present time?
7.	What salaries do they draw?
8.	Who is the superintendent of the farm, and what salary is paid him?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	Year 1925-26, $20,907.91.
2.	To March 31, 1926, $224,105.88, including purchase price, all capital expenditures, buildings, operating and experimental costs.
3.	14.
4.	A. R. Ferris, Kingsville, Ontario.
5.	198.3 acres at $175 per acre. $35,000.
6 and 7: D. D. Digges (under retirement), superintendent, $2,700; O. G. Williams, assistant to superintendent, $1,740; E. A. Moore, farm foreman, $1,560; F. Dimmoek, assistant Agrostologist, $2,160;. J. M. Page, stenographer, $1,260; Roy Wilson, teamster, 30 cents per hour; Cyrenius Hoffman, teamster, 30 cents per hour; gam Woodiwiss, teamster, 30 cents per hour; Harold Woodiwiss, labourer, 30 cents per hour; Arthur Fox, teamster, 30 cents per hour; Eugene Hoffman, labourer, 30 cents per hour; Harry Heaton, labourer, 30 cents per hour; Arthur Horton, teamster, 30 cents per hour; E. J. Tofflemire, carpenter, 40 cents per hour.
8. D. D. Digges (under retirement leave), $2,700.


KINGSVILLE HARBOUR DREDGING
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	Is dredging at Kingsville harbour, Ontario, completed, as far as is known, for the year 1926?
2.	What dredge or tug was used in operations?
3.	Under whose supervision was the work done?
4.	How many days' work were required to complete the job ?
5.	Did the.person in charge of operations have orders to purchase provisions from any certain merchant in the town of Kingsville? If so, whom?
6.	By whom were orders issued, and through whose recommendations ?
7.	Whose recommendations are accepted from Kingsville in advisement to the government generally?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	No. Dredging now under way.
2.	Departmental dredge "Q. & R. No. 1" and tug "Peel" are being used in connection with this work.
3.	District engineer H. B. R. Craig.
[Mr. LapointeJ
4.	Dredging at Kingsville commenced on May 7, 1926, and it is expected that same will be completed early in the week of June 14.
5.	No.
6.	Answered by No. 5.
7.	Qualified government officials.
TARIFF ADVISORY BOARD Mr. SPENCE (Maple Creek):
Has any provision been made to secure a complete record of the proceedings of the tariff board?


James Alexander Robb: A synopsis of all proceedings is kept in the form of minutes. Interested parties are invited to make their statements in writing.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR. RETURN PUBLIC PRINTING
Alexandre Joseph Doucet: What was the amount paid by the government for public printing aside from that done by the printing bureau, for the fiscal years 1922-23, 1923-24, 1924-25, 1925-26?


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. BURY:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters and other documents and communications passed between the Post Office Department and the Civil Service Commission, or between any of the postal officials at Edmonton or Calgary and the said department, or between any of the said postal officials and the Civil Service Commission, relating to the recent appointment of an inspector of postal service at Edmonton, Alberta, including all ratings and reports made or given upon competitors, respectively, for the said appointment, in respect of length and nature of service, seniority, standing, efficiency and fitness, or other respect whatsoever.
SWEDE CREEK EXPERIMENTAL STATION Mr. BLACK (Yukon):
For a copy of all correspondence, petitions and communications in the possession of the government or any department or official thereof concerning the discontinuance of the experimental agricultural station *heretofore conducted by the government at Swede Creek in Yukon Territory.
REVELSTOKE NATIONAL PARK Mr. ESLING:
For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents exchanged between any citizen or official of British Columbia and the Department of the Interior, in connection with the position of superintendent or with the administration of Revel-stoke national park, since January 1, 1925.

Civil Service Superannuation


CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Henry Herbert Stevens: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to have an opportunity of conferring with my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) before committing the government on the question. I would point out however that the time has already been extended by a year, at least once, so that civil servants have had two years within which to decide whether or not they wish to avail themselves of the provisions of the act. It seems strange that they should be unable to reach a decision in the matter. However, I wiill undertake to see that the representations which the hon. member has made are carefully looked into.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am aware that in rising to speak again I am trespassing somewhat on the rules, but I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that in view of the importance of the matter the House will bear with me. Without going into details I may observe that there are certain groups of civil servants who do not come under the act at all, and who have asked to be given that privilege. One of these groups includes, for instance, Income Tax employees, and there are the employees mentioned by my hon. friend (Mr. Manion)-the weighers. This is a very important question which vitally affects some who cannot come under the act. I really think the wisest course would be to extend until 1927 the privilege of election and in the meantime properly amend the Civil Service Act. I am neither criticizing nor blaming the government, for I realize that this is a large and intricate question and one that must be carefully considered.


John Warwick King: The Minister of Finance has just handed me a report on the matter submitted to him by the Superintendent of Insurance. I might read for the information of my hon. friend one paragraph which bears upon the point he has raised:
I think the recommendation to the government should be that the tune be not further extended, or if at all, for a period not exceeding three months, that the act be amended as heretofore suggested in order to cover causes of obvious omissions an the original act, and that no further enlargement or increase in benefits be considered 'until after the period for election has expired and the fuilil effect of the transfers and appointments uip to that date has been ascertained.
I think it well to put that expression of view on record.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would call the attention of the Prime Minister to the point in that letter which suggests that the act be amended. If the government is prepared to deal with the whole question, the recommendation of the superintendent is sound.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Can the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that the appointments to the Civil Service Commission will be made before prorogation this
session?


John Warwick King: The government is anxious, in whatever appointment it makes to the Civil Service Commission, to secure persons whose suitability for the post will commend itself to the people of the country. It is not easy to secure such a person to fill a position on the Civil Service Commission, and I may frankly admit to my

Cicil Service Superannuation
hen. friend that it may be necessary for the government to ask parliament to amend the Civil Service Act in order to facilitate the appointment of the type of man who will be regarded as well qualified to fill this position of great responsibility. The original act provided that the commissioners should be appointed for life, but subsequent appointments were limited to ten years, and there is no provision for a pension at the end of that time. The position carries with it a salary of $6,000 per annum. It is difficult to induce an individual of the standing and personality the government is seeking, to assume the position at a salary of $6,000 for ten years in the absence of any provision for a pension subsequently. The government is considering the advisability of asking parliament to provide for a larger salary and to arrange, if possible, for a pension in the event of the position not being made permanent. I emphasize the desire of the government to appoint as commissioners only such persons as will readily commend themselves to the judgment of the country, and naturally it will require some time to secure the right individual or individuals. My colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) reminds me that at the moment the service is not being embarrassed inasmuch as the Department of Justice has given a ruling that the chairman of the Civil Service Commission has full power to act for the commission as a whole. It has been suggested that the commission might be confined to one individual. We shall be giving that phase of the matter a trial while we are endeavouring to secure the other two officials.


LANDS SOLD TO SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: I would call the attention of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton) to question No. 2 which has been on the order paper for some time, the answer to which I have reason to believe is available.


Charles A. Stewart: I have on my desk a note from tire chairman of the Soldier Settlement Board to the effect that the information must be obtained from the Winnipeg office and that he is pressing for it. We hope to have it at an early date.
[ Mr Mackenzie King. ]


FRUIT JOBBER-BROKER COMBINE
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
John Campbell Elliott: In answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) regarding jobber broker combines, I promised to make a statement not later than to-day. With the permission of the House I submit the following statement:
Following a formal complaint under the Combines Investigation Act, a commissioner was appointed in July 1924 to investigate an alleged combine in the distribution of fruits and vegetables in western Canada. The commissioner reported on the 18th February, 1925, to the effect that a combine-called for convenient reference a jobber-broker combine- was operating in western Canada, and that its operations were against the interest of the public.
It appears that the supplies of Canadian grown fruit and vegetables consumed in the four western provinces come principally from the province of British Columbia. The grower, living in British Columbia and disposing of his products all the way from Calgary to Winnipeg, must have agents at the various centres to receive the fruit and vegetables, inspect them for quality and condition, and sell them to the jobbers, as the wholesale fruit houses are called in those provinces.
In 1906 and for some few years thereafter the system of distribution in Canada was from the grower, through his broker, to the different jobbers who sold to the retail' trade, which in turn distributed to the consuming public. The jobbing houses, of which there were two or more in each town of any size, were for the most part independent of each other and in more or less friendly competition. Speaking generally' and surveying western Canada as a Whole, distribution was made through many independent and competing jobbers. There was a free and uncontrolled outlet for supply.
The Nash organization of Minneapolis, which first entered Canada in 1906, and now operates a chain of jobbing houses throughout the west, introduced the principle of the jobber-owned broker about 1913. The Canadian jobbers, who have admitted the harmful' nature of the principle, say that in self-defence they had to follow suit.
By reason of the introduction of the jobber-broker principle, the Whole aspect of the distribution of fruit and vegetables in western Canada changed. Instead of distribution being through many unallied houses, it is now principally through two chains of jobbing houses, namely the Nash organization, and

Fruit Combine
the remaining Canadian jobbers. Each of these has its chain of brokerage offices, that of the Nash being known as the Mutual Brokers Limited and that of the independents, as the Canadian houses are called, being known as the Growers Sales Agency, Limited.
The commissioner reported against the principle of the jobber-owned broker on the ground that it was an attempt to join in the one organization two opposing	interests-the
broker, whose interest should be solely that of the grower and to sell at the best price obtainable, and the jobber whose interest was to purchase at the lowest price and so make the largest profit and therefore was opposed to that of the grower; and he set out in his report instances in which the combine had operated detrimentally to the interest of the grower and others. Certain of these instances, which are set out on pp. 22 et seq. of the Report may be summarized under the following heads:
(a)	Failure of the broker to sell to the jobber at the best price.
(b)	Attempts to keep the growers in the dark-(1) as to the prices at which their goods were sold; (2) the persons to whom they were sold; and (3) the allowances made to the jobbers on account of the alleged condition of the fruit on arrival.
(c)	False returns.
(d)	Secret profits.
(e)	Special rebates to Nash Jobbing houses which were not given to Canadian Jobbing houses.
(f)	Attempts to break up growers' cooperative organizations.
Following the report of the commissioner, indictments were laid against certain persons and individuals, charging inter alia (a) conspiracy to defraud; (b) offences against the Secret Commissions Act; (c) offences against Section 498 (The Combines Section) of the Criminal Code; (d) offences against the Combines Investigation Act. The trial of the accused took place under counts (a) and (b), the counts under (c) being traversed to the next assizes, and those under (d) being withdrawn.
The trial resulted in the conviction of four individuals and four companies. The individuals were sentenced to one day each in jail and to a fine of $25,000 a piece. The corporations were sentenced to fines of $25,000 each. Both individuals and corporations appealed from their conviction and the crown appealed from the sentences, suggesting that they should be more severe. Before the appeals were argued the defendants withdrew their appeals and the crown accordingly withdrew the aopes'
Numerous representations have been made to the government from time to time by growers' organizations and others, to the effect that the jobber-broker combine operates injuriously not only to the grower but also to the Canadian jobbing trade and to the consuming public; and that it should be done away with.
Following the verdict in the recent trial, the so-called Independent Jobbers, that is to say those Canadian firms which are not in what is known as the Nash organization, decided to cease the operation of the brokerage houses which they have been operating in conjunction with their jobbing business. These firms were not among those indicted. As the result of this action of the Independents, the jobber-broker connection is now operated only by what is known as the Nash organization. Since the trial counsel for the Nash interests has made representations to the government that they would like the view of the government on this question.
The matter is of considerable public importance, and in view of the fruit season having commenced before the appeals were disposed of and of the desire of all parties for an expression of the attitude of the government on this question, this statement is made.
It is not the duty of the government to advise corporations, as to how they should conduct their business, nor is it the intention of the government to do so. But the government has found that the question of the jobber-broker combine method of doing business is of such public importance that all parties concerned are entitled to know the government's attitude toward its continuance.
The jobber-broker combine is an attempt to join in the one organization and under the same control, the broker, whose interests should be solely that of the grower, and the jobber, whose interest is opposed to that of the grower. This puts the broker in a position in which his interest conflicts with his duty. Where there is such a conflict of interest and duty it is impossible to guarantee by any external supervision that the thousands of annual shipments of the growers will be handled honestly. Such a relationship is against the established principles of our few, and it is difficult to see how the grower could hope to obtain proper returns for his goods under such a system.
The government has taken steps to ascertain the opinion of those who have a practical knowledge of the operations of the jobber-broker combine. While some growers defend them they have found pretty general condemnation. Responsible officials in govern-rr nt. employ condemn it; growers' organ!-
Nova Scotia Steel Industry

zations controlling the vast majority of the crop of British Columbia condemn it; and there is testimony from Canadian jobbers to the same effect.
In view of all! these considerations, the government has decided that it must treat the jobber-broker connection as against public policy; and this announcement is made so that all parties may be aware of these views. If the law as it stands is sufficient to deal with this question, resort will be had to it should there be any disregard of its provisions. If the law as it stands is not sufficient, such appropriate legislation within the legislative competence of the Dominion will be introduced as may be necessary to give effect to this decision.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Have all the fines which
were imposed been paid, or have any of them been remitted by the government?


John Campbell Elliott: All the fines imposed, aggregating $200,000, have been paid.


Mr. BENNETT:: Did I understand the
minister to say that the fines have been remitted?


John Campbell Elliott: No, certainly not.


INQUIRY FOR RETURN
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. ROBERT ROGERS (South Winnipeg) :: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) kindly inform me when I may expect the return with respect to orders in oouncil relative to the purchase of screenings?


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Speaker, the other day
I received from my deputy a memorandum to the effect that it would require several thousand pages of foolscap and some four additional stenographers to provide the return, and that there was not much prospect of getting it completed by the end of the session, assuming that parliament prorogues towards the end of this month. I may say, however, that I shall be very pleased at any time between now and the end of the session to supply my hon. friend with such part of the information as we have prepared.


Robert Rogers: Could my hon. friend
oring down that part right away?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


GENERAL ELECTION
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have a request to make of the minister in charge of election proceedings. I do not know who that minister may be.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Secretary of State.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I wish to direct to his
attention a letter which I have received from Mr. John R. Sloan, janitor of one of the schools in Vancouver, who writes on behalf of the janitors of a number of other schools in that city which were used as polling stations during the last general election. He points out that their services have not yet been paid for, although they have repeatedly requested payment from the returning officer, who" always replies that the money will come through in time. It does seem to me that this small matter should be attended to.


John Warwick King: This more
properly should go to the Chief Electoral Officer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think so.


John Warwick King: He has charge of these matters. The Auditor General makes payment. I understand there have been delays of the character mentioned by my hon. friend, due entirely to the difficulty which the Auditor General has had in getting the accounts properly audited.


NOVA SCOTIA STEEL INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. G. T. MacNUTT (Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, in view of a statement recently made by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) that certain industries could not await investigation by the tariff board, may I ask if it is the intention of the government to grant relief at this session of parliament to the Nova Sootia steel industry, which is today in a perilous position and confronted with collapse unless early relief is extended?


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I followed my hon. friend aright. Did he say I had made the statement that certain industries could not await the decision of the tariff board?

Government Loan


George Taylor MacNutt: As I understood, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance, in explaining to the House his reasons for reducing the duty on automobiles, said that the country could not wait for the tariff commission to report.
Mr. ,R0BB:	That is different; I was talking about the country.


George Taylor MacNutt: Mr. Speaker, may I ask
for a reply to my question?


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


GOVERNMENT LOAN
[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to (bring in a measure to authorize the raising, by way of loan, under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, by the issue and sale or pledge of securities of Canada, such sum or sums of money as may be required, not to exceed in the whole the sum of one hundred and fifty million dollars, for paying or redeeming or otherwise retiring the whole or any portion of loans or obligations of Canada and for public works and general purposes, the principal and interest to be a charge upon and payable out of the consolidated revenue fund.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I think my hon. friend will have to give us some information on this resolution, but perhaps we can get it just as well in committee so long as we understand that we are not adopting the principle of the bill.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Duff in the chair.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will my hon.
friend indicate the object and purpose of this amount of money?


James Alexander Robb: Yes. We have maturing during the present year and during the year 1927 a total of $143,505,650. In October next we have maturing $35,000,000 in Canada and New York, and in November $8,000,000 in Canada and New York. The other maturities are in the following year, and this is to make provision to meet them.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What time next year?


James Alexander Robb: November 1 and 15 and December 1.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps my
hon. friend will tell the House why next year should not look after next year's commitments. Apparently we have commitments amounting to $43,000,000 for this year; why
not provide for what we have to look after? If I understand my hon. friend correctly he said there were two retirements to be made, one of $35,000,000 and one of $8,000,000 payable in the autumn of this year, and that there were no other retirements to be made until December of next year. We will have another meeting of parliament between now and December of 1927, so why not just look after our present business? The minister has given us a total of $43,000,000 for this year; he may have a little more, but that is all he has given us.


Mr. OOOTE:: Might I ask the hon. members to speak a little louder.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have particulars, as I put them down, of $43,000,000 of retirements which have to be looked after during the course of the current year, in connection with which I am offering absolutely no objection. But that is only a small part of $150,000,000, and as I understood my hon. friend the balance over and above the $43,000,000 is to be paid in December of 1927. My suggestion to the House is that we will have another meeting of parliament between now and December, 1927, and it would be just as well if we merely dealt with the business for the present year.


James Alexander Robb: At first blush that would look quite reasonable, but my hon. friend who has been in the department and has had charge of refinancing knows that there are certain periods during the year when money is cheaper than at other times; in the month of January, for instance, money is rather plentiful. Now we have in mind that possibly the maturities of this fall may be taken care of by our own current cash, that is, if the market is unfavourable at the time of maturity. Then in January, when the market is in better shape, we can make a better deal for Canada.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is quite right; I agree with him absolutely, but I dp not agree with his conclusion. There is no doubt that money is sometimes dearer and sometimes cheaper, and there is no doubt that my hon. friend will be guided by his advisers just as we used to be guided. The same advisers are still there and these things are done in the same way despite what we are told to the contrary. As I said, my hon. friend will very properly be guided by his advisers as to when to make his permanent commitments, but simply because he raises the money temporarily out of his own cash is no reason for putting in more money.
Government Loan


James Alexander Robb: Not unless the market looked good in January so that we could provide for these maturities coming later in the year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend means, I take it, that if he sees a very favourable interest market in January his idea would be to take advantage of it to look after the December retirements.


James Alexander Robb: We want to have the funds available if necessary; we might use them or we might not.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
amount available next December?


James Alexander Robb: About $37,000,000 due in November and about $63,000,000 odd due December 1. I think this is quite regular.


George Gibson Coote: I wonder if the minister
would be good enough to put on Hansard a statement of the loans maturing this year. It was impossible to hear what he said.


James Alexander Robb: I will repeat it; the loans
maturing this year are $35,000,000 on October 1 and $8,000,000 on November 15, both payable in Canada and New York. Those maturing next year amount to $100,505,650. This is all due in Canada with the exception of $8,000,000.


Mr. FOSTER:: I would like to ask the minister if it is intended to float a considerable portion or all of the loans necessary for refunding in the United States, or all in Canada, or part in both countries.


James Alexander Robb: It has always been the government policy to float loans wherever money is cheapest. Sometimes they are floated in England, sometimes in New York and sometimes in Canada. We will be guided by the international market.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would like to ask the minister if any of the bonds maturing either this year or next year are tax-exempt bonds.


My ROBB:: I do not think so; I am not sure.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 172, to authorize the raising by way of loan of certain sums of money for the public service.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Duff in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
ESir Henry Drayton.]
On section 2-Loan authorized.
Edward Joseph Garland: In the
resolution preceding this bill it was intimated that the money raised hereby could be used for public works and other general purposes. I would ask the minister what public works he has in mind, and whether this is the usual form for this kind of bill.


James Alexander Robb: This is the usual form. The
reason for putting it in this way is that if the market is not quite favourable at the time the maturities come due in the early part of the year, the government may use the funds they have then available in the treasury, funds that are in there for other purposes, retire the loan coming due, and later on in the year borrow to replace those funds.


Edward Joseph Garland: It is strictly understood that the money secured under this authorization will not itself be used for the building of public works, but simply to replace other funds that may have been taken.


James Alexander Robb: There is no intention whatever of using any part of this for public works.


George Gibson Coote: We have not a copy of the
bill, Mr. Chairman, and I do not know whether I am asking this question on the proper section or not. I wanted to ask the minister what was the rate of interest on the loans which are maturing this year and which have to be taken u,p.


James Alexander Robb: I have not that information
before me, but I will get it for my hon friend. If he will turn, however, to the public accounts that he has before him he will find that the rates of interest are all listed there.


George Gibson Coote: Will tenders be invited for
the sale of these new bonds?


James Alexander Robb: We shall follow the usual procedure. The procedure generally is to write inviting fenders from different houses, and if they are not satisfactory to us we try and provide other means of financing until the market gets more satisfactory.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: The minister
said he might want to anticipate the loans due say a year from now, by offering a loan say next January if the market happened to be favourable then. If he did anything of the sort, would he not lose a considerable amount of interest? He would be paying 4^ per cent or thereabouts for the money, and would only be getting 3 per cent for it while it was on deposit in the bank in the meantime. So would he not lose per cent by so doing?

C.N.R.-Substituted Securities


James Alexander Robb: Unless it so worked out that
we would not lose, we would not do that financing, but sometimes we can save something by retiring a loan or getting a better rate of interest. The officers of
3	p.m. the department have to keep an eye on other countries to see when they are coming in the market so that we can get in ahead of them.


George Halsey Perley: If the minister
had a lot of money on hand for a time for repaying these loans, he must be out the interest, must he not?


James Alexander Robb: We always watch out for
that.	[DOT]


Mr. SPENCER :: A year ago when this matter was being discussed, I suggested that it would be in the interest of the country if say one-half or one per cent more was offered on savings in the government post offices. The Minister of Finance then was kind enough to say that he would give the matter consideration, that it was worth while considering. I would ask him if he has given it consideration, and if he has thought it worth while to increase the rate of interest on deposits in the post office savings offices, for the purpose of raising funds to take the place of such loans as we are now discussing.


James Alexander Robb: I have not reached any decision as to increasing the rate of interest on the post office savings. Of course, anyone who wants a higher rate of interest than the post office gives can buy Dominion government bonds, which are sold in small denominations as well as large.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not wish to
raise a discussion at this stage, but I would like to point out that a good many financial authorities believe that there is no reason why the government could not be its own banker, and that by raising money on bonds in this way we are simply saddling a mortgage upon the future of this country. It seems to me that the Finance department might at least give careful consideration to the question whether there is not some better way of financing the country than by means of the issuance of bonds.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That lit is expedient to provide for the extension of the provisions of chapter 11 of the statutes of 1918 (relating to guarantee on removal or postponement of indebtedness of the Canadian Northern Railway system), to the Canadian National Railway Company and to any company referred to on the Canadian National Railway Act, 1919 (1919, c.[DOT] 13), and in the act relating to the Grand Trunk Railway system (1920, c. 13), and to enable each one of such companies to issue its notes, obligations or other securities, hereinafter called "substituted securities," for the purpose of acquiring, by application of the proceeds thereof, or by exchange therefor, the notes, Obligations or other securities or indebtedness of any other or others of such companies, and to authorize the Governor in Council to guarantee the substituted securities.
Henry Lumley Drayton: In adopting the motion, it is understood that we are not adopting the principle at all?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Duff in the chair.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the
minister will have a request from the company in connection with this matter. He probably will have a report from the financial department showing where this is wanted. If he would read that report it will help.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not the report
at hand. I have the substance of what, is required. It is very easily available. The act which is being amended by this proposed legislation applies to the Canadian Northern Railway system, and did not apply to the old Grand Trunk system, nor to the Grand Trunk Pacific. The purpose of the present amendment is to add two sections, enabling an adjustment to be made of the indebtedness of the three systems, the Canadian Northern, the Canadian National, formerly the Grand Trunk, and the Grand Trunk Pacific. The wording is broadened to enable compromises or adjustments to be made of existing indebtedness, and also to enable one of the companies, such for instance as the Canadian National, to issue its notes or obligations, instead of the obligations of the subsidiary company which is being substituted.


William Findlay Maclean: Without increasing the obligation?
C.N.R.-Substituted Securities


Charles Avery Dunning: Without increasing the
obligation. That is one of the provisions to be made. That point will be covered when the bill is presented. Briefly if the obligation of the Grand Trunk, for instance, matured, it is desirable, in order to bring the system into one, that that maturing obligation be met by the issue of Canadian National securities, rather than to continue from time to time issuing more of the securities of the separated corporations, and this amendment will give liberty to do that. I propose when the bill is in committee to introduce an amendment, giving assurance that such action will not be taken without the authority of an order in council, so that there will be safeguards concerning it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What effect will it have on the interest on the Grand Trunk Pacific debentures?


Charles Avery Dunning: It will have no effect
on the Grand Trunk Pacific debentures at all. It has no relation to them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In regard to the question of earnings; the segregation of earnings on the Grand Trunk and the amount of money that might be available to meet obligations of the Grand Trunk Pacific is important. If the earnings were no longer segregated, might not a claim be made that the interest should bo paid?


Charles Avery Dunning: I see my hon. friend's
point. I thought he had another point in view. That was considered, but in order to make it broad enough to deal with the very complicated situation, it had to be broad enough to involve the possibility of that; but of course very naturally it would be foolish to do anything which would precipitate a situation such as my hon. friend has spoken of. The power of the Governor in Council with respect to the matter is, I think, sufficient protection in that connection. I can assure my hon. friend that it is a very necessary power to have in order to approach the problem of bringing these various entities really into a financial unit.


George Brecken Nicholson: Will it be possible,
before the bill goes into committee, for us to get a clear, concise statement of the moneys that have been advanced to each portion of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Northern Railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Grand Trunk Railway, and the Canadian government railways, and a statement showing what has been done with that money. In the statements issued by the Canadian National Railways themselves, as such, and in the statements issued by the

component parts before the amalgamation, the amounts shown as received by each of the groups, or at least the amount shown as advanced by the government, including the issue of bonds does not correspond with the amounts of which we have been given any record, as having been expended. As I pointed out previously, there is a difference of $250.000,000. In the case of the Canadian Northern Railway, which is the subject of the resolution now before the House, the advances which are presumed to have been ,made according to the reports of the Department of Railways and Canals, and the reports of the Canadian National Railways, total $329,000,000, while we can only find in the reports of .the Canadian National Railways an account for $205,000.000 that has been expended including deficits on those lines, and all money that has gone into capital expenditure. I feel that parliament should know, and know during this session, where this money has gone. There is either a misstatement on the part of the Department of Railways and Canals as to the amount that has been advanced, or there has been a failure on the part of the Canadian National to show clearly what has been done with the money.


Charles Avery Dunning: I would be very glad
to try to facilitate my hon. friend's efforts to find that hundred odd million-


George Brecken Nicholson: Two hundred and fifty million.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, $250,000,000, but 1
might suggest that a better and easier course would be for my hon. friend to go before the special committee-and as a member of the House my hon. friend has that privilege- and before that special committee the actual officers of the road who are engaged in making up the account can be examined regarding the matter in detail and at any length. That suggestion does not mean that I am unwilling to have such a statement prepared as my hon. friend suggests and brought down to this House, but I am suggesting the other course as possible, and a course which would reduce the volume of argument in regard to the matter in the House, after it is produced. I suggest that my hon. friend should do that, and at the same time I will undertake that a statement will be brought down to this House at a later date, when I ask the House to consider the estimates which are now before the special committee.


George Brecken Nicholson: My feeling in regard
to the minister's suggestion is simply this: If the session of parliament is going to conclude within the time that a good many

C.N.R.-Substituted Securities
people seem to think it may conclude, I do not feel that there will be any opportunity of getting information by the detailed process of obtaining it from the officers of the Canadian National Railways, particularly where a member of the House, who is not a member of that committee, goes before the committee himself and waits for an opportune time to bring up a particular matter of this kind. A certain routine is being followed in the committee, according to my experience. The minister seems to think we can take up some of the subjects that are not being discussed. It seems to me this is not a light matter and should not be passed over. Statements have been issued, not only to parliament, but to the public, showing that $803,000,000 of new money has been advanced to those lines, and the statements that the railways themselves have issued account for $550,000,000 of that amount. I submit parliament should get a complete statement from the Department of Railways showing exactly what has jjeen put into these lines and what has been done with the money.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not objecting to the production of such a statement as that, but I merely suggest, by way of additional facility, that my hon. friend should take advantage of the opportunity which is his, and I think I can undertake, on behalf of the committee, having regard to what they have done with reference to questions of this kind, that if the hon. member will appear before the committee he will be afforded an opportunity of asking questions in regard to any matter on which he may desire information. Manifestly, there is an explanation. The $250,000,000 has not vanished into thin air. It must be purely an accounting matter, and it will be discovered. I can assure my hon. friend that at a later stage I will be glad to bring down such a statement from the Department of Railways and Canals, but in addition I suggest, in order to facilitate the proceedings of this House, that he should go before that special committee and there examine the officials responsible for the accounts. It must be remembered that these accounts are audited not only by the railway's own auditors, but by an independent firm of auditors, an outside concern altogether. It is surely not possible to assume that $250,000,000 has vanished into thin air. That is not the explanation My hon. friend knows that and I know it. I cannot tel! him offhand where this amount of $250,000,000 advanced to the railways in many cases many years ago has been distributed in the railway accounts, but I am sure it is discoverable and I shall be glad to give my hon. friend every facility to discover it.


Hugh Guthrie: There are on the market a number of securities of the Canadian Northern Electric Railways. The Canadian Northern electric system consisted of three roads, one known as the Toronto and Eastern, one as the Toronto Suburban, and the other is a road running around Niagara Falls. These three roads are all mentioned in the schedule in the Canadian National Railway Act of 1919. Unfortunately some of my constituents are holders of some of these securities. I made application to the department recently and I received information that these bonds had never been guaranteed by the government, but on the other hand the government has take a possession of these three electric roads and is paying interest on the bonds as it matures. In the legislation which is contemplated as a result of this resolution, will these bonds be taken care of by the issue of Canadian National Railway bonds?


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot answer my hon. friend's question in that regard. I cannot say that these bonds will be taken care of, but it would be possible for the Canadian National to retire such an obligation as this by the issue of further securities not exceeding the amount outstanding which is being refunded. I cannot say that any particular issue will' be dealt with either in this or another way.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is going further than that. As I understand his motion it is to secure the right to guarantee by the government.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is a different thing from having the holding company change obligations in connection with existing securities.


Charles Avery Dunning: I know. I do not want to be misunderstood.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would suggest that at the same time my hon. friend should give us the report of the financiers who have recommended this.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no such report.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The question
was put to my hon. friend by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett). It is perfectly clear that under this enabling legislation the government could if it so chose turn round and endorse or guarantee new securities for the purpose of retiring any kind of obligations of any of these companies for which obligations the government to-day is not in the slightest degree responsible. Unless some definite reason is shown I would think the last



C.N.R.-Substituted Securities
thing this House ought to do would be ta place in the hands of the government the right to make good at the whim of the government what to-day are worthless securities.
As. regards the lines that the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) was speaking about, two of them have been tom HP and sold and one was never built. They were undertakings only partially carried on, some of them undertakings which simply fell into the hands of the government because the Canadian Northern owned most of the stock, because they were Canadian Northern enterprises. But they were enterprises which were of no value to the government, to the country, as owners of the transcontinental system. Under this they might be made valuable; under this we might have all kinds of obligations cast upon us because all these are obligations of subsidiary companies.
The hon. member for South Wellington has made it perfectly clear that these are companies which are covered in the schedule of companies referred to in the legislation of 1919. In short, the effect of what my hon. friend proposes is this, that the government can make itself liable for securities for which it is under no liability at the present time *because if it is there is no object in the legislation. The class and the character of the liability which may thus be extended is bound only by the number of companies referred to. We have more than a page in the list in one act besides the numberless companies we have in the Grand Trunk which was taken over only in 1920. I am now referring only to the legislation of 1919. If I am wrong my hon. friend will indicate where and in what way.


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot say that my hon. friend is completely wrong, but no one knows better than he that many of these companies have obligations standing in the form of mortgage securities which are not guaranteed by the government but on which interest is being paid. The case mentioned by the hon. member for South Wellington is a case in point. Each one of the complex financial arrangements of these former companies requires to be Studied on its merits because there are many cases where, if the government or the company, the company being secondary to the government of course, do not pay the interest, the power which the bondholders themselves have under the mortgage trust deed in relation to our property, means that the property itself would be seriously impaired if the bondholders exercised the power which they have under the terms of the bond. That is true with reference to many of these com-
TSir Henry Drayton.]
panies. I am speaking offhand subject to correction, but I think I am correct when I say that the Grand Trunk class of unguaranteed securities is one security on which no interest is being paid and Canadian Northern Fours is another.
It is very hard to please hon. gentlemen opposite on this question. On a former occasion when I spoke on the railway budget the leader of the opposition (Mr. Medghen) took the view-and I had some sympathy with it- that although the written bond of this country was not behind these bonds, we nevertheless had the property and therefore I should consider and he suggested to me that I should give consideration to some plan whereby the interest would be paid because he said- and he used almost these words-the people of Canada really owe the money.
1 am not indicating at all that we should go so far as sweepingly to say that all the obligations of these various constituent companies. whether guaranteed by the government or not, should be met by the government. But as a practical man after having spent only a little time up to now studying this complex financial structure, I say that it. is essential to have some power in order to be able to deal with the matter intelligently. There is no intention to use the power in any drastic manner and of course the House must be informed from time to time as to what is done with regard to it. My hon. friend1 spoke of a statement from financiers. I have no such statement. I have the legal opinion with respect to the necessity.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What does that say?


Charles Avery Dunning: I will read the whole of the opinion of Mr. Ruel, legal vice president of the National Railways with regard to the matter. Perhaps it would be a good thing to put it on Hansard. This memorandum is called forth by a question from myself as minister to the legal counsel as to whether the power asked for in this legislation was not in fact already in the hands of the government. The hon. member for South Wellington will understand the point of my question to t'he legal counsel. This is the answer which tends to elucidate the whole question:
It is suggested that the Canadian National Railways already have the powers contemplated by this bill and that the legislation is, therefore, unnecessary.
We are satisfied that this is noit the case.
The first legislation of the kind was contained in section 19 of chapter 20 of the statutes of 1914, as follows:-
"19. Any company now or hereafter comprised in the Canadian Northern system which is now or may hereafter be, subject to the legislative authority of

C.N.R.-Substituted Securities
the parliament of Canada may acquire shares in the capital stock of, or securities issued by, or make advances to or receive advances from any other company comprised in said system, and may take or give security for such advances."
This act only applied to the Canadian Northern system. The Canadian National Railway Company was not incorporated and both the Canadian Northern system and the Grand Trunk system were then private enterprises.
The second legislative enactment of the kind was chapter 11 of the statutes of 1918 which is quoted in the explanatory notes to the present bill and wh-ich is amended by the addition of two sections by the present bill. This act of 1918 dealt only with the Canadian Northern system and only covered the renewing and postponing of the then existing indebtedness of that system.
Which, as my hon. friend knows perfectly well, has been done from time to time. As a matter of fact, securities which were not originally government obligations have been taken care of as they have matured by the issue of securities which were government obligations. This was inevitable in order to hold the system together.
By chapter 13 of the statutes of 1919, the Canadian National Railway Company was incorporated and given power in section 26 to issue securities to the extent of $75,000 per mile of its lines. By chapter 37 of the statutes of 1923 the right to issue securities was restricted (as to any company included in either the Canadian Northern system or the Grand Trunk system or the Grand Trunk Pacific system or the Canadian National Railway Company) to securities approved of as to form, terms and amounit by the Governor in Council. Approved securities could be guaranteed by the crown provided authority to issue had previously been given by parliament.
This was purely a restrictive act apart from the general authority to guarantee issues authorized specifically by parliament.
Specific authority to issue and guarantee securities to the extent of $56,000,000 was given by the Appropriation Act of 1924 (1924, chapter 75, item 137) to raise money to meet indebtedness incurred by, or on behalf of, the combined railway systems. It was, however, claimed on behalf of the underwriters of guaranteed securities that this enactment did not give power to any one company to issue securities on behalf of any other company nor to expend the proceeds of its own issue except on its own behalf. The contention was arguable but was waived, and in the 1925 Appropriation Act (1925, chapter 56, item 377) the power was specifically given to each company to aid and assist any other by the issue of its securities and the application of the proceeds, when guaranteed, to meet the requirements of any or all such other companies. This authority was not general; it applied only to securities issued and guaranteed "under the provisions of this enactment". No securities were issued or guaranteed under the 1925 Appropriation Act.


Henry Lumley Drayton: 1923.


Charles Avery Dunning: 1925 is the figure here.
This is all of the existing legislation deoiling with or relating to the issue and guarantee of securities and the assisting hy one company of another. This existing legislation does not cover the purpose of the present bill which is to enable securities to be issued 14011-2601
and guaranteed to an amount not in excess of outstanding principal indebtedness to postpone, renew, compromise or adjust existing indebtedness of any company even though not matured.


Hugh Guthrie: That covers very well the question I asked. If this measure becomes law the government has it in its power to guarantee the Canadian Northern electrical bonds.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Hugh Guthrie: The Canadian Northern Electric Railway bonds; the three companies are enumerated in the schedule. The answer given me now is that they never guaranteed these bonds. They are paying the interest and they have possession of the roads, which they are operating.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is right.


Hugh Guthrie: Then the government will have power, if this enactment passes, to guarantee those bonds?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In view of what took
place in connection with the Rouyn railway I am strongly of opinion that legislation of this character should not be left in the hands of the Governor in Council but of parliament. My profound conviction, from what study I have given the matter, is that legislation of this character should be passed by parliament. Every bill should be dealt with on its merits. In days gone by I gave considerable attention to this question, although in recent years I have not studied it so carefully. But of one thing I am certain, and that is, that to place power of this kind in the hands of the Governor in Council is to issue an invitation to have the government importuned, as occurred in olden times, to give its guarantee to securities which in my opinion this country should not endorse. I do suggest that the minister would be well advised to leave these matters in such a shape that they may be dealt with every year by parliament. True, some little delay might be entailed, but the question is so important that parliament should pass upon the merits of every such piece of legislation. Take the Rouyn railway, for example, the papers in connection with which I have asked for. What happened in that instance? It was contended that, in virtue of an agreement made between that company and the crown, the government was operating certain railways independently of the Canadian National Railway system. In the capacity of owner and operator of a railway the crown, as represented by the Minister of Railways, undertook to guarantee

CJV.R.-Substituted Securities
by way of lease the securities of that particular road. That is a matter that should be dealt with by parliament in the first instance, and the minister would be acting wisely,'before coming to any agreement or asking parliament to place in the hands of the Governor in Council any such power as is suggested, and to provide that no measure of this nature should become effective until ratified by parliament. I wholly agree with what he says as to the desirability of rounding out the financial structure of the system in order to obtain one class of security with respect to all the varying lines of railway. That we will concede. But to ask the Governor in Council to guarantee, compromise and agree to make good certain securities which at present have no value is something which I submit, in the case of a private concern, only the shareholders could pass upon. And the shareholders of the Canadian National Railway system comprise not only the government, but parliament as representing the people.
The difficulty I have always experienced in connection with the government system is the one to which I alluded the other evening, that is to say, the difficulty of having the shareholders of the company-the Canadian National Railway system-give their approval to the necessary measures which in the case of a private enterprise would in due course be submitted by the directors to the shareholders either at an annual or at a special meeting. I have looked into this bill with some care and I urge upon the government not to lay itself open to importunity on the part of interests connected with these various enterprises, sometimes remotely and occasionally quite closely, but to provide that the people through their representatives in parliament shall pass upon every measure of this kind, and that upon the completion of any arrangement it be submitted to the House. That would be the proper course to follow and I submit it for the consideration of the minister.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend makes
a case which of course in principle, as applied to any ordinary transaction, is very difficult to answer. May I point out, however, that in the case mentioned by my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie)-I do not recall the name of the electric lines in question-


Hugh Guthrie: The three companies
enumerated in the schedule.


Charles Avery Dunning: Enumerated in the
schedule to the Canadian Northern Act? With respect to those three companies, the power
(Mr. Bennett.]
of the Canadian Northern system to issue other securities in place of those guaranteed by the government has existed since the act was passed in 1918.


Hugh Guthrie: It was never exercised.


Charles Avery Dunning: It was never exercised.
But this government is asking for no more power with reference to the Canadian National system as a whole than was conveyed by that legislation with respect to the original Canadian Northern system and its constituent companies. But I do want to be absolutely clear: there is one difference.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There certainly is.


Charles Avery Dunning: The difference is with
respect to securities not yet matured.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Certainly.
Mr, DUNNING:	That is the difference
And I want to ask my hon. friends, as men who know something about finance, whether they think it is possible to make the best fiancial arrangement for the liquidation of that class of security by coming to parliament with a bill asking for authority to deal with it before you attempt to deal with the market situation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; deal with it first, and then come and get the approval of parliament as is always done by railway companies.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am afraid the minister does not quite grasp the point made by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett). He has not answered it at all. He says practically: It is more convenient for me to do it this way. My hon. friend is not quite right when he thinks the powers are as open as they were. The reading of Mr. Ruel's opinion makes it perfectly clear that both points I made are right. The whole question here is that the government's liability may be increased to the extent of all existing securities of any of these companies just as the government and the company agree. That was all I said. My hon. friend said I was wrong, Mr. Ruel says I am right. There is no question that that is the plain intent of the statute.


Charles Avery Dunning: But my hon. friend
knows that that was the plain intent of the 1918 statute.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh, no.


Charles Avery Dunning: With the exception I referred to regarding the unmatured securities.


Substituted Securities


Henry Lumley Drayton: Since 1918 we
have learned how statutes can be evaded, we have learned how parliament can be flouted, we have learned how original capital obligations can be created entirely apart from parliament, we have learned how you can have a rule for one part of the country and another rule for another part of the country. The act of 1918 is a broad act. It is, however, a little more limited than the present act. But the state of the law as we had it in 1923 was too broad, too generous and too liberal, and the railway solicitor points out, perfectly properly, that the act of 1923 was an act of limitation. Now in this proposal, Mr. Chairman, we are asked to go entirely in the opposite direction. In 1923 this government brought in a bill, defined by the railway solicitor as an act which instead of enlarging restricted the then right of creating these obligations against the government. Instead of going along that line of parliamentary responsibility we are now going further away from it than we were doing previous to 1923.
I admit the government did it rather reluctantly in 1923, but it is queer that the government which thought something should be done to limit this right of issuing securities should be the government which now wants a blank cheque written.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, I was
somewhat impressed by the suggestion made by my hon. friend from West Calgary, and am rather disposed to examine its practicability. Did I understand him correctly to say that one might proceed with an arrangement subject to the approval of parliament?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not only that; for instance, when the Canadian Pacific Railway enters into certain negotiations with respect to properties, it puts at the end a very short provision making the agreement " subject to the approval of the shareholders of the company called together in special general meeting." That is done. I might name another instance. When the government entered into an agreement with respect to the construction of a railway in the Yukon, it provided that the agreement was subject to the approval of parliament, as some of my friends will remember. Very frequently when railway companies enter into negotiations with respect to financial matters it is provided that shareholders' meetings shall be held to approve the arrangements made. I have in mind that the New York Central at the time of the consolidation of lines took that course, as did also another American line. I see no reason why in a case of this kind in which the
directors of the Canadian National deal with a question, and it is satisfactory to the government, the government does not provide that the arrangement will be submitted to parliament for approval at its next session. That at all events will not involve a longer delay than six or eight months, because that is the maximum time which elapses between the prorogation of one session and the calling of another. That would make it clear there was no disposition on the part of the government to substitute itself for the body of shareholders of the company, parliament being the nearest approach to such a body.
M'r. DUNNING: Does my hon. friend intend that in the meantime the securities in question would be marketed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Obviously not; they
should not be marketed.


Charles Avery Dunning: Or substituted?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. The whole matter should be subject to the approval of this parliament, in the same way as a private corporation makes a bargain subject to the approval of its. shareholders. That is the regular practice.


Mr. MANION:: Mr. Chairman, we have
had a very good example of that in connection with the return of Alberta's resources. The government made an agreement with the provincial authorities subject to ratification by this parliament. Why cannot a similar course be taken in regard to railway matters?


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, I believe we are all approaching this thing, not from the point of view of party but from the point of view of being jointly and severally responsible for a very great business enterprise.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And a very difficult one.


Charles Avery Dunning: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I recall the circumstances under which the Canadian Pacific Railway acquired the Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company's properties; they certainly went to their shareholders with a completed bargain. The Calgary and Edmonton securities were 6 per cent securities, and a bargain was made whereby, if my memory serves me right-and I speak now subject to correction-Canadian Pacific 4 per cent perpetual debenture stock was substituted therefor, or possibly the rate of interest on the bonds was reduced to 4 per cent. I am not quite sure which was the case, but I recall the circumstances and remember that the shareholders approved of the arrangement.
All the consolidated perpetual debenture stock of the Canadian Northern system is having its interest paid from year to year; at the moment I do not know whether or not it is earned, but up to a certain time it was not earned. Yet we paid it, because we had acquired the stock of the enterprise, rather than let it default. That, I think, should have been done; the railway and property should have been placed in the hands of a receiver as the only way in which the matter could be dealt with, but we have seen fit to pay the interest upon that perpetual debenture security. I look at chapter 20 of the statutes of Canada for 1914 and find there a list of all the securities acquired at the time we gave assistance [DOT] to the Canadian Northern enterprise, as well as all the mortgaged properties which were taken over by us subject to the claim of the perpetual consolidated debenture stock of 1903. The more I look at it the more satisfied I am that this House, representing the shareholders of the system, should not confer upon a government the right to deal with these matters. I think it in the interests of the government themselves; I can conceive of nothing worse for the government than the financial interests, who have been buying securities of various kinds in order to make a deal, for instance, coming along to the government and saying, "We can do so and so." A better deal can be made for this

C.N.R.-Substituted Securities
country if the minister is in a position to say, "Yes, we will deal, but we can only deal with the approval of parliament." I am as sure of that as I can be sure of anything, because of my observations with respect to matters of this kind. If a board of directors has to deal with its shareholders before approving a bargain I have always observed that they can make a much better bargain than if they took the matter up themselves.
In other words, the publicity incident to explaining the circumstances of a transaction to a shareholders' meeting involves consideration by the directors, which ensures the very best possible bargain.
Now, speaking to the' particular matter to which the minister refers, it is apparent that he desires to acquire securities which have not as yet matured. That is usually done through a bondholders' committee or in some similar way, or through a large financial house which specializes upon these matters. For instance, the Canadian Northern has maturing at a not distant date $25,000,000 of income bonds the interest upon which has not been paid because, in the terms; of the bond itself, the income has not been earned. It is probable that this country will have to pay that $25,000,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: If I may correct my hon. friend, the interest was earned for some time and was paid.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I mean since the amalgamation. Prior to the acquisition of the system by the country it is true that in order to maintain a market the interest was paid whether it was earned or not; it was said to have been earned, to put it correctly. No one who has analayzed the figures believes that it was earned, but it was said to have been earned, and I remember when these income bonds sold at a premium. They were exchangeable for common shares in the system, and in view of the revelations, shall I say-because I can use no other word-disclosed by the prospectus, people thought it might be a valuable investment. We have passed that by; the fact is that these bonds mature at a not distant day; they : are a 5 per cent security, and it might be desirable for the country to acquire them. But who for a moment would suggest that, if it became known that the government was authorized to deal with a transaction of this kind, the market price would not immediately advance? There would be pressure, unfortunate pressure, exerted against the government on all sides by their friends and by people who would become their friends for the moment,
or at least until the transaction was ended.
It is apparent in matters of this kind that once you get it into the House of Commons with its 245 members, the government would say, "We submit this for your approval." It does not involve the life of the administration at all; they simply say, "We recommend this to parliament; we have made this bargain which we believe to be best and we ask you, as business men, to consider it," and I have no doubt that parliament will give it that consideration which its importance demands.
The more I look at the statute of 1914 under which we acquired these securities, and in view of the circumstances which I think the minister has in mind but which he has not mentioned and which I will not discuss as to the acquisition of securities, I think he will be in a position to deal more favourably, more economically, more free from the pressure of individuals and much more to the advantage of the railway system as a whole, with less possible appeal being made to what I will fairly describe as the avarice of man, if he is not placed in that position.
Take the Grand Trunk situation. What happened with respect to that? Who was it that cornered the market in Grand Trunk securities in London? Look what Mr. Fielding said in his budget speech. The man's name he does not mention, but he is known to every Canadian, and he took advantage of certain information that he had, went to London, and was reported to have pledged practically his whole fortune for the purpose of enabling him to corner those securities, which went I believe, to par. If it became known that the government was dealing with this matter in that way, the advance in the price of the securities would be immediate, whereas if the bargain were subject to the approval of parliament-


Charles Avery Dunning: The bargain to which my hon. friend is referring was subject to the approval of parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the terms of it were known in advance of being submitted to parliament. The other was a matter of an entirely different character. I could analyse it, but the hon. member for West York did so on one occasion, and I am not going into that now. If every bargain of this kind is made subject to the approval of the House of Commons and of the Senate, I am so satisfied that it would be in the interests of this country by millions of dollars that I venture to press it on the minister's attention, believing that the citizens of this country look to us as the representatives of the shareholders of that system
C.N.R.-Substituted Securities

to protect it from the greed and avarice, on the one hand, of contending claimants at the hands of the government, and from the government itself when pressure is being made upon it. I think we should strengthen their hands to resist that pressure, and it can only be done, in my judgment, by leaving the matter to parliament and not to the governor in council.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So far as I am concerned I am perfectly willing to talk this over with the minister on the line he suggests. There are different ways in which the matter can be handled. My own idea is that the Jess publicity we have in these things, in some instances, the better, but at the same time I entirely agree with what the hon. member for West Calgary has said as to the unforutnate experiences we have had in the past as regards what happens in the stock market when it is even believed that the government are going to interest themselves in any particular property. If this legislation were passed in the form proposed, I am afraid the minister's position in life would indeed be an unhappy one. The first thing he would know a whole lot of people who ought not to have the information would have it just as sure as we are sitting here, and before the system got the stock there would be, just as certain as anything, a considerable appreciation in price, and such a demand upon the country and the government that, notwithstanding the appreciation, the deal would go through. I am perfectly willing to discuss the matter with my hon. friend and help him in any way with my advice, such as it may be, but I cannot see my way to support this present proposition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I put it this way, in one sentence? This is a matter that in an ordinary private corporation would be submitted to the shareholders.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not necessarily.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It could not possibly be carried into effect otherwise. The minister Says no. Let him show*me any statute or authority to show that a matter of this kind would not be dealt with by the shareholders.
It would be submitted antecedently or subsequently, and antecedently it has never been done by any corporation carrying on a public service business that I know of, because the directors would be put out of business who undertook to do it. Then, if it should be submitted t-o the shareholders, who are the *ar,eholders *dlIS company? The members of this House and the Senate.


Charles Avery Dunning: With regard to following the common procedure of great corporations in this regard, it is, in fact, a very frequent practice for the directors to go to the shareholders with a proposal enabling the board of directors to purchase securities in connection with deals of this kind where it is in the interest of the company so to do. It is not unusual at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the minister name one?


Charles Avery Dunning: Offhand, I cannot.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have studied these
things rather carefully.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, and I defer to my hon. friend's corporation knowledge, which is much wider than my own. It is not that this government desires to get into its own hands powers which could be used improperly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not sugested that.
_ Mr. DUNNING: But we do desire to get into a position where the re-financing of this great system can proceed. The very instance my hon. friend quoted by way of illustration regarding what happened in London in connection with the Grand Trunk matter is an evidence that the very thing which he argues would happen, did in fact happen, when the system he advocates was in practice, and when the matter had to be brought to parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In that instance the bargain was not concluded. My point is, conclude the bargain and ask parliament to approve. In that other case it was the knowledge that parliament was going to be asked to do something-not the completion of the bargain that brought about the condition to Which I have referred, and that is what will happen here unless you do it in the way I have suggested, namely, come to parliament with a completed bargain and ask for its approval.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend appreciates that in a great many cases the method of procedure would not be by negotiating with anybody, but by simply buying the securities.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On the open market?


Charles Avery Dunning: In some cases, yes, unquestionably. I am of the opinion that a great deal of our troubles in the Old Country with regard to this Grand Trunk matter could have been adjusted if there had been some such power. My hon. friend agrees with me.
Mr. BEihNETT: Not the power to buy.


Substituted Securities


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course, there will always be a certain number of people who desire to take advantage of advance information of what is proposed to be done. I have no doubt at all that if it were known that a certain arrangement with certain creditors of a certain part of the system was under consideration by the government, with a view to its being placed before parliament, precisely the same effect would follow as my hon. friend outlines. It followed in connection with the Grand Trunk case. However, I do want to settle a matter of this kind in a manner which will not cause it to become the subject of political controversy. On the other hand, I do not want to settle it in a manner that will ensure that the Dominion of Canada will be forced to pay one hundred cents for something which is intrinsically worth only fifty cents, and that is the position I am afraid of getting into as a result of following the suggestions made to me.
I make this suggestion to the committee. Let us pass the resolution and get the bill before the House. I will leave it in such a stage as to permit of its consideration
4	p.m. by those interested on both sides of the House, and if there is a better way, a safer way, I shall be glad to consider it, subject to this condition, that if the suggestions made involve as a certainty that this country is going to pay 100 cents for something that is worth only 50 cents, I am against that, and that is the tendency of the suggestions that have been made. I believe that the shareholders of a corporation in the position that this corporation is in would give to their trusted directors the power to deal with the matter. Of course, I understand that the government is never exactly in the position of being the trusted directors of all the Shareholders; it is never trusted by everybody on all sides of the House. Many of my friends who argue for more business in government, if they had to be subjected in their own private business to what members of the government are subjected in conducting the business of the country, would not stay in business very long.


Charles Gavan Power: That is what the opposition wants.


Charles Avery Dunning: Probably so. I make that suggestion in good faith, recognizing that other members of this House are just as desirous as I am that this matter should be handled in a businesslike way, I suggest that we let the resolution pass and the bill be introduced, and then we can leave it in committee, or better still, let it stand for second reading.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend I think is wrong when he thinks, for example, that he is standing like Horatius at the bridgehead saying: We will never pay one dollar for what is worth only fifty cents. He talks as if he were Horatuis-I am going back further than some of the other similes. He is wrong when he thinks he is either like Horatius or the crown prince in that regard.


Charles Avery Dunning: Do not talk politics now.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend says, do not talk politics. Is he only a politician when he is the crown prince or when he is Horatius? How does that come in? My hon. friend is entirely wrong when he speaks in that way. In the first instance there is a great deal of difference between the Grand Trunk case and this. We did not like the Gtiand Trunk case. There is no question about that. But the fact that people went out, bought on the market, ran up the price and got control of the ktock did not add five cents to the obligation of the government. But in this particular case, if we have any advertising-and this particular discussion is an advertisement, because it is advertising to everybody that particular securities are good ones to get hold of-that is the way to run up the price and the only way you can run it up successfully. That is going to be done if we adopt this proposal. I think the minister should withdraw the proposition or have a conference. I do not think we should countenance such a proposition at any time.


John Warwick King: It seems to
come down to the question of the subsequent approval of parliament. Would my hon. friend be \yilling to let the resolution pass, with the distinct understanding that we are not committed to anything more than that the government should get certain powers that are suggested here, either with the approval of parliament or without the approval; but that that matter should be settled before any bill is passed? I have a great deal of sympathy with the point of view that the approval of parliament should be obtained. If it is possible to do what is here suggested with the approval of parliament, I would be entirely in favour of the proposal for the approval of parliament. But listening to the discussion this afternoon, I confess, not having the knowledge of finance which my hon. friend opposite has, I am not sure that the object aimed at by the minister could be attained with the provision for the approval of parliament.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would agree
with my hon. friend's suggestion except for this reason: If the approval of parliament is

C.N.R.-Substituted Securities
necessary there is no object in the legislation at all. We might just as well make up our minds one way or the other. If the approval of parliament is to be required, we gain nothing by passing the legislation now.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend made a remark which I think has a bearing on this question, namely, that in the public interests it is advisable that there should not be too much publicity at this stage.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is why
I wanted to hold a conference.


John Warwick King: If that is true, and my hon. friend agrees to it, would it not further the situation if the resolution were allowed to pass, it being understood by both sides that the bill will not be proceeded with unless we have some agreement and understanding between the two parties in regard to it?


Robert Rogers: Let us agree to have the conference first.


John Warwick King: If the resolution is passed and the bill is introduced, before the second reading is proceeded with we could have a conference.


Robert Rogers: I think it would be more
satisfactory to have the conference first.


Charles Avery Dunning: As my hon. friend has
so little confidence in our good faith, I am prepared to move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 2, consideration in committee of Bill No. 91, to amend the Immigration Act-Hon. Mr. Stewart-Mr. Duff in the chair.
Charles A. Stewart: When this bill
was in committee last week, there was some question as to whether the Criminal Code would cover section 41 of the Immigration Act. I think we were all in agreement in regard to the provision of the amendment, namely, that it was taking out of the hands of the Department of Immigration the right to bring before a board of inquiry and deport aliens under section 41. That is all that was involved; the offences contained in section 41 are dealt with under the Criminal Code.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: 
Charles A. Stewart: I was led
into error by the fact that I was not aware that sections 97 and 97 (b) of the Criminal Code had been repealed. That matter was taken up on Friday when the amendments to the Criminal Code were passed. I understand that sections 132 and 141 of the Criminal Code do cover, or can cover, practically all that is provided for in section 41. Section 41 is merely removing from the Department of Immigration the right to bring before a board of inquiry and to try individuals suspected of certain offences. What we are doing in effect is simply to provide that a trial should be had before a judge and jury, and then we step in and enforce deportation afterwards.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This gives the minister
the right to determine whether or not the man/ should be deported.


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Section 41 says that the
officer of the municipality shall report the case to the minister.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And what does the minister do?


Charles A. Stewart: The officer
reports to the minister only in case of conviction. The provisions in section 41 were that if those offences were proven before a board of inquiry deportation followed as a matter of course. Now it cannot follow-, unless it is reported that a conviction has been registered.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What does the minister do?


Mr.   GANNON@: The minister sees that the man is deported if he receives a report from the judge that the man has been convicted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under what authority is
he deported?


Charles A. Stewart: Under section 40. The minister still retains power to deport under section 41. As a matter of fact,
I would very much rather the Immigration department was relieved of the deportation proceedings altogether, and that officers of the crown who are charged with other duties might perform that duty, but we are retain-

Immigration Act
mg it under section 41, I presume for offences of this character, and to offences under the Narcotic Drug Act the same procedure applies. Where convictions are made we register deportation. Apparently that is our business. We are police officers to that extent.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: As I explained when we were last considering this amendment I was not concerned then nor am I so much concerned now with anything except the question whether the amendment will cut out from what I may call deportable offences, any offences for which deportation now lies. The Minister of the Interior first told us that the offences would be the same under the present act and under the amendment. On further advice he altered his statement and said: No, there would be some offences for which deportation lies under the present act for which deportation will not lie under the new legislation.
When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) was speaking in committee on this matter on the last occasion he admitted that there would be certain acts for which deportation now lies for which deportation would not lie under the amendment. I would like to know what these are. The minister now states that he thinks that notwithstanding the repeal of sections 97A and 97B of the Criminal Code, notwithstanding those amendments that were made the other day, there will be no change. I want to call attention to this. Section 41 of the act as it now reads states:
Every person who by word or act in Canada seeks to overthrow by force or violence the government of or constituted law and authority in ... . Canada.
Perhaps that is covered by the offences that are mentioned in section 134 of the code where it is an indictable offence to speak seditious words or to publish seditious libel or to be a party to a seditious conspiracy. But further down there is this offence:
Or advocates the assassination of any official of any of the said governments or of any foreign government, or who in Canada defends or suggests the unlawfull destruction of property or by word or act creates or attempts to create any riot or public disorder in Canada.
I very much fear if those cases for which deportation now lies are covered by the code with 97A and 97B repealed. If there is any doubt about the matter we should not leave those offences as acts which can be committed without liability to deportation. The man in Canada who defends or suggest the unlawful destruction of property-where is that offence covered by part II of the code? I cannot find it.


Ernest Lapointe: I am sure my hon. friend cannot find the exact words in the Criminal Code, but those matters all come under some sections of the code relating to sedition, seditious intention, seditious words and seditious libel. The only difference will be that those people will have to be convicted first before being deported.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I am not talking of that at all. The only section that could possibly refer to this is section 134 where it is made an indictable offence to speak seditious words or to publish a seditious libel or to be a party to a seditious conspiracy. I suggest to the Minister of Justice that those words are not sufficient to cover the offence described in the present section 41 of the act, namely, the offence of defending or suggesting the unlawful destruction of property.


Ernest Lapointe: That is sedition under the common law.


Mr. SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: Have there been any complaints against the department in connection with the deportation of people who have come under the provisions of this section which is being repealed?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
say directly under those particular provisions but we have difficulties in connection with almost every deportation. In very many cases there are people who object to the deportation and who try to fight us on the ground that it is illegal and to hold up the deportation if they can.


Donald Sutherland: Under the proposed legislation those advocating sedition or anarchy or a state of affairs of that kind are to be given the dignity of a public trial before a judge and jury whereas under the old act the minister and his officials had the authority to take such people in hand and bundle them out of the country in a hurry.


Charles A. Stewart: That is a fair interpretation.


Donald Sutherland: Under present conditions, with a situation such as exists throughout the world, I do not think it is advisable to make the change in our law unless there is some pressing need for it and a demand on the part of people who are not in sympathy with those subject to this section of the act. I protested the other day against it and I do so again because I am satisfied that the change is being made largely through the influence of undesirable people in this country.
Immigration Act


Charles A. Stewart: I hardly
think that is a fair statement because three different attempts have been made to amend section 41 of the Immigration Act, not for a moment in order to wipe out the offences but to take out of the hands of the Department of Immigration and the minister the right to seize and deport people without trial except trial by his own officials who constitute a board. That is all that we are attempting to do. My hon. friend says that if these people are anarchists they have no right to any consideration. After all the common law provides that a court is the judicial body which decides matters of this kind.
This amendment was inserted at a time when affairs were somewhat strenuous in the country but frankly I would much prefer that the court should deal with this matter than that responsibility should be upon the minister. It has been stated that this is too much power to put into the hands of the minister and I have agreed with that on every occasion when the question has been brought up in the House. I know the objection taken is that individuals guilty of some of these offences are not worthy of trial. All'I say is: Do not ask the minister to decide upon the worthiness or unworthiness of the person concerned; let the court decide that, and afterwards we will perform the duty of getting him out of the country.


Donald Sutherland: Under section 40 are there not certain offences the determination of which still remains in the hands of the minister and as regards which he still retains the power of deportation without trial?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Donald Sutherland: The minister is now proposing to make a distinction between those mentioned in section 40 and those guilty of sedition or anarchy.


Charles A. Stewart: Not necessarily anarchy, but sedition is one of the offences. A very wide interpretation can be put upon the word "sedition." My hon. friend will agree that it may be difficult to prove prostitution, but at the same time it is an offence for which the minister has power to deport.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can see no good reason why this legislation should be amended. From what direction is the pressure coming for it? By whom has it been recommended?


Charles A. Stewart: The Trades and Labour Council, which is a very respectable body in this country, has repeatedly requested the government to amend this legislation and it did so again this year. Tom Moore is president of the organization which I think truly represents labour in this country.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is the Trades and Labour Council pressing for an amendment which would prevent deportation of those who advocate anarchy?


Charles A. Stewart: The Trades and Labour Council does not advocate that at all. There is no request for stay of deportation. What is asked for is trial.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The effect of
this legislation will be undoubtedly that many guilty men will escape. We all know how difficult it is to secure conviction in the trial of offences of this kind, and if the minister and the board of inquiry 'which is already provided, are thoroughly convinced that a citizen is undesirable!, even though he may not be convicted in any criminal court, surely there should be reserved to the department the right to deport such a man without going to the expense of securing conviction criminally, with the uncertainty that must attend any such trial. There might not be evidence enough to bring about a conviction, and yet there might be sufficient evidence to warrant the minister in considering an individual an undesirable. He might be stirring up trouble and should be deported. But it will be impossible to secure his deportation under the legislation now proposed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Hon. gentlemen
to the left are laughing. I do not see anything to laugh at, especially when we recall the experience we have had in Canada with some of this class of people. It costs thousands of dollars to secure a conviction and the result is that many of them escape.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Who is better qualified
than the courts to decide whether or not a man is undesirable?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The court's
business is to ascertain merely whether a crime has been or has not been committed. A man might be a very undesirable citizen and yet not be guilty of any particular crime.


Charles Gavan Power: Undesirable in what sense?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In every sense.

Immigration Act


Charles Gavan Power: In what sense specifically
-because he eats peas with his knife?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: When we are
selecting immigrants in the Old Country we do not act on the principle that merely because a man has not been guilty of any crime he is therefore admissible.


Charles Gavan Power: No, we have regulations
governing his entry.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Exactly. Why
not therefore follow that principle right through?


Charles Gavan Power: And abolish the courts
altogether?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, I do not
suggest that.


Charles Gavan Power: To whom would the hon.
gentleman leave the discretion of deciding whether anyone was desirable or undesirable? Would he leave that discretion to members of parliament?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Leave it to the
board of inquiry as in the past. Surely it is safe to leave the matter in the hands of the board. And, besides, it is cheaper.


Charles Gavan Power: Who would make accusation against the undesirable?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The same person who would make it in a court. Someone must start the machinery, whether in the court or before the board.


Charles Gavan Power: Did the hon gentleman
ever read section 41 of the part which is being repealed?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: Does he know that under
that section the board of inquiry could have excluded from this country almost every man who has even been of any benefit to the human race in the fight for liberty in foreign countries? It could have excluded nearly all the great patriots during the last century. Anyone who had opposed organized government in his own country could have been kept out under the legislation as it has existed heretofore. For example, as my friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) suggests, Lord Carson could have been refused entrance into the country.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: You would 'not
want him anyway.


Charles Gavan Power: Neither I would. But the
law would have excluded him at any rate, just as it would have excluded Michael
Collins, Mazzini, Garibaldi, Kossuth and practically all those who fought against organized government in one country or another of Europe. Does the hon. member w'ant that state of affairs to continue, or does he want this to be a fairly free country?
Mr.	STEWART	(Leeds):	Have those
people or any of them ever come here to reside?


Charles Gavan Power: No, but they could have
been excluded if they had come.
Mr.	STEWART	(Leeds):	You cannot
deport a man until he is here, and has made himself a nuisance in Canada.


Charles Gavan Power: There would have been any number of people who would have concluded at once that some of these men I have mentioned were nuisances. Would my hon. friend suggest that a court would not be competent to inquire into the conduct of such persons?
Mr.	STEWART	(Leeds):	A board of
inquiry set up by the minister and under his control and responsibility would be just as capable of determining a matter of that kind as a court of justice ,and perhaps more so.


Charles Gavan Power: It is a question of taste,
as I suggested in regard to the peas.


Mr. CANTLEY:: The minister will hardly
suggest that any injustice has been done in the past. I do not accuse him of cowardice nor do I think he is a coward, but the only reason he has given so far for wanting to repeal the law is the fact that he does not want to assume the responsibility under the act. Considerable numbers of undesirable people have been coming into this country, and we should have been better off if we had deported them. If we are to abide by the result of a trial there are sections in Canada where, as we know from past experience, the legal proceedings would be so protracted as to make it highly improbable that any undesirable person should be deported. We want to give these people short shrift. We have too many of the type who in the last ten years should have been deported on their arrival.


Charles A. Stewart: It is not
at all a question of cowardice or of courage. Hon. gentlemen opposite are forever arguing that the courts are the proper authorities to settle disputes, and I am rather surprised that my hon. friends should take this attitude to-day. They seem to have more confidence in me than in the courts. I appreciate the
Immigration Act

compliment, of course, and I may assure the committee that I have never at any time stayed deportation upon report from the board that any individual was undesirable. There are however under section 41 a number of offences which in my opinion could better be dealt with by the courts. This provision was enacted at a time when the country was in a state of serious disorder.


Thomas Cantley: It is not much better
now.	*


Charles A. Stewart: Well, I
still have authority to reject people at the boundary. I sympathize with the desire with which the provision was enacted, to prevent men from agitating the minds of others even though, in their view, legitimately. But on three different occasions attempts have been made to amend this section simply because it was felt to be unnecessary. It is considered advisable to put these particular crimes in the same category as others and let them go before the courts for decision.


Donald Sutherland: Has the department acted upon any cases submitted to the authorities in the last few months?


Charles A. Stewart: Not since
I have been in the department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Section 41 as it was
passed in 1919 and as it now stands creates certain offences which are not offences within part II of the Criminal Code.


Ernest Lapointe: I would not say so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If my hon. friend will analyse the provisions of part II of the code, in the light of the provisions in section 41, he will have no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that there are, in that section, offences which are not contained in part II of the Criminal Code. I do not want to take up the time of the committee, for my absence should not be a reason for prolonging this discussion, but I do ask the minister to look at that carefully. My hon. friend from East Edmonton (Mr. Bury), who sits beside me, has gone over in detail all the sections of the Criminal Code, and I have looked over his memorandum. I certainly think section 41 does create offences that are not created by part II of the Criminal Code. Now, this proposed legislation repeals section 41. The new section provides that a man must have committed an offence against some section in part II of the Criminal Code before he can be dealt with by the minister. If, therefore, there are offences in section 41 that

are not covered in part II of the code, it follows that to that extent this legislation relaxes the supervision that we have been able to exercise over undesirables up to the present moment. I think it goes without saying that there has been in times past an organized effort in this country against the Dominion government and the governments of the provinces. As I came along on the train yesterday 1 read the daily papers from Winnipeg, and I observed that the mayor of that city has asked the citizens to unite for the purpose of putting down this communistic effort, and he names, for instance, an office building in the city of Toronto from which the objectionable literature is being sent out to various parts of Canada. The other day the members of the legal profession of Manitoba were invited by a gentleman from the United States who came to address them at Winnipeg to use their strongest efforts to prevent subversive propaganda that was now being circulated in his country and to a lesser extent in Canada.
I am wholly in sympathy with the idea that in this age it is perhaps a large power to leave with a board of inquiry to determine whether or not men are guilty of the offences in question. But once you have committed the matter to the courts-and as to that I am raising no objection-I submit to the minister that it is a 'lessening of the number of offences for which deportation is now possible, and to that extent this proposed legislation should not be passed. This is not the day to relax the arm of the law, this is not the day to lessen the authority of our officials to bring to account men who are deliberately endeavouring to destroy our institutions. I am wholly in accord with what my friend from Quebec said, that for the moment we are concerned about Canada alone, and not about any other portion of the British Empire. At the moment I am concerned with men who are circulating seditious literature and who are carrying on an active propaganda against organized government in the provinces and in this Dominion, and my regret is that in part II of the code there is no section that meets the cases mentioned in section 41.


Charles A. Stewart: Would my hon. friend enumerate those?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not want to be too lengthy. I will go over briefly the. memorandum prepared by my hon, friend from East Edmonton. Section 41 provides that:
Every person who by word or act in Canada seeks to overthrow by force or violence the government of or constituted law and authority in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or Canada-

Immigration Act
I can readily understand the observation of hon. members that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland can more or less take care of itself, and that for the moment we are concerned with Canada. Suppose all the words after the word "authority" were stricken out, leaving this part of the section: -or who in Canada defends or suggests the unlawful destruction of property or by word or act creates or attempts to create any riot or public disorder in Canada.
Now, riot is dealt with in the Criminal Code in part II, but threats of destruction of property by word are not dealt with in the part of the code as I read it.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is wrong. Mr. BENNETT: Will my hon. friend give me the section?


Ernest Lapointe: Section 132 deals with
seditious words and so on, and if my hon. friend refers to Crankshaw's edition of the Criminal Code he will find there a number of cases in England, where the law is exactly the same as it is here. Everything that is referred to as coming under the offence of sedition, for instance, distributing or sending literature from Toronto, would be covered by the common law, and everything that has the effect of creating dissatisfaction as between different classes of the community has also been found to be sedition under the common law.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the difficulty is that this is part II of the Criminal Code that the section deals with.


Ernest Lapointe: Section 132 is part II
of the Criminal Code.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It reads as follows:
(1) Seditious words are words expressive of a seditious intention.
(2)	A seditious libel as a libel expressive of a seditious intention.
(3)	A seditious conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to carry into execution a seditious intention.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The difficulty is that
the section, as it now reads, places a limitation upon the provisions of section 41. because it provides that it must be for violation of the provisions of part II of the Criminal Code.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Section 41 has terms in
in that are not in the Criminal Code, as I have pointed out, and the very language used by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice shows that the common law excludes the operation of section 41.


Ernest Lapointe: I beg my hon. friend's
pardon. It is the common law that interprets section 132.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then why do we not
say any criminal offences not provided for in the code and the common law.


Mr. CANNON:: The Criminal Code provides for that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The criminal law is that body of criminal law which comes to us both by statute and by common law, and the provisions of the criminal law that come to us under the common law are not in the code. Section 41 this House is now asked to pass is the section that deals with part II of the Criminal Code. Unfortunately there is a series of offences that are offences against the common law, and we have not provided for them in section- 41.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh yes.


Mr BENNETT:: The Criminal Code
means just what it says, and criminal offences at common law, such as sedition, treason, conspiracy, and so on, are dealt with by the code; but it has been held that the old principles of common law with respect to the criminality of certain acts still prevail m this country. But all I suggest is that under this bill we are taking away the operation of the law against a number of offences because by repealing section 119 we are substituting the common law. Therefore if w(-propose to make the whole body of crimina law of Canada apply, that is, including the body of criminal law which is not part of the enactments of this parliament, contained in chapter 146-the Criminal Code of Canada we should provide by common law, or by part II of the Criminal Code, for such offences.


Charles A. Stewart: Does my
hon. friend suggest the insertion of the words " common law " in part II of the Criminal Code?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If my hon. friend the Minister of Justice is correct in his statement.


Lucien Cannon: It would be laughed at.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Solicitor General
says it would be laughed at. I say to him that within the four comers of the statute there is no provision for dealing with sedition at common law. If sedition at common law is an offence, the indictment will be drawn up against the peace of our said lord the king. Then will follow the description of the offence, not in violation of any section
Immigration Act

of this code but in violation of the common criminal law of this country, and unless you can name the section under which you frame an indictment and which will come within the sense of the common law, it is then an offence covered by section 41.


Ernest Lapointe: I still maintain that all offences coming under sedition are covered by part II of the Criminal Code, sections 132, 133 and 134. My hon. friend says the code does not refer to common law; certainly it does not, because it has always been found better to give the offence of sedition a wider meaning than its strict interpretation, and this applies in England as well as in Canada. I remember hearing the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) make a speech in connection with this matter in a very effective way.
In England, when they drafted the Criminal Code, the commissioners inserted a definition covering in part what is mentioned in section 41 of the Immigration Act, but the English parliament refused to accept that draft, preferring to leave the offence of sedition to be interpreted under the common law as has always been the practice. As I have said, it covers any offence which might create conflict between the subjects of His Majesty, between the classes of the community, or offences against the crown. The same thing happened in Canada; when our Criminal Code was drafted an effort was made to define sedition by inserting such words as these, but the parliament of Canada also declined to accept the draft, preferring to follow the British way of interpreting sedition, which has been the law in Canada up to the present time. Every one of the things my hon. friend has mentioned would come under the offence of sedition, and a man guilty of them would be convicted by a judge and jury.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But not under this section.
Mr. LAPOINTE. If my hon. friend will permit me to finish. I do not think there is anything to complain of in this legislation.
I am quite free to agree that under the circumstances which existed in 1919 when the law was enacted there was justification for the law, but apparently it has created a grievance; it has been offensive to various classes of labour-


An hon. MEMBER:: What class?


Ernest Lapointe: The Trades and Labour Council, for instance, and there is no better class of people in Canada than the labour unions. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. 
Cantley) says no, but I know better. I have been a member of the committee of the government which has received delegations from the Trades and Labour Council every year coming to make their recommendations, and this has been a thorn in the flesh of labour since 1919. They may be mistaken but they are afraid that it may work against them in some way, and have asked that an amendment be made making it clear that a man should be convicted before being deported. I really do not think there should be so much opposition to this piece of legislation.


Thomas Cantley: May I ask the minister if he knows any case of hardship which has occurred under the provisions of the act during the last three or four years?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not.


Thomas Cantley: Then why are we dealing with something under which no 'hardship has occurred? The act has been in force for some time and no hardship has been done. There are men in this country who should have been deported but who have been allowed to remain.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member for Pictou may be right; I do not know of any hardship being done. But on the other hand if the law were not used, if the circumstances did not necessitate application of the law, why keep it when it is abhorrent to an important part of our population?


Thomas Cantley: The hon. gentleman says he knows of no case of hardship, and that the act was justified a few years ago. I would suggest to him that it might be well to ask those people who request a change to show that hardship has been done under the act before we remove a piece of legislation which safeguards the interests of this country. In my judgment there never was a time in the history of Canada, including the period directly after the war, when legislation of this kind was more necessary that it is to-day.


Ernest Lapointe: We are at peace to-day.


Donald Sutherland: I inquired of the minister a few days ago, when this matter first came up, as to who were making the demands for this legislation. Since that time I noticed in the Toronto Saturday Night of June 5, 1926, a full page article in connection with the activities of the communists in North America and also in Europe. Reference is also made to the Department of Labour in Canada in connection with this matter, and great pains are taken to show that the Federation of Labour in the United

Immigration Act
States and in Canada is absolutely opposed to the principles advocated by communists. So I want it distinctly understood that in referring to these matters I am not casting any reflection on our labour unions. The minister says that in 1919 this legislation might have been necessary, and so far as I have been able to observe no fault has been found with the minister or his department in connection with those cases which have come before the officials in charge of this matter.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is misquoting me. I said that in almost every case of deportation we received representations against that action. No one likes to be deported, and the friends of the person so treated are particularly opposed to it.


Donald Sutherland: In this article reference is made to a case which took place in Winnipeg on May Day, as follows:
For making a derogatory reference to the Union Jack at the May Day celebration in Winnipeg, Jack Gregg, who spoke on behalf of the Young Communist League, was deported, as were hiis parents and family.
Naturally these people would be very much put out about it, but apparently the officials of the department regarded this as a serious offence and thought this man and his family were not desirable citizens. Rather than give these people the dignity of a trial before a jury, with all the delay and costs which might be entailed thereby, I think some confidence should be placed in the officials who are on the ground and in touch with these people and their activities. I would further like to quote a statement made in this article to this effect:
The aims of communists the world over, and the close connection with Russia of Canadian communists, are clearly shown in the fifteenth annual report by the Department of Labour on "Labour Organization in Canada." On another page of this section there is a review of that publication. The section dealing with revolutionary labour organizations is especially pertinent to the subject of this article as it traces the direct connection between Canadian communists and the Red International of Labour Unions, which was founded in July 1921 through the efforts of a revolutionary body known as the Third (Communist) International, itself only organized at Moscow in 1919.
In the year that this legislation was enacted, this organization was formed in Moscow. It goes on:
The objective of the Third International, says the Department of Labour report, is to organize the working class for the overthrow of capitalism, the destruction of the bourgeois state and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. According to the theses of the Communist International, the trade 14011-261
unions represent the most important form of mass organization of the proletariat, and in order to propagate the communist doctrine in these bodies the Red International was established. The Canadian representative of the Communist International is the Communist party of Canada, which was formed on February 17, 1922.
Three years after this legislation was put on the statute book, this organization was organized in Canada, and the minister states that it is only by reason of the influence exercised by some of the friends of these people that complaints have reached the department. I wish the minister would pay some attention to the next paragraph.


Charles A. Stewart: I have read it all.


Donald Sutherland: 
James Shaver Woodsworth: I thought we had settled the Winnipeg strike the other night. However, as hon. gentlemen have brought it up again, I would like to add a word or two in this connection. I cannot agree with the Minister 'of Justice when he says that this legislation was necessary in 1919.

Immigration Act


Ernest Lapointe: I said it may have been justified.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I quite understand the minister's position, but I do not want such a statement to go abroad unchallenged because some of these days we hope that all the facts in connection with the Winnipeg trouble will come to light, and when they do, it will be clear that there was then what might almost be described as a conspiracy against labour.


William Duff: I trust the hon. member is not going to enter into a discussion of the Winnipeg strike.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, Mr. Chairman, but statements have been made here this afternoon regarding it, and those of us who are attempting in any sense to represent labour have a right to answer general statements of this character.
I would just say that at that time the press reports were of such a character that they absolutely misled the general public as to what took place, and I do not much wonder that hon. gentlemen here, going upon the press reports, rather incline to take an altogether false view of what actually took place at that time. The hon. member for South Oxford, who has just spoken, used this phrase, and I think I should not have spoken again this afternoon had this phrase not been used: He spoke of giving these people "the dignity of a trial before a jury." Mr. Chairman, that is the reason a great many of us have been urging this legis-islation for some years. We be-
5	p.m. lieve that every man in this country ought to have the right of a trial by jury. We believe that it is the inherent right of people living in British lands that they should be given a fair trial. The design of the Immigration Act is to keep undesirable people out of this country, and with that I have every sympathy, but this act, on the contrary, permits the deportation of people from this country, not because they are undesirable in the Old Country, but because they have done something in this country that is said to be wrong. In this act we say, "Every person who by word or act in Canada-." Our position is that for crimes alleged to be committed in Canada there ought to be a fair jury trial, and that we ought not simply to allow departmental action with regard to the case. It is said that there has been no hardship with regard to this matter. I would point out again that in 1919, when the law was put on the statute books, a distinct effort was made to deport a number of Canadians to the Old Country without jury trial, and it was only because the common sense of the great masses of the people of Canada raised a protest 
against that kind of thing, that we did not have the deportation of a number of men. I should like to repeat what I said the other day, that among these men who were to be deported without trial was my colleague from North Winnipeg. Had this law been acted upon at that time, Mr. Heaps would have been returned to England without any trial by jury.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Hon. gentlemen
applaud. That shows the views they have upon su'ch a proceeding. Mr. Heaps eame before a jury and was acquitted. Now I ask, do you applaud? Those who talk about British institutions would have a man deported that a jury in this country had declared to be innocent! Talk about British loyalty-flag waving! It was not merely the labour people, but the British-horn people all over this country, those who had something of the spirit of British traditions, that protested against that kind of thing, and these men were not deported, but received jury trial.
Having that case before us, we feel very strongly that this kind of legislation ought to be wiped off the statute book. It is quite true that there are communist organizations in this country that are asking for the removal of this legislation, but it is also true that there are trades and' labour unions, even of the most conservative character, that are asking for the removal of this legislation simply on the ground that we believe that this has the effect of depriving certain groups of people, for certain alleged crimes, of that right to trial by jury which we were all taught in our school days was the right of every British subject. If it were simply a matter of keeping out people who were undesirable, I would have nothing to say, but I do urge that when people are permitted to come into this country and to reside here for a number of years, and subsequently do something in this country that is against our laws, let them be deported, but first let them be fairly tried before they are deported. That is the plea wre make, and I think if the hon. gentlemen who have objected could really understand what is involved in legislation of this character they could hardly ask that it be retained on the Statute books of Canada.


Thomas Hay: I would like to. ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre a question. He referred to a man by the name of Heaps who would have been deported from Winnipeg but for the fact that he claimed

Immigration Act
trial by jury. I would ask if that is the same man who was guilty of putting the Union Jack under the platform at a meeting in Winnipeg and hoisting in its stead the red flag.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I believe that statement was made with regard to the hon. gentleman from North Winnipeg. I asked my hon. friend in regard to that the other day, and he said that what occurred was that both flags were deposited in a corner of the hall until the meeting was over. I think that is the actual fact.


Thomas Cantley: What was the red flag needed for in this country?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have seen a great many flags other than British flags in this country.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton):: I have not the Immigration Act before me, but is the minister satisfied in his own mind that he is going to have authority to deport any person after section 41 is passed?


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, yes.


Ernest Lapointe: Provided that the person is convicted.


Finlay MacDonald: Assuming a person is convicted of one of the offences set forth in section 41, where is the authority to deport him?


Charles A. Stewart: In the same way where a man is convicted under the Narcotic Drug act-we go to the gaol, take possession of him and deport him.


Finlay MacDonald: But the section you are repealing contains the express authority to deport. It says: "shall be liable to deportation."


Charles A. Stewart: Look at
section 41 and you will find the same thing.


Finlay MacDonald: We are dealing with section 41, and (I am assuming that you are attempting to deport him. He takes proceedings under habeas corpus and comes into court, and you have to justify your deportation. Where do you get your authority to deport that man? Section 40 does not apply to this case at all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think my hon. friend should undertake to look into that. We have had a whole lot of heat in the discussion of this section which I think is entirely out of place. This is confirming the 14011-2614
government's position, I understand. That position is that there is no change whatever in the law as to the offences. And all we are saying is that before people can be deported from this country for doing certain things they must be convicted of the offence. I raise no issue there at all. As I said the other day, we are merely changing procedure and we are not now making legal things which otherwise would be a crime. My hon. friend from Calgary has made a point which has a great deal of merit,'I think, having regard to the elimination of crimes for which people may be deported. If hon. gentlemen will look at the bill they will find that the only crimes for which people may be deported are offences as defined in part II of the Criminal Code. It is perfectly true, as has been pointed out, that we have crimes which are only crimes under the old common law, indictable crimes and crimes against society. I do not think anyone here wants to keep a convicted criminal. I think my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre will agree with that, and I would suggest, so that there may be no question as to what we are doing, that we simply say that no one except a convicted criminal shall be deported. We might make it read:
Whenever any person other than a Oanadiian citizen has been convicted of a criminal offence, it shall be the duty-
And so forth. That would mean striking out the limiting words.


Charles A. Stewart: I was just waiting to make that proposal-with the addition after the word "offence" of the words, "as defined in part II of the Criminal Code."


Finlay MacDonald: And would you add the words "shall be liable to deportation"?


Charles A. Stewart: No, deportation is already provided. There is no question that we have authority to deport any person who is convicted by the courts of any crime in Canada, and who is not a citizen of Canada.


Thomas Cantley: I hope the hon. member will withdraw that amendment. I hold that no injustice has been done to anybody in the past. No honest workingman has anything to. fear from legislation as it exists. In some sections of this country murders have been committed and nobody has been brought to justice for them. Nobody has been convicted, and I doubt very much whether,
Immigration Act

under those circumstances, you could convict in those localities under the bill as you propose to make it. It has been thought to be a necessary measure of protection. Why not leave it as it is?


Mr BENNETT:: If section 41 is referable to section 40, then obviously it is not necessary, because section 40 says that whenever any person, other than a Canadian citizen or person having Canadian domicile, shall be convicted of an offence of any kind, it shall be the duty, and so on.


Ernest Lapointe: I agree with that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then section 41 is of no value at all, or it should be linked up in some way with section 40.


Lucien Cannon: Section 40 covers the case.


Ernest Lapointe: I agree that section 40 would cover the case, and the only purpose of the bill would be to repeal section 41.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The new section is of no value at all.


Ernest Lapointe: It is a repetition of section 40. There can be no conflict there, because any person who is not a citizen of *Canada can be deported.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is there any limited time in reference to that?


Charles A. Stewart: No. The only thing I would suggest is that in case of conviction they be deported before serving the term of punishment, but that is not usually done.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Any limit of the term of citizenship?


Charles A. Stewart: Five years.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Can he be deported after he has been here five years?


Charles A. Stewart: Absolutely.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: After he has been here five years you cannot deport him. Your department gave me that information.


Donald Sutherland: The
minister has admitted that the section is quite unnecessary.


Charles A. Stewart: He did not admit anything of the kind.


Donald Sutherland: But section 40 covers the case.


Charles A. Stewart: I did not
admit anything of the kind.
IMr. Cantley.j


Donald Sutherland: If
my hon. friend would please keep his seat I might say a word. It has been admitted that this section is not necessary, or that this bill is not necessary, and that section 40 of the Immigration Act covers the case referred to. The object of the bill is to make a distinction between certain classes of offenders mentioned in section 40 of the original act. There are half a dozen offences for which a man may be deported, but those guilty of sedition are to be permitted the dignity of a trial before a judge and jury. This is the matter to which I was referring, and if the statement that section 40 covers that is not correct, the bill might very well receive further consideration at the hands of the government.


Charles A. Stewart: I have no
objection to any observation which my hon. friend may wish to make, but every time he rises he takes the opportunity of putting into the minister's mouth statements which the minister never made.


Donald Sutherland: The present minister will remember that there are other ministers.


Charles A. Stewart: That is all very well, but if my hon. friend will withdraw the statement about the minister I shall be quite satisfied. On three different occasions the hon. member has taken the opportunity of making such statements, purely, in my opinion, for the purpose of getting them on Hansard. I take exception to that.


Donald Sutherland: I
am sure the Acting Minister of Immigration will realize there was a minister speaking immediately before he spoke.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend did not say "minister." He said "the minister."


Donald Sutherland: Yes. I said "the minister." He said: Section 40 covers the case.


Ernest Lapointe: But we must keep the
bill in order to repeal section 41. I am quite willing to agree with the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) to allow the bill to read:
Section 41 of the Immigration Act, chapter 27 of the statutes of 1910, as enacted by chapter 26 of the statutes of 1919, is repealed.
The rest is certainly covered by section 40.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is my view.

Opium and Narcotic Drug Act


Ernest Lapointe: I am agreeable if the
Minister of Immigration is willing to do that.


Charles A. Stewart: I am always willing to take the word of the Minister of Justice.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Health) moved the second reading of Bill No. 152 to amend the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, 1923.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Duff in the chair.
On section 1-Persons to whom drugs may be sold.
Thomas Hay: Will the minister
shortly explain?


John Campbell Elliott: The effect of clause 1 is
to make it impossible for a retail druggist to give narcotics or opium to any person without a written order.


Robert James Manion: I notice one of the side
notes states:
Unlawful to refill narcotic prescription except where preparation lawiful in the first instance.
According to this bill is a druggist permitted to fill a prescription for a narcotic drug without the written order of a physician?


John Campbell Elliott: I think not.


Robert James Manion: By the note I would draw that conclusion. I have not had time to read the clause.


John Campbell Elliott: We are not altering that
in any way. The whole change effected in section 5 is that that a druggist may not give any of the drugs referred to in this act without an order in writing. It is thought by those in charge of the administration of the act that this will assist in checking up and in attaching responsibility for violations. It is only to tighten up the act.


Robert James Manion: The note on the side is
not well worded; it does not explain the point well. The clause itself is all right.


Charles Murphy: Under the act as it stands it is not lawful for a superintendent of a hospital to order any narcotic drugs or to have them in his or her possession. The act is
very clear on that point; you can sell only to a doctor, a veterinary surgeon or a dentist. In this country there are many hospitals in which the superintendent is not a doctor, a veterinary surgeon, or a dentist; therefore, as I read the act, such a superintendent has no right to buy these drugs or to have them in his possession. In fact if a hospital has any narcotic drugs in its possession or in the possession of the superintendent, they are guilty of a criminal offence under paragraph (d) of section 4 of the act, which reads: Every person who has in his possession any drug without lawful authority, or manufactures, sells, gives away or distributes any drug to any person without first obtaining a license from the minister. . . shall be guilty of a criminal offence.
Section 16 of the act reads:
Without limiting the generality of paragraph (d) of section 4 of this act, any person who occupies, controls or is in possession of any building, room, vessel, vehicle, enclosure or place, in or upon which any drug is found, shall, if charged with having such drug in possession without lawful authority, be deemed to have been so in possession unless he prove that the drug was there without his authority, knowledge or consent, or that he was lawfully entitled to the possession thereof.
The superintendent of a local hospital who has opium or narcotic drugs in his possession within the meaning of this act is guilty of a criminal offence. It is unlawful for him to purchase the drugs. I do not know how the superintendent of a hospital can either purchase or be in possession _of drugs lawfully under this act.


John Campbell Elliott: The bill which is now under consideration does not affect the superintendent of a hospital. The superintendent is in exactly the same position after this bill is passed as he was before. He will probably come under section 3 of the act, which describes the persons to whom and the manner in which licenses are given for the handling and keeping of drugs. The whole object of the section now under consideration is to oblige the retail druggist-it applies only to the retail druggist-if he dispenses narcotics even to a veterinary surgeon, or a physician, or a dentist, to have a written authority properly verified1.


Charles Murphy: How will the retail druggist under these provisions be able to sell drugs to a hospital?


John Campbell Elliott: He can sell1 only upon a
prescription signed and verified.


Charles Murphy: He may sell to a doctor
or a veterinary surgeon or a dentist, but why should he ndt have authority to sell to a hospital?

Opium and Narcotic Drug Act


John Campbell Elliott: The doctor will probably prescribe for the hospital.


Charles Murphy: Not necessarily; and in
any case a doctor can prescribe only for the individual patient.


Robert James Manion: The point is well taken,
unless there is some other clause in the act to enable hospitals to obtain supplies. There is no doubt that in most hospitals the doctors prescribe for their patients, but the drugs are obtained from the hospital's supply. All (hospitals have supplies of various drugs in their own pharmacies, and there should be some provision, if it is not already in the act, whereby they may obtain their requirements.


John Campbell Elliott: The hon. member does not suggest that they should get their drugs without the prescription of a physician?


Robert James Manion: The hospitals get their
supplies now without any such prescription. The prescription covers, not quantities, but (merely sufficient for the individual patient.


John Campbell Elliott: The hon. member will
agree with me that the section has no reference to hospitals.


Robert James Manion: That is right.


John Campbell Elliott: Whatever rights the
hospitals had before remain unaffected.


Mr. MacLAREN:: This amendment applies only to the retail druggist?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Murray MacLaren: I believe the hospitals
obtain their supplies from the wholesalers.


Robert James Manion: Not always.


John Campbell Elliott: The hospitals are covered under a regulation and I do not think there has been any difficulty about their getting whatever supplies they require.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This section might, however, apply to hospitals. The hospital is not one of the "persons" to whom drugs may legally be given or sold.


John Campbell Elliott: The first part of section
5	is not affected, but we are amending the rest. Let me quote:
Any druggist who gives, sells or furnishes any drug to any person-
This is the part which is affected.
-other than any such physician, veterinary surgeon, dentist or druggist.
These are the only persons who can be affected by the amendment; it cannot possibly refer to the superintendent of any hospital.

The effect is that the physician, veterinary surgeon, dentist or druggist must give a written order, the object being that a check may be kept upon the sale of drugs.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the effect is to prevent the hospital from getting narcotic drugs from the persons licensed under the act. It is a prohibition against the hospital.


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let me read the section:
Every person licensed under this act to deal in any drug, who gives, sells or furnishes any drug to any person, other than a duly authorized and practising physician. . . . shall be guilty.
The right to give, sell or furnish drugs is limited to the persons mentioned in the section, and the superintendent of the hospital is not among those persons. It follows therefore that drugs may not be sold to him. The point is well taken.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend has not
clearly grasped what is being affected by the amendment.


Charles Murphy: I contend that the hospital has not the right to purchase drugs, either under the old act or under the amendment now proposed.


John Campbell Elliott: We are simply legislating
with regard to the terms upon which physicians, veterinary surgeons, dentists and druggists may obtain drugs from the retailer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Every person licensed
under this act who gives or sells drugs to a hospital superintendent is liable.


John Campbell Elliott: We are not affecting the
present status of hospitals.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The point is that neither the act as it stands nor this amendment makes provision for the hospital.


Charles Murphy: I have no objection to
this section going through, but the point I make is that the hospital is not in a position to obtain narcotics from the retail druggist.


John Campbell Elliott: Probably the hon. member is right, but the hospital is in the same position now as before.


Charles Murphy: I admit that, and that is the defect I want to have remedied.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the section can
pass and if necessary we can come back to it.


John Campbell Elliott: There is another point in
regard to which there is some difference of opinion among medical men in the House. I refer to section 4, which I will ask to drop for tile present. There is an idea that possibly

Opium and Narcotic Drug Act
medical men's rights are being curtailed unduly. Having given the matter careful consideration I do not agree with this view, but it is advanced by a number of medical men, and the departmental officials submit that as no hardship could be experienced in the meantime the section might stand until another session. It is the intention to have the whole act gone over between now and next session with a view to meeting, if possible, the difficulties that have arisen in connection with prescribing.
Mr. MAN1ION: Is the department having any difficulty with regard to retail druggists dispensing narcotic drugs without prescription? No retail druggist in Ontario would think of doing so.


John Campbell Elliott: To-day a retail druggist can do so without written order if he is dealing with a physician, veterinary surgeon or dentist. This section provides against the practice.


Robert James Manion: That part is all right, but in view of the very good objection taken to the clause, I would suggest that the bill be held over so that the minister may ascertain from Dr. Amyot if hospitals are provided for under this act. If that is the case, there will be no further difficulty. We do not want to get legislation on the Statute books which will have to be repealed next session.


John Campbell Elliott: Dr. Amyot is at present attending the convention at Paris.


Robert James Manion: Well, his assistant.


John Campbell Elliott: His assistants advise me they have heard no complaints from the hospitals. The clause we are considering will have the effect of enacting what my hon. friend from Fort William thought had been the law right along-that a druggist should have an order in writing before dispensing these particular drugs.


Robert James Manion: I think that is done in Ontario to-day.


John Campbell Elliott: I think it is in most cases, but one or two cases have arisen where the druggist has said, "I do not need a written order if I am dealing with a dentist, a veterinary surgeon or a physician."


Charles Murphy: The minister has stated that he has heard of no complaints from the hospitals. That may be. But under the act the superintendent of a country hospital cannot legally purchase narcotic drugs unless this is provided for in the regulations, as suggested
by the minister. At many country points the hospital superintendent is not a physician or a surgeon, but it is necessary that he have these narcotic drugs in his possession to treat emergency cases, Where there would not be time to wait for a physician's prescription. In such cases hospital superintendents should have the legal right to purchase narcotic drugs, of course under proper safeguards. Nor should they be regarded as violators of the law when they have such drugs in tiheir possession, as they apparently are under the present act as I read it. The minister has not explained that point at all. It should be made clear now we are amending the act.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Chairman, under the circumstances I think the minister would be well advised to move that the committee rise and report progress1. He will no doubt have the recpired information this evening.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps we might get
through with the other clauses, which are purely formal. I will undertake to look into the conditions under which hospitals are now permitted to obtain narcotic drugs and inform the committee when the bill is again under consideration.
Section 1 stands.


Mr. KAISER:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the suggestion of the hon. member for Fort William. I should like to see this clause left over for a little further consideration. Medical men of the highest standing say it is utterly wrong to abruptly cut off drugs from the addict; they are of opinion that the better course is to wean him off gradually. In fact this is the only method of effecting a cure. I believe the medical men of the House should have a conference before this 'Clause is passed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I suggest that the minister give careful consideration to Bill No. 22 introduced by my hon. friend. from Vancouver North (Mr. Donaghy), providing whipping for those who violate the provisions of the act The observations made by my hon. friend from Oshawa (Mr. Kaiser) entirely support the purpose of that bill. There seems to be no form of punishment too severe for men who distribute narcotic drugs, especially when they seduce the youth of the country. I think that bill might well be incorporated by the government as part of this measure. Such a course I believe would meet
Special War Revenue Act

with public approval because when my hon. friend's bill was introduced it was spoken of in very high terms by the press of the country generally.


John Campbell Elliott: On looking over the act I find that whipping was provided for by an amendment passed in 1925, but it applies only-


Richard Bedford Bennett: To a limited number of cases.


John Campbell Elliott: -to the distribution of drugs to minors. (I see no reason why the penalty of whipping should not be made ap-plicaible to all offences of drug distribution.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Burden of proof and defence.


John Campbell Elliott: I ask that this section be withdrawn, Mr. Chairman.
Section 4 withdrawn.
Sections 5 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
Progress reported.


SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT, 1915
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 2 consideration in committee of Bill No. 115, to amend the Special War Revenue Act, 1915.-Hon. Mr. Robb-Mr. Duff in the chair.
On section 9.
James Alexander Robb: I understand that this bill was practically all passed in committee, a few days ago, with the exception of the preamble, and I desire now to move a slight amendment. During the conversations and debates on the automobile question it was represented to us that the automobile trade in Canada, in meeting competition in other countries, was somewhat at a disadvantage because of the higher selling price in Canada. Other countries have ruled that for customs purposes the duty should be on the basis of the fair market price in the country of origin. The automobile people said to us that they were unable to reduce the price because of the excise tax we impose, and I asked them, "Well, if I remove this excise tax to a degree will you give me a guarantee that you will pass that entire reduction on to the consumer?" I have under my hand a letter from the Automotive Industries of Canada dated June 5, 1926, which I desire to place on Hansard:
Hon. Jambs A. Robb,
Minister of Finance,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir:
I have discussed with the Canadian manufacturers of motor cars the effect of the proposal to eliminate
rMr. Bennett.]
the 5 per cent excise tax on cars which are 50 per cent produced in Canada (or 40 per cent produced in Canada until April 1, 1927).
I am authorized to state on behalf of the following firms-
Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited,
General Motors of Canada, Limited,
Dodge Bros., (Canada) Limited,
Willys-Overland Limited,
Durant Motor Company of Canada, Limited, Studebaker Corporation of Canada, Limited, Chrysler Motor Company,
that immediately such removal of excise tax is announced, the delivered price to the public, on the chrs which qualify for this exemption, will be reduced by the amount of the excise tax applying to such cars. This includes all the important manufacturers of passenger motor cars in Canada.
Yours very truly,
Automotive Industries of Canada,
T. A. Russell,
President.
It will be recalled that when the Prime Minister spoke, one month after the budget was delivered, the books had been closed and we were able to show a surplus of three and one-half million dollars more than when the budget was presented on April 15. We will lose some revenue by this amendment which I am proposing, but what the government loses the consumer will gain, so I propose to remove the excise tax on cars costing $1,200 and under.


William Duff: Mr. Robb moves in amendment to section 0:
9. Paragraph (a) of subsection one of section nineteen B of the said Act, as enacted by section fourteen of chaper forty-seven of the Statutes of 1922, is amended by adding thereto the following proviso:- "Provided that the said excise tax shall not be imposed, levied or collected on automobiles specified in item (a) of said schedule I adapted or adaptable for passenger use valued at not more than twelve hundred dollars each;
"(ia) when such automobiles are imported into Canada before the first day of April, 1927, from any British country the goods of which are admitted to the benefit of the British preferential tariff, when at least forty per cent of the cost of producing the finished automobile has been incurred in such British country; or
"(ib) when such automobiles are imported into Canada on and after the first day of April 1927, from any British country the goods of which are admitted to the benefit of the British preferential tariff, when at least fifty per cent of the cost of producing the finished automobile has been incurred in such British country; or
"(iia) when such automobiles are imported into Canada before the first day of April, 1927, from any foreign country the goods of which when imported into Canada enjoy most favoured nation treatment under the provisions of a treaty or convention, when at least forty per cent of the cost of producing the finished automobile has been incurred in such foreign country; or
"(iib) when such automobiles are imported into Canada on and after the first day of April, 1927, from any foreign country the goods of which when imported into Canada enjoy most favoured nation treatment

Special War Revenue Act
under the (provisions of a treaty or convention, when at least fifty per cent of the cost of producing the finished automobile has been incurred in such foreign country; or
"(iiia) when such automobiles are produced or manufactured in Canada before the first day of April, 1927, when at least forty per cent of the cost of producing the finished automobile has been incurred in Canada; or
"(iiib) when such automobiles are produced or manufactured in Canada on and after the first day of April, 1927, when at least fifty per cent of the cost of producing the finished automobile has been incurred in Canada.
"Provided further that there may be paid to the automobile dealer or agent a refund equal to the amount of excise tax actually paid by the dealer or agent under the provisions of this subsection on such automobiles new, unused and unsold in the possession of the dealer or agent on the eighth day of June, 1926."
This section shall be deemed to have come into force on the eighth day of June, 1926, and to have applied to all automobiles described in this section imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on and after that date and to have applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that date.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would like to ask the minister, before I make one or two remarks, whether I correctly understand the meaning of the amendment on hearing it read.
I take it that the luxury taxes are wiped out in regard to those automobiles of which a certain percentage is manufactured in this country.


James Alexander Robb: And other countries.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In countries
enjoying preferences, as for example Great Britain and our sister dominions.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, and other countries with which we have conventions. This is for automobiles costing under $1,200 only.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, Mr. Chairman, we have now another link in what has been found necessary in building up the fences which were destroyed. We had the spectacle the other night of the Minister of Customs, after referring to the privileges already given to the automobile manufacturers and dealers, particularly as regards parts, admitting that this sort of thing had to be done. The damage had been done and, of course, they wanted to make the damage good as much as they could. We are just now coming to that point where it is perfectly clear that what has been done must be undone, that something must be done in order to keep the Canadian workman working, and the way to do it is to have protection, not under the name of protection, but to have the remission of excise tax which will apply merely to machines made here, to machines made in the Mother Country and in the sister dominions, and in
other countries that enjoy the most favoured nation clause. But so far as the one place from which we have competition is concerned, namely the United States, the excise tax will continue. Well, I have no doubt that the government have found it absolutely necessary to do this. I have no doubt in the world that [DOT]they take this step regretfully, but it always goes the same way-it always must go the same way. When any government take a step absolutely in the dark affecting a large Canadian industry, sooner or later they realize that there is one claim that one section of the country has upon this Dominion, and that is the workingman. He must be looked after. Why, we had the same thing in connection with the agricultural industry. We had changes there, drawbacks, free duties, exemptions from the sales tax, and all that sort of thing, to keep the industry going. Now we are seeing the same thing in connection with the automobile industry, just exactly as was pointed out. I am not blaming my hon. friend for now discovering what he ought to have known so much sooner. I am not blaming him for this tardy recognition of what ought to be the first duty of government, namely, the question of a job for the Canadian workingman. That is all it was. It never had anything to do with the question of the manufacturer per se. The manufacturer per se, whether he be Ford, Canada, or Ford United States, has the market. The manufacturer, General Motors, whether it be General Motors, Oshawa, or General Motors, Detroit, or anywhere else, has the market. The difference was this:	In the one instance the
Canadian worker got the job; in the other, he did not. Therefore I do not blame my hon. friend for this belated recognition of what ought to be the very first consideration in any one of these fiscal questions.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Can the minister tell me what amount of revenue the country will lose by this amendment?


James Alexander Robb: That of course will depend upon the business that is done. On the basis of the business of 1925 we will lose $1,752,354 for the year; on the basis of the 1926 business we will lose $2,995,471 for the year. But my hon. friend will recall that the automobile men argued that the peak of the trade is over before the 1st of July, so that if they are right most of that business has already been put
Special War Revenue Act

through. My opinion is that the loss we will sustain in excise will be more than compensated for by the increased business. The more business we do the more sales tax we will collect. We will have additional business on whatever materia! they have to buy, and they have to import some parts upon which they pay duty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Very few.


James Alexander Robb: Yes. Therefore I do not anticipate that there will be a very great loss of revenue.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When the committee took recess at six o'clock I was pointing out what had happened, and we all know it. The government tried again their apprentice hand, without waiting for their newly-constituted tariff board to tell them what to do. They jump in and make just as big a mess of this as they did of the agricultural implement business. Just as they fixed up the agricultural implements, they are fixing up this matter. At the time t'he budget was brought down the opposition said that no proper care was being taken of the activities and the like of the Canadian worker. We were laughed at in certain quarters of the House. To-day, in order to keep the Canadian workman functioning, we have got to make a present of over a million dollars, a million and three quarters perhaps, or a million and a half, to the automobile business. We would not have had to make that present to keep them going if this matter h-ad been approached as we thought it should have been approached, temperately and properly, and not with a view to making a slash without knowing what was being done, just like so many elephants running amuck. Hon. members realize the justice of the simile. They heard about the elephant that went amuck and the damage he did and the cost of repairing it.


Charles Gavan Power: I was thinking of the crocodile.


Henry Lumley Drayton: A crocodile can do considerable damage as well. My hon. friend may have had an intimate experience with crocodiles. I leave that interesting question with him. But the fact is that we are today making contributions from the public treasury to keep going-what? To keep the factories going and to give employment to the automobile workers, and the government are convinced that they had to do it. They are not doing this for fun. They are not turning round and saying in effect, "Everything that 
has been said about this is true; we did not know what we were doing; we were making cuts that the business could not possibly stand." They are not doing that for fun. They have not turned round and put automobile parts and that sort of thing in some instances on the free list for nothing. They are not giving a discount of 25 per cent of the duty on automobile parts for nothing; they are not cancelling the luxury taxes on automobiles for nothing. They are doing it simply and solely because they find that they have made a mistake in connection with their budget announcement, and you know, Mr. Chairman, they are doing it in the light of very, very recent information. I wonder how often the government have said during this session that there were to. be no more amendments to the budget. I wonder how often my hon. friend has said that there will be no changes. This question of the luxury tax was brought to his attention and to the attention of the Minister of Customs, but absolutely nothing was to be done. They are not doing this lightly. They are doing it because they have either got to do it, or there will be to a large extent a removal of automobile activities from this country.
Now what have we been doing? Let us see what sort of tangled web we weave When we mix with something we do not know anything about. What have we done? We made a cut in the smaller automobile duties from 35 to 20 per cent, and made a cut in the more expensive automobiles from 35 to 271 per cent. I never said anything for or anything against the cut of 271 per cent in the more expensive cars. It is some time since I have gone into the cost of manufacture and some time since I knew what proportion was represented by Canadian labour of every dollar in that business, profits and the like, or how much is taken from the business for the purpose of looking after the country and the country's revenue. My recollection was, and my opinion would be, that 271 per cent was a sufficient duty on the more expensive automobile. The more expensive automobile has been helped by the refund of duties on the parts and by the free admission of materials not made in this country. But in the case of the other car, after all these weeks of uncertainty, all this talk and all this turning upside down of the business of the country, where are we? We had a duty of 35 per cent on the small automobile. Hon. gentlemen to my left who are particularly interested in the Ford oar received startling information as to how small a reduction could be secured for that car as a result

Special War Revenue Act
of the tariff changes and how much prices depend not upon tariffs, but upon business arrangements, patents and the like. They also learned how when shooting at the manufacturer through the tariff, they were looking up the wrong end of the gun and the kick they got from that end more than offset any slight advantage they got out of the right eni of it.
We have had all these weeks of uncertainty, for what? In the first instance there was a duty of 35 per cent upon the cheaper cars. To-day we are first taking off the luxury tax on the car imported into this country from countries whose production does not enter into competition with that of the Canadian manufacturer, taking off where it does not hurt, taking off where it is not needed for protection. Second, we have taken the luxury tax off the product of the Canadian manufacturer but we have left it on where the real competition comes in. When we practise protection, would it not be much better if we practise it honestly? When we speak about protection we should refer to our tariff. It would be ever so much better to keep Canada and the homes of our Canadian workmen functioning instead of shutting them up. We might as well be honest with ourselves and find out what we are doing. We take off that luxury tax from the Canadian car; we maintain it as against the United States car, and by so doing we raise the tariff of 20 per cent which we have to-day to 26 per cent and even more. That is calculated upon the wholesale value of the car in this country, so that really we are raising the tariff to 27 per cent in connection with the luxury tax. In that way we now have an additional protection of 7 per cent, not under the name of course, of protection, not a protection which can be read upon the pages of our tariff, but a devious protection through excise, a method of taxation which in the past has been a tax not for protection but merely for revenue. Over and above that we have further losses in our revenues made by 25 per cent rebates on raw material in some instances and in others free importation of raw material. To-day we have a result that will give a protection as I figure it out of about 30 per cent in connection with the smaller car. I admit it is very difficult to figure it out properly, but it is not far short of 30 per cent. When I talk about protection I mean the 27 per cent in connection with our tariff of 20 per cent and the luxury tax of 7 per cent. An equalizing of values of cost of production looks after the balance.


George Gibson Coote: I did not understand what the hon. member said about a 7 per cent tax. Would he explain that?


Henry Lumley Drayton: There are two
sides to this question. Protection may be either direct and honest or indirect. We have a direct tariff of 20 per cent and we have an indirect tariff which on the full value of the $1,200 car will mean another 7 per cent in connection with the luxury tax which will be paid by the United States car coming in and which will not be paid by the Canadian manufacturer. That makes 27 per cent. As regards the difference between 27 and 30 per cent, that is not a question of protection one Way or the other; it is a question of reducing the cost to the manufacturer, but of doing so at the expense of somebody else's protection when we have a rebate of 25 per cent upon some parts and free importation of others that are required in the manufacture of automobiles. I may be slightly out in my calculation as to the 3 per cent, but I think it will be found to be a very reasonable percentage. On the other hand I admit at once that we shall get cheaper automobiles; we shall have a further large percentage of people of this country who will be able to buy automobiles. We shall have further traffic congestion and the like, but we shall get dearer other things. Something has to pay the tax; if you take it from the shoulder of one, you put it on the shoulder of another.


Robert Gardiner: Economize.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. gentleman says " economize." We have not had very much help from him in attacking the estimates this year. I hope he will suffer a change of heart and we shall be able to get a good deal of help from him later on. Be that as it may, we shall have cheaper automobiles, and to the people of the country who are interested in cheaper automobiles that will be a source of satisfaction. But we pay for this; we are paying for it from the country's revenues; we are paying for it by giving up revenues which we now have. We have before us an extraordinary spectacle. We have the government with its budget proposals, with its answers not week after week but at one time practically day after day that there would be no changes; that the government had stated its proposals and it was going to stand by them. On the other hand we have these changes. If this teaches us one thing it may be of some help to us. If it teaches us how little the House and the country can depend upon the word of
Special War Revenue Act

this government, perhaps all this fuss and turmoil have not been in vain. Can hon. gentlemen suggest anything that would be more instructive?
Again-but I despair of this thought-if the experience of the past two months plus the experience of the government in connection with what they did with regard to agricultural duties will really open their eyes and show them that they are entering on a difficult field when they make a snip here and a snip there, and that they should first know what they are doing before they try to do it, all the fuss and trouble of the past few weeks will not have been in vain.


Robert Gardiner: Before the committee
rose at six o'clock the minister proposed an amendment to this bill. He also read a letter from an officer of the automotive industries organization, stating that if this tax were remitted the price would be decreased to the consumer. I have no reason to question the good faith of the automobile manufacturers' association, but I would ask the minister what steps he intends taking to remedy the situation in case the tax is not remitted as promised in that communication. The hon. member for West York said a moment ago that the remission of this tax would make a difference of 7 per cent altogether. I take it that the tax is applied to the wholesale price and if the manufacturers carry out what they propose in their communication, instead of the industry benefiting to the extent of 7 per cent, that advantage will be with the consumer. I do not think that the hon. member's criticism is altogether correct.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The basis on
which the luxury tax is assessed is the wholesale value of the automobiles manufactured in Canada, and comparing this with the American basis of cost the 7 per cent I have suggested will be found to be correct. There is a great difference in the basis of valuation.


Robert Gardiner: If the excise tax applies to the wholesale price naturally this increases the price to the retailer, who must make a profit on the amount of his investment, including the tax, so that by the time the consumer is reached he has to pay the 7 per cent extra. In the case of cars of $1,200 and under the consumer ought to benefit to the extent of the 7 per cent in the event of the tax being removed. In the case of cars of $1,200 and under, imported from the United States, and bearing the excise tax, the con-

sumer naturally pays the 7 per cent, but so far as Canadian-made cars are concerned they save that extra cost.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I quite agree.


Robert Gardiner: It is all right so long
as we understand each other.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is a
saving to the consumer of that 7 per cent so far as cars from the United States are concerned. The consumer saves the 7 per cent at the expense not of the Canadian manufacturer but of the treasury.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The other evening, in
the course of his speech in regard to the duties on automobiles, the Prime Minister declared that in reply to the gentlemen who had come from the city of Oshawa to wait upon the government he had referred them to chapter 19 of the Acts of the Apostles. And when I heard the Minister of Finance this evening intimate to the House that he had changed his mind, that notwithstanding his violent protestations that there would be no amendments in the budget-oh, no! he stood by his guns-I could not help thinking of the incident related in the Scriptures of the traveller who journeyed from Jerusalem to Damascus bearing letters from the high priest. It will perhaps be in the memory of my hon. friend that on his way that traveller beheld a shining light, from which moment, dated his conversion. There was a cry, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" Now, the automobile industry cries aloud to the Minister of Finance in somewhat similar language, "Why persecutest thou me?" And, having caught the vision, this Saul of Tarsus has now become Paul the Apostle-Saul of Tarsus who threw stones at the martyrs and denounced protection and all its works. But a short time ago he saw nothing but evil in all the activities of this persecuted industry, and now, with his sudden conversion into the apostolic Paul, he is preaching the great truth that the Canadian workman must be employed. An hon, member suggests the name Paul the Protectionist. Well, our newly converted apostle realizes that Canadian industry must be protected, and this is his gospel to-night.
I congratulate the Minister of Finance upon his assumption of this new role. Saul of Tarsus, as I say, is now Paul the Apostle. But what after all must be his excuses, not only to the House but to himself? I sent to the library just now for the Book to which the Prime Minister referred the representatives of the persecuted industry that cried

Special War Revenue Act
aloud to him and to the Minister of Finance and I cannot find very much in the passage he cited to suggest a solution to the problem which we must consider. It says that the Jews blasphemed his doctrine, which was confirmed by miracles. It occurred to me that .possibly this was what the Prime Minister had in mind; no doubt he was conscious of a miracle in the government's conversion. I congratulate the Prime Minister and his colleague. But, Sir, this country is more to be congratulated. There were those amongst us on this side of the House who believed that the very fabric of our industrial structure was likely to be destroyed by the tariff measures introduced into this House by the government-measures which, according to the Minister of Finance, were a concession to widespread sentiment in the country. That widespread sentiment, we contended, should not be given effect to unless it were found to be based upon sound economic reasons. Yet day after day and night after night, as the budget debate proceeded, the Minister of Finance asserted in his place that there certainly would be no changes in the tariff resolutions. The conclusion to which he had come was so sound that nothing could induce him to change it. Has the hon. gentleman suddenly beheld a great light? As the days have passed has some bright star illumined his path? It must be this. One of two things has happened: he was either wrong when he made the revision in the tariff which he did in his budget, thereby threatening the livelihood of Canadian workmen, or he was right in taking that course. If he was right, then he should yield to no pressure that may be brought against him, especially after his emphatic protestations that he would never give way. We on this side of the House ventured to believe that the Minister of Finance would yield.
I am sorry the right hon. gentleman who leads this party is not in his seat to-night: he would do justice to this occasion. It will be within the memory of everyone sitting here tonight that day after day as the House assembled, while the budget was being discussed, the leader of the opposition asked the Minister of Finance whether any changes were contemplated. While my hon. friend from West York was speaking a few minutes ago I turned over the pages of Hansard wherein I saw that my right hon. leader was quite insistent in putting this question to the Minister of Finance. Time and time again the same query was put: Are there to be any changes? And what was the reply? There was a stout assurance on the part of the
Minister of Finance that there would be no changes except with respect to procedure. There might be some trivial alterations in minor matters, but there would be no change at all in principle. Now, what about hon. gentlemen to my left? What about hon. gentlemen from the province of Saskatchewan who pounded the tops of their desks so lustily a few days ago? Where now are those hon. gentlemen? Where is the youthful member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) who, in thi6 reduction in the duties on automobiles, saw a new light in the fiscal firmament? Where is the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee), whose vociferation found expression not only in a noisy pounding of his deski but in vehement speech as well? Has he forgotten his most vociferous observations about the atrocious crime of being a young man? Where are all these gentlemen now? And then when I look down towards the leader of the Progressive party and see his calm benignant smile,, I realize that he has once more accepted, for the sake of the party, the measure that is now being introduced. But it has its pleasing side I recognize. The other evening the Minister of Customs tried to save the face of the Minister of Finance when he introduced his little measure looking towards the amelioration of the manufacturers, but when he found the House not disposed to take very kindly to it he withdrew the measure. It remained for the iron to enter into the soul of the Minister of Finance. He had to make the great choice. I am happy to say he chose what will benefit the Canadian workmen rather than acoept the worn-out policies and shibboleths of hon. gentlemen to my left. I think to that extent his - choice must be a matter of pride to all Canadians. Why, it is pleasing even to the heart of the gentleman from Maple Creek (Mr. Spence), who was so disturbed with respect to the steel duties as to send an advocate to appear before the tariff board. He too cheers as he realizes that the cause of the Canadian workmen has not fallen upon deaf ears. It is pleasing to think that the Minister of Finance has heard the voice; and, having heard it, we all welcome his conversion. You remember, it was not only his own countrymen who welcomed the conversion of Paul, it was also the Gentiles; and he rejoiced that he was sent to teach the Gospel not only to the Jews but to the Gentiles. So we on this side manifest our joy at the conversion of the Minister of Finance. It is a pleasing spectacle not alone to the Conservative party, but also to the Canadian people generally.
Special War Revenue Act

In days gone by almost every member who sits to the left of the Speaker ventured to point out in the best way he could what the effect of the reduction of the tariff on automobiles would be. The other evening I ventured to point out, for instance, the effect of the tariff reductions on the agricultural implement industry. Some of my figures were questioned. I find now by looking at the Canada Year Book and the bulletin of the Bureau of Statistics that while in 1919 we had 88 establishments, in 1923 they had fallen to 67 and in 1924 to 63. In 1919 the number of employees was 11,036, in 1923 this figure had dropped to 7,792, and in 1924 there was a further reduction to 6,700. The value of products was $37,000,000 odd in 1919, in 1923 had fallen to $36,000,000, and in 1924 it was practically the same. Some objection was made to my figures with respect to imported goods, yet I find that for the eleven months ending February 1925-26 we imported duty-free $1,786,703 worth of rolled iron and rolled steel for the manufacture of agricultural implements and machinery which previously had been made in Canada by Canadian workmen. It is just that state of affairs which makes business in this country so uncertain. It is just the- condition we have been undergoing during the last six weeks that makes business men hesitate to put their money in new ventures. They wonder which industry is to be struck next, and when, after being struck, is the Minister of Finance again to be converted. This conversion cannot go on forever, you cannot have new conversions day after day. There are of course those who believe there is always a chance for the backslider to be reached and converted. But it is better not for us to undergo this uncertainty as to the tariff.
I put this to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance: What did he mean when he answered the right hon. leader of this party that there would be no substantial changes in his budget announcement? Did he mean it or did he not? If he meant it does he now say he was wrong; or was he right and has since yielded to pressure? If he was wrong, he should be prepared to say: We undertook to reduce the tariff to the point that meant unemployment to Canadian workmen, that meant ruin to Canadian industry, and now having found that to be the case we come back to this House and admit we were wrong. That is the right method for him to pursue. But what is the method pursued here to-night? I say first of all that every member of this House should have an opportunity to study the amend-

ment. It should be printed and in the hands of every member so he may understand what it means. Not until to-morrow will he have a chance to study it in Hansard.
iWhat does this amendment mean? If I understand it correctly, it means that an automobile brought in from the United States will be assessed upon the dtuty, as well as the cost, a tax of 5 per cent. That is, if you buy an automobile for $700 in Detroit-about which my friend from Macleod (Mr. Coote) used to talk so long and learnedly-you will pay a duty which will now be 20 per cent, as I understand it; that is, $140, making a total of $S40; then upon that you will pay a tax of 5 per cent, or $42, making a total of $882 for this $700 car purchased in Detroit. That is the wrong against which my friend from Macleod used to inveigh. I, like others in this House, felt the duty was too high, but what the amount of the reduction should be I was not, neither was any member in this House, in a position to say. Why? Because the principle of protection is so far-reaching that if you touch it at one point you may disturb other industries in the most remote sections of the country, as happened in the case of the reduction of the duty on agricultural implements. How is that to be met? By taking off the oar manufactured in Canada the sales tax so that a Canadian car costing $900 which would have cost with the duty $945, is now to cost $900. That is the position. In other words, there is to be a duty of 5 per cent upon the car, and an extra duty of 5 per cent upon the car and the dhty. Now the duty is 20 per cent. Five per cent on 20 is one. So instead of having a reduction of 15 per cent in duty, there is a reduction of 9 per cent, and 9 only. That is what happens. Do not let us have any misunderstanding about that. There is a 6 per cent duty, because the sales tax of 5 per cent remains upon the American car, and the 5 per cent is charged against the duty as well as against the price of the car. The duty being 20 per cent, 5 per cent upon 20 is one, and 5 and 1 make 6, so that the duty which this resolution places upon American cars is 6 per cent. Therefore the reduction of 15 per cent that was heralded from one end! of the country to the other is now reduced to 9 per cent. I should like my hon. friend from Macleod to realize that-the duty is 9 per cent, not 15 per cent. These are facts.
For my part I am very glad that the Minister of Finance 'has done what he has done in the light of the knowledge he has obtained since he introduced this budget. Knowing as we did he must be convinced, he is now

Special War Revenue Act
convinced that 15 per cent reduction in the duty on small cars would wreck the automobile industry of this country. That is one of our most important industries. I was amazed on looking at the figures at the volume of business transacted1 and the number of people employed in it. During the last few years it has increased by leaps and bounds. I will not go over the amazing story because it has been recited so often in this House. But let it be remembered-and this is borne out by the investigations of the minister himself

that the tariff proposals made by this government have been injurious to Canadian industry and to Canadian workmen, and in nine cases out of ten. the government has had to modify them before they became law. To-day there is no man in this House and there is no man in the country who will not rejoice that the hon. minister has changed his mind. We told him he would have to. The right hon. leader of this party pointed that out to him. He said:	Before this debate finishes
you will be bound to do it, because you dare not destroy that industry. I do not believe the Minister of Finance would dare destroy it; I do not believe any responsible minister or any government would dare to destroy that industry in this country, and it is because they dare not destroy it that this industry is saved to-night. But for this new 6 per cent duty the manufacturers could not compete one single hour in the production of cars brought in here of a value up to $1,200. Without this legislation it is cheaper to-day to import cars into Canada than to manufacture them here. The manufacturers have told that to my hon. friend; it has been published in their journals broadcast throughout Canada; it is known everywhere now, and this government has at least had the courage to show signs meet unto repentance, to quote the Scripture as the right hon. Prime Minister desired. And the fruits meet unto repentance are these, that the 15 per cent reduction in duty which has been announced from one end of Canada to the other has resolved itself into 9 per cent; instead of being 35 per cent the duty is now 26 per cent, 20 per cent of the customs tariff and this additional 6 per cent, exclusive of drawbacks. Why not be frank about it; why not tell the people of Canada that you started in to reduce the duty on automobiles by 15 per cent, and then discovered that you were all wrong and that it is now reduced to 9 per cent?	-
But that is not all; in addition to that there are the rebates, and what are the rebates? I have not the skill or the complete
information which would enable me to work them out, but reading Hansard and applying my best knowledge, so far as I can ascertain it is fair to say that these rebates run all the way from 1J per cent to 3 per cent, 2 per cent at any rate as a minimum. My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) who has given' these matters consideration, says 3 per cent. Then, Sir, what have we? All that is left of this 15 per cent reduction which was broadcast from one end of Canada to the other, after the 6 per cent and the 3 per cent have been taken away, is 6 per cent.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do not let us have any
misapprehension about it; let us look it over carefully again. The day the budget was delivered the duty was 35 per cent. It was reduced by 15 per cent, leaving 20 per cent. Last week you added a rebate, which is another 3 per cent; to-night we add another 6 per cent, and when these two are subtracted we find that the reduction of 15 per cent amounts in fact to a reduction of 6 per cent. That is the story. Now let us go out and tell that frankly to the people.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, you members from
Saskatchewan 1 How you will go out and make the welkin ring; how you reduced the duty on automobiles 6 per cent! And you are not sure about that, for peradventure, if the rebates operate as they may, instead of 6 per cent it will be only 5 per cent. And then, as has been pointed out, how much will be lost in revenue? The figures given a moment ago were $2,900,000; the year before the amount was $1,750,000, so we have nearly a $3,000,000 loss in revenue. Perhaps this will be the peak of the reduction, and that being so it may be that this year the loss will not be as much. But money has to be found; it was the present Minister of Finance who said last year that the money had to be found, and mark you; every application of $5,000,000 to rural credits; every application of $5,000,000 for old age pensions and every application of $3,000,000 for the Hudson Bay railway means a corresponding load upon the taxpayer of this country, whether he pays it in automobile tax or in some other tax; it must be paid. That is the thing to remember.
Then, arguing as I do and appreciating the position of my hon. friend, why would it not be better to tell our people, " We promised you we would reduce the duty on automobiles by 15 per cent, but when we found sentiment a poor master in economic matters
Special War Revenue Act

and that facts are a more powerful guide we changed our minds and instead of reducing the duty 15 per cent we have just reduced it 6 per cent, and we are not quite sure of that; it may be 5 per cent, depending on the drawbacks." Why not tell them so frankly? Why, Sir, on every single tariff item touched by this government for sentimental reasons the experience has been exactly the same as that of to-night. My hon. friend suggests that it was done for votes, and not for sentiment. Well, a deluded people will in the end wake up.
Take milk bottles; you will remember what the government were going to do in 1922. The duty was then 20 per cent, 30 per cent and 32} per cent; they reduced it to 15 per cent, 25 per cent and 27} per cent. In 1922 we imported $12,658 worth of milk bottles, but last year we imported $36,904 worth, in eleven months. What does that mean? It means less employment for Canadian glass factories; less work for Canadian workmen, and more taxes to pay by those people left in this country because of the others who went to find work elsewhere. Take dairy tin hollow-ware and kitchen tin hollow-ware. The duty was reduced in 1922 from 15 per cent, 22}per cent and 25 per cent to 12} per cent, 17} per cent and 20 per cent. In 1922 we imported these goods into Canada to the value of $11,135, while in the eleven months of last year our imports amounted to $60,517:	In other words,
we imported $50,000 worth of new goods which workmen in other countries fabricated while Canadian workmen were idle. Then take the next item, stamped and coated products. The duty was changed in 1922, with what effect? In 1922 we imported $868,286 worth of these goods, while in eleven months of 1925-26 our imports amounted to $1,634,876. Take unbleached cotton fabrics; in 1921-22 the duty was reduced from 15 per cent, 22} per cent and 25 per cent to 12} per cent, 22} per cent and 25 per cent. In 1921-22 our imports amounted to 6,908,551 yards, but in eleven months of last year we imported 18,744,723 yards of these materials. That was the effect of the change in duty. Then take flax fabrics, unbleached. The duty was reduced on May 24, 1922 from 15 per cent, 22} per cent and 25 per cent to 12} per cent, 22} per cent and 25 per cent. In 1921-22 we imported 1,545,050 yards, while in eleven months of 1925-26 we imported 2,087,658 yards, and in the preceding year 2,524,701. Then there is harness and saddlery. On May 24, 1922 the duty was reduced from 20 per cent, 27} per cent and 30 per cent to 17} per cent, 25} per cent and 30 per cent. In

1921-22 our imports amounted to $89,395, while in the eleven months of 1925-26 their total value was $286,112.
What does all this mean? It means that that much less leather was fabricated in Canada; that much less tanning was done in this country; that much less work was done in our saddlery factories and so much less employment was to be found; it meant that that work had to be done in other countries, giving work to foreign people. That is the history of tariff legislation of hon. gentlemen opposite. Then we come to collars of cotton, linen and so on, and to incubators and brooders for fowl, about which we have heard so much. This tariff was changed in 1924 from 20 per cent, 27} per cent and 30 per cent to 10 per cent, 15 per cent and 15 per cent. In 1922-23 we imported $93,549 worth of incubators and brooders, while for the eleven months of 1925-26 our imports amounted to $156,868, These are the facts.
A great writer has said that the history of Liberalism is the history of experimentation, and I observe this: Whatever else may be said, nature at least is Tory-she works by evolution and not by revolution. We who sit on this side of the House realize that the experiments that have been made with the customs duties of this country, the experiments that have been made with incubators, with glass, with cotton fabrics, with woollen goods, all these experiments have resulted in one thing and one thing only- increased unemployment at home, increased employment abroad; increased imports, lessening production. That is what it means. The population of this country is barely steady. What has happened is just as I have indicated, and so to-night every thoughtful Canadian, every man in this country who reads this in the morning will realize that the government at last, after weeks of uncertainty, after weeks of denials, after weeks of stern repression of their own convictions, and despite the efforts that were made from well informed sources to convince them, have at last been convinced. At last they have realized that Canadian industry is better for Canada than American industry. At last they have realized that it is better to have thousands of men and women working in the factories of this country, in Toronto, Oshawa, Windsor and Ford, than have them working at Detroit, Chicago and Cleveland. Realizing that fact, I ask them to apply it not only to this particular industry, but to other industries that they have wrecked. The idle shops that are in Ontario, bring them back into activity, and renounce this fetish

Special War Revenue Act
to which you have so long paid tribute because you have been compelled to do it by my friends to the left. The time has come when you should no longer be compelled to worship strange gods, and we all know they are strange gods to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. His god, of course, is the god of protection for Canadian industry, but the strange god he has been compelled to worship within the last few weeks is the god of sentiment as expressed by the gentlemen sitting to my left who control this House. That is the position, and the time has come when I for one, like others, rejoice that Saul of Tarsus has become Paul the Apostle. I am sure that in reading the scriptures referred to by the Prime Minister we all alike have profited, but none so much as his own colleague the Minister of Finance, who reading the story with which I began my observations, of the journey of that great man from Jerusalem who saw a light and a great conversion on the way to Damascus, has himself during the last six weeks of tortuous walking, and incessant toil, with his face towards the light, blinded sometimes by the shibboleths of the faith of the gentlemen who sit to my left, but ever keeping his face towards the sun, at last seen the light, and that great conversion has come by which we welcome him now as Paul the Apostle of protection and of the Canadian workingman.


Robert Gardiner: Is the information my hon. friend has just given of the same character that he gave some time ago when he stated that the Massey-Harris Company was employing more men in the United States than- in Canada, whereas at Batavia in the United States they are actually employing 800 as against 4,000 in Canada?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not say any such thing. I did not say that they employed more men in the United States; I said that the property in Canada was becoming more and more an assembling plant. I suggest that the hon. member for Acadia will stick to the truth in directing attention to any observations made by the hon. member for West Calgary.


James Alexander Robb: Answering the last speaker
first, it occurred to me that had my hon. friend from West Calgary been as well versed in the Bible as he is in constitutional practice and the procedure of Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli, he would not have had to send to the library for the Bible. I 'have no fault to find with his quotation, except as to its application, and his application is all wrong, because from the evidence that has been 14011-262


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
produced in this House in the previous session and again this session the Canadian people have been crying out to the automobile manufacturers, ''How long, how long wilt thou persecute us?"
Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Wrong.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had better hand the
Bible to the minister. Perhaps he. would
read the first verses about Paul breathing out threatenings and slaughterings.


James Alexander Robb: 
Robert James Manion: They will pay the difference afterwards on this side.


James Alexander Robb: It does not make any difference where they pay it. My hon. friend from West Calgary and my hon. friend from West York have forgotten that I hold in my hand a letter from the automobile manufacturers of Canada guaranteeing that they will pass this on to the Canadian people, and that the purchaser of a Canadian car will have all this reduction in the excise tax. My hon. friend from West York has said that we are making the same mess of the automobile industry that we made of the agricultural implement industry. That is really a compliment, because the manufacturers of agricultural implements in Canada are to-day, upon their own statements presented to their shareholders, in a better position than before we touched the tariff. I repeat that we have the promise of the associated automobile manufacturers of Canada, of all the manufacturers of automobiles in Canada-it will be found on Hansard to-morrow morning-that they will pass this excise reduction on to the Canadian purchaser, and I serve notice on them now, in the presence of my friends, that if they do not live up to that agreement we will find means of placing them in a position where they will have to do so, or meet competition of the world. I do not know that I have anything more to say upon


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
Special War Revenue Act
[Stage Direction]
that subject. It would look as though everybody was satisfied with - these reductions, in view of the fact that they are going to be passed on to the consumer.
While I do not wish to enter upon another budget speech or upon a general discussion of the tariff-it is not the customs tariff that is under consideration now; that has 9 p.m. been disposed of-I would not like to sit down without answering the observations of the hon. member for West Calgary regarding the reductions this government has made in the dirties on milk bottles, glass, cotton fabrics and other products. The Dominion Glass Company, manufacturers of milk bottles, are to-day in a better position than they were prior to this government coming into office. They are making better dividends and employing more labour. Some of the cotton mills of this country are running rnigjht and day, and all of them are running on full time. If my hon. friend from West Calgary will look at the Financial Post of last week, he will find that Penman's are already preparing the way to hand out another melon to take care of their increased earnings. As to the Dominion Textile Company, my hon. friend will answer that they pay only five per cent, but they cut a melon three years ago; they split it into three; instead of five per cent, they are paying 15 per cent, and they have surpluses bigger than the year before. That is the condition of the industry generally throughout Canada.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Surely my hon. friend does not seriously argue that charging this tax against American manufacturers and forgiving the tax to the Canadian manufacturers does not operate in the protection' of Canadian industry. Surely he fully realizes, as everybody else does, that you can so tax as to give a benefit to your home producer without and apart from the customs tariff. He knows it. Will he say that a bonus is no help to your manufacturer? Will he say it is not a form of protection to your manufacturer and one of the most effective kinds of protection he can get? Surely it is idle to say that the protection of the Canadian manufacturer has not been increased by this very resolution. My hon. friend knows that that, and that only is the reason why it was introduced. He says it is a compliment to say the same thing that has happened here took place in connection with agricultural implements. Why is it a compliment? We were getting revenues which we have lost. We had to bedevil other taxes in connection with the agricultural industry. We had to cut them off the sales tax. We make concessions IMr. Robb.]
amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to do what has been done in connection with the automobile industry, and to-day we are making concessions again of hundreds of thousands, yes millions, in order to put back the automobile industry where it was. And you put it back just the same whether you give free material, whether you give rebates, whether you give it in the form of exemption from luxury tax, or the like; the effect is just the same as if you were to restore the duty. My hon. friend must know it.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend again forgets that I have placed on Hansard a letter in which the automobile manufacturers agree to pass this on to the Canadian purchaser of automobiles. I said in introducing the measure that, looking into it carefully, we had discovered the automobile men were at a disadvantage in the export business. Forty per cent of their business is export. They were at a disadvantage in other countries because they were charged upon the fair market value in the country of origin. It is in their interest to reduce the price in Canada, because if 40 per cent of their product goes into other countries it will be better able to compete in those markets. I do not want to chide my hon. friend from West York with this, but why should he find any fault with my making certain amendments to my budget? I hold in my hand a record which shows that he himself on one occasion made some twenty-five changes in his budget. If he turns to the estimates of this year, page 60, he will find that we are providing SI,690,000 to correct some-well I would not say errors, but some of the grievances Canadian industry had against his government.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am very glad my hon. friend referred to that matter. I was not in the House when the matter was up. My hon. friend is speaking now in connection with refunds of luxury taxes in connection with the time the luxury tax was taken off. All I cam say is that that matter was taken up when his predecessor, Mr. Fielding, was in power. He said he had gone over what had been done by the previous Minister of Finance, when he was asked to do the same thing, and he refused. It was brought up again next year, and the same thing was done. It was brought up again when, my hon. friend was in office, and he took the same position as his predecessor. Does he deny it? He cannot. He takes exactly the same position, that the right thing had been done. Last year again the same thing occurred, I said, "I do not object to what

Special War Revenue Act
you propose to do in connection with it" and I produced a memorandum in connection with what had taken place, and he said nothing was done. I supported it this year in the first instance, because prior to the last election and during the campaign the dealers who were interested in that rebate had a promise, not from my hon. friend but from other members of the government, that that tax would be refunded to them. After the election it was refused; it was said that there was no vote f,or it, and that certain recommendations would have to be made. They came to me and I said, "If you have been misled by the belief that you could place full confidence in the statements of governments, I would support your claim. If it be now said that the action was simply doing something I ought to have done, I say that my action had the endorsement of my hon. friend and Mr. Fielding. What was done this year was simply to make good the preelection promises of the government made for the purposes of election."
My hon. friend says I am not paying any attention to the 7 per cent mentioned in the letter. Of course I am. Everybody knows the full sum of that tax has always been added to the cost of the machine. It is always done-factory prices plus cost. I would like to know what would be done if the tax were not now taken off. Of course it will be taken off; but on the other hand, does anyone pretend that to the extent that that 6 or 7 per cent-I do not care which it is- the cost which the American manufacturer or the American competitor is put to, the cost which is held as against him and forgiven as against the other is anyone fatuous enough to think that is not protection? It is protection of a type that works very well. As a matter of fact, it is better for the trade. The position of the trade tojday is better in my view, safer and more secure, than it was before these resolutions were brought down.


George Gibson Coote: I suggest to the Minister of
Finance that it is rather unfair to the committee to ask us to pass a long amendment such as is presented to-night without members of the House having a chance to read it. While the hon. member for West Calgary was relating the story of Saul of Tarsus becoming Paul the Apostle, I thought it would be appropriate if he would tell that story related by Christ in the New Testament about the judge and the importunate widow. Members who are familiar with the New Testament will remember that the judge gave in to this woman, not because he thought her cause was just, but because by her continual coming 14011-2624
she wearied him, and to get rid of her he gave her what she wanted. I think the judge in this case would be represented by the Minister of Finance and the importunate widow-I am not sure, but I think she is represented by some official of the automobile industries, backed up by the Conservative party, in this House.
A great deal of noise has 'been made here to-night about the unfortunate condition of the workmen and about destroying the automobile industry in Canada. I find that the reductions made in the published prices of Ford cars as a result of the recent reduction in the duty are as follows:
Touring car	 $25
Hunabout	 15
iSport roadster	 30
Couipe	 40
Tudor	 45
Fondor	 45
Light delivery car	 20
Chassis	 30
Trulck	 40


Mr. CAHAN:: Are these in the retail or
wholesale prices?


George Gibson Coote: The retail prices, freight and government taxes extra. The greatest reduction is $45 and the smallest, $15. The reduction on the touring car, which is the popular car, is $25 so that I think it would be fair to assume that the reduction in the prices of these cans will not average more than $30. I do not know the exact number of cars sold in Canada by the Ford company last year, but I understand it was less than 50,000 cars. If this company suffered a reduction of $30 in price of each one of those 50,000 cars the net result would be a decreased earning of $1,500,000. According to the Financial Post the net profit of the Ford company for their last financial year amounted to $6,131,352. If I deduct from that the $1,500,000 they still have a net profit of $4,631,000 after these reduced prices have gone into effect.


Mr. ROBINSON:: The hon. member must
remember that in the beginning of the year the Ford company made very heavy reductions in all their lines of cars. They cut the price down as low as possible. The hon. member ought to refer to that.


George Gibson Coote: I am sorry I have not the old prices. I could still show that the Ford company would have sufficient profits to pay handsome dividends on a capital of $7,000,000 all but $125,000 of which was made out of earnings of the company. In the face of these figures why should hon. gentlemen raise such a wail about what has been done to Canadian
Special War Revenue Act

industry and why, I adk the Minister of Finance, should it be necessary to grant to these men this additional protection which the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) figures at 6 iper cent? Personally I am not able to understand it. Of course I am glad to see the people of Canada getting cheaper cars but I do not like to see the treasury of this country depleted by $1,600,000 or $2,000,000. As I said when I first rose, this is a long amendment; the members have not had an opportunity of looking at it, and I do not see why we should not be given that opportunity.
Just a word in regard to the excise tax question. At the present time I am told that the manufacturers pay this excise tax on the wholesale value of the car, but they collect it from the consumers on the retail value. According to the statement given on page 15 of the Ford company's booklet they are paying excise tax on only 75 per cent of the retail value of the car. This is the question that I would like to ask definitely of the Minister of Finance. Will the Canadian automobile manufacturers sell these cars to the consumers less 5 per cent excise tax on the retail price or will they sell them to us less only 5 per cent on the wholesale price? There is a difference of 1\ per cent between those two methods of paying the tax. The two questions I would like to submit to the minister again before I sit down are these: Why should the committee not have an opportunity to study this amendment before we pass it, and on what basis will the automobile manufacturers save us this excise tax-on the wholesale value or the retail value of the car?


James Alexander Robb: They pay the excise tax on the wholesale value.


George Gibson Coote: Does the minister mean that they are still going to collect from us the 1| per cent which is the difference between 5 per cent on the wholesale price and 5 per cent on the retail price? At the present time I understand they have been making that and putting it in their pockets.


James Alexander Robb: My colleague the Minister of Customs, who is administering the tax, says that it is the tax paid by the dealer to the manufacturer.


Mr. EVANS:: If we are going to pass this amendment to-night I would like to know if it contains a provision that if at any time it is proved to the satisfaction of the government that this rebate of excise tax is not passed on to the consumer, the tax will at once again be imposed


James Alexander Robb: To do that it would be necessary to give the Governor in Council the right to increase taxation, and that is not good legislation. We have, however, the right to reduce taxation, and if they do not live up fairly to this agreement we have the right to reduce the excise tax to all the trade of the world.


John Evans: Will that be inserted in the bill?


James Alexander Robb: It is not necessary.


George Gibson Coote: I would really like to get this definitely if I can from the Minister of Finance. At the present time the Ford touring car is advertised at $415 at the factory, freight and government taxes extra. Am I to understand from the minister that the automobile manufacturers will sell this car at $415 still and no excise tax? I understand, of course, they will collect freight and sales tax. Are we to understand that they will sell at this price without adding any excise tax?


James Alexander Robb: The tax the dealer now pays to the manufacturer will be reduced.


George Gibson Coote: That is very indefinite. If the minister is going to see that these men live up to this agreement, is the agreement that they will not charge the Canadian consumer any excise tax? At the present time they have been charging the Canadian consumer 5 per cent on the retail price while they have been paying the government 5 per eent on the wholesale price, so that really they have been putting into their pockets H per cent.


James Alexander Robb: My understanding is that
there will be no excise tax on cars of $1,200 or under.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would like to
support the position of the hon. member for Miacleod. We have heard this question debated for weeks and apparently a decision was reached. So far as I can judge from what we have heard to-night this decision is being decidedly modified.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Our friends across
the way admit that; in fact they charge that. If that is so, we ought to have some time at least to consider the bearings of the modification and I would join in asking that the matter be stood over until we have time to study it.


George Gibson Coote: I again protest. We discussed the budget for five weeks and sat up until

Opium and Narcotic Drug Act
four o'clock in the morning in order to get it passed. An important change in the budget is brought in at ten minutes to six and at half past nine we must put it through without having a chance to read it.


James Alexander Robb: I frankly say that if there is any opposition to this measure I am prepared to withdraw it. I am not anxious to lose $1,500,000, although I contend again that owing to increased business in sales tax the loss will be practically nil and we may be better off. I think, however, the request of hon. members is reasonable and I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.


OPIUM AND NARCOTIC DRUG ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 152, to amend the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, 1923.-Hon. Mr. Elliott-Mr. Duff in the chair.
On section 1-Persons to whom drugs may be sold.
John Campbell Elliott: I am informed by the officials of the department that section 5 of the act has always been held1 to cover both prescriptions and orders given for hospital supplies.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The section is broad
enough to embrace hospitals?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Mr. BARBER:: Many of the hospitals in small towns call for tenders for supplies. Included in these supplies are certain narcotic drugs, contained possibly in the tinctures or some preparations, and it is impossible to expect an order from a medical man in such a place for any considerable quantity of drugs. Under the act as it stands the druggists have no authority to supply these goods. That is the point. The act should provide that upon receipt of an order from the superintendent or the matron of a hospital drugs might be supplied1 just as on a doctor's prescription, and such order could go into the record.


Robert James Manion: Section 5, to which the minister refers, does not cover hospitals, except as regards purchases by them from wholesale houses. In small towns, and even in cities, hospitals buy a good deal of their supplies from the retail dlruggists, and if a hospital, say in Fort William, should run out of supplies it would be impossible to wait until an order could be filled in Winnipeg or Toronto. They would' necessarily
have to renew their stock from the retailer. The point is absolutely well taken. The superintendent or the matron, who frequently is not a doctor, should be allowed to give an order for supplies in the same way as a doctor gives a prescription for the individual patient. The minister would have the same means of checking such orders as he now has in respect of prescriptions.


John Campbell Elliott: I am surprised to hear the hon. member suggest that the door should be opened any wider. Most of the medical men in the House with whom I have discussed this matter agree with the officials of the Department of Health that, far from this being done, the regulations should be made still more strict. It is not considered desirable that the matron or anyone else other than a doctor should have charge of a matter of this kind.


Robert James Manion: The minister is speaking of something of which he knows little when he says that I am suggesting that the door be opened wider. I d'o not suggest anything of the sort. I am not suggesting that the patients should get narcotic dings from anyone but a doctor. The hospital usually gets its supplies by order of the superintendent, but the superintendent has no right to dispense drugs to anybody. Drug3 are handed out by the drug clerk of the hospital only on the prescription of a doctor and the check can be kept just as easily on any orders issuing from the superintendent as in the case of individual prescriptions. I did not-suggest that the superintendent should have the right to give drugs to anyone, and I resent such an imputation. I resent the suggestion that I am advocating any opening of the door. So far as I am concerned the door may be closed tight. I am pointing out that the hospitals of Ontario do not get their narcotic dings from the doctor and if the law is as the minister indicates, then those hospitals are breaking it, because they get their supplies on the order of the superintendent. If this practice is illegal we might as well make it legal. The fact is that drugs are kept in stock in the hospital, although, as I have pointed out, they are not allowed to be given to patients except on the prescription of a doctor.


John Campbell Elliott: The hon. gentleman
misunderstood1 the interpretation I put upon his words. I know he would be one of the very last to wish to open the door any wider. But that is the effect of the suggestion that either the matron or the superintendent of the hospital should have the right to order narcotics from the retail druggist.

Opium and Narcotic Drug Act


Robert James Manion: Does the minister suggest that the matron bootlegs in drugs?


John Campbell Elliott: No, no.


Robert James Manion: That would be the only way ini which the door could be opened any wider.


John Campbell Elliott: Every hospital has attached! to it a medical man and there is no reason why he should not give the order. There has been no difficulty in the past and no complaints have been made to the department on the ground of hospitals not being able to obtain supplies.


Robert James Manion: Because they have been breaking the law, if this is the law.


John Campbell Elliott: They are quite within the law if the doctor gives them a written order. It does not need! to be a prescription. If any practising physician gives to the hospital an order in writing, then they can obtain narcotics.


Robert James Manion: I understand that. But In many cities the superintendent of the hospital is not a doctor at all. In my own city we have a fine standardized hospital whose superintendent is a lady. She is not a doctor, and if the law is as the minister states she would! have to come either to myself or to some other attending physician and get a blank order for any quantity of narcotics which the hospital might require.


Arthur Edward Ross: I do not think the minister's department or the medical officers he has consulted have given him a fair idea of what the member for Fort William is trying to impress upon him. The practice now is that medical men should not be in charge of hospitals, and the larger ones are passing into the control of business hands. It is through the superintendent that all orders must come. Each hospital keeps a dispensary, the same as a drug store, and no drug can be ' taken from that dispensary without a doctor's order.


Robert James Manion: That is the point.


Arthur Edward Ross: The drug is as
safely guarded in the hospital dispensary as in the drug store-more so. The hospital must have medical supplies, and there is only one person who has the right to give orders for those supplies. Those supplies are issued from the dispensary on a doctor's orders. If it is the law that drugs cannot be obtained except under a doctor's order, I agree with the member for Fort William that there is hardly a hospital I know of but what is breaking the law. The person in charge at Kingston is a 
layman-in other large hospitals it is the same

and he is the one who gives the orders for supplies. But once any drug is taken into the hospital stores not one dram can be issued without a doctor's order, according to the law.


Mr. GERVAIS:: Mr. Chairman, there is
danger in allowing laymen to prescribe narcotics.


Robert James Manion: They do not prescribe,
they order supplies.


Joseph-Charles-Théodore Gervais: It is the same thing. Take a private hospital, the superintendent might be interested in some way in the narcotic trade. I think the regulation contained in the bill very wise. Some amendment may be introduced, but in this case any hospital duly incorporated must designate by resolution of the board of directors who is to sign orders instead of a medical man. Everybody knows the drug habit is a great evil, and no one knows this better than medical men. Therefore the law should restrict in every possible way any illicit traffic in drugs.


Charles Murphy: 
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Chairman, I think the
suggestion made by the hon. member for Fort William is not only correct, but that he should have gone a great deal further. If supplies are purchased, they are purchased by the hospital and not by the physician, and there is no provision in this bill whereby a hospital may purchase drugs upon the order of a physician. I quite agree with what the hon. member for Fort William has said. I know something about the management of hospitals in the city of Montreal, and all their supplies are ordered by the superintendent or manager. If the government wish to go further than that and say that the superintendent or manager is not a suitaible person to order supplies of this character, but that they must be obtained on the order of a physician, well and good; but I defy the hon. gentleman to show me how there can be sold to a hospital any drug by an authorized vendor, even on the approval of a physician or veterinary surgeon-they come within the same category-without incurring the penalty prescribed.


John Campbell Elliott: I appreciate the suggestion of hon. gentlemen, but I think they fail to recognize that this bill does not interfere in any way with the right of a hospital to obtain drugs. The amendment simply cuts out the words, in section 5 of the act, which [DOT] reads:
And any druggist who gives, sells or (furnishes any drug to any person other than any such physician, veterinary surgeon, dentist or druggist, except upon a written order or prescription.
The amendment now before the House has nothing to do with the obtaining of drugs by hospitals; that remains exactly as it has been for years. All that is done by this amendment is to say that where the druggist is furnishing drugs to any person it must be upon a written order, even though the person seeking to obtain the drug be a physician, veterinary surgeon, dentist or druggist.


Mr. HANNESSON:: Is there any provision now in the act giving hospitals the power to keep drugs on hand?


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend will understand that this act provides penalties for improperly obtaining or having drugs. I do
not agree with the hon. member for St. Lawrence^St. George (Mr. Cahan), even if the question brought up by him arose out of this bill, which it does not.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: Under what act or
under what provision of the act can a hospital get a supply of drugs except for a specific patient?


John Campbell Elliott: Just let me read this
particular section:
Any druggist who gives, sells, or furnishes any drug to any person,-
I am told that that has always been held to include the superintendent of a hospital, or anyone else.	.
1-except upon a written order or prescription signed and dated 'by a duly authorized and practising physician,-
The matron of a hospital only needs to go to a physician and get a written and signed order on a druggist for the hospital receiving the drug.


Charles Murphy: If I understand the
minister correctly-and he might correct me if I am wrong-under this act the matron or superintendent of a hospital has the right to obtain narcotic drugs for that institution on the signed order of a physician. Is that correct?	-


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Charles Murphy: Then, that order having
been filled, who is responsible for these drugs, the physician signing the order or the matron or superintendent of the hospital into whose possession the drugs go?


John Campbell Elliott: Everyone who improperly
hands out any of these drugs is liable under the act. This act, as hon. gentlemen will bear in mind, is prohibitory; it is not permissive except by implication. It describes the offences which are created under it, and tells the way in which a person obtaining or having a drug unlawfully may be punished. By implication it is quite clear that the person who gets a written order for a drug has that drug lawfully in his possession. I might just read the memorandum given me by the acting deputy minister of the department. He says:
With reference to the purchase of narcotics iby hospitals there has never been any specific provision in the statutes. Narcotics required by such institutions are purchased through the medium of a physician's order. In most cases there is a medical superintend'" in charge of the institution, who signs such ord'
In the case of smalflei- hospitals there is, as a rule,' a physician in attendance in such institutions, and such physician signs narcotic orders, the object of the law

Opium and Narcotic Drug Act
being to place the nesponsibilty upon the physician interested in the hospital or connected therewith, to prevent unscrupulous individuals obtaining narcotics who should not receive them, or to prevent the purchasing of drugs for purposes other than required as a medicine in the hospital. The officials charged with the administration of the act think it would be highly dangerous to give any 'hospital without a superintendent or doctor advising the right to obtain narcotics on their own responsibility.
He calls attention further to the fact that in the United States the regulations are more strict than these; there the ordinary physician has to have an annual license and the same also applies to veterinary surgeons and dentists. But I want to call attention to the fact that we are not making any change whatever in regard to the hospital regulations relating to narcotic drugs; the act remains as it has been for years. If an amendment is necessary, with which I do not agree, we are not attempting it in this way. This amendment simply says that in every case where a physician, veterinary surgeon or dentist obtains drugs from a retail druggist he must sign a written order, and that is all we intend.


Robert James Manion: I do not wish to prolong
the debate, nor do 1 wish to delay this measure. I had made up my mind to say nothing further, but the minister now gives the opinion of the deputy minister, and the matter is not cleared up at all. As a matter of fact the deputy minister is wrong when he states that most hospitals have a medical superintendent. Most hospitals in the smaller cities have nothing of the sort; they have either a lady superintendent or matron or a man superintendent who takes the part of a business man as well as superintendent of the hospital. I take it that under this act, according to the deputy minister, the superintendent of a hospital who was not a medical man would have to go to one of the staff of the hospital and ask him to give an order for the drug required. That doctor gives an order, we will suppose, for a certain amount of opium or morphine; he takes the responsibility of the order and has no check-up whatever on the dispensing of the drug; while he is responsible the superintendent unloads it in whatever way he likes.
Let me suggest to the minister what could be done under such an act, and why what we on this side suggest would be much more reasonable. The minister stated earlier in his remarks, by the way, that the medical men of the House had been consulted. Perhaps some were consulted but I do not know of any on this side of the House who were approached at all. We have many smaller 
hospitals, some of them private institutions -and there are many such-with a lady or a man in charge. Suppose such a hospital has a superintendent who is not of a very high moral character. Suppose that in the same city there is a medical man of the same type [DOT]-and there are some such. They could easily make a frame-up under this law whereby the physician would give an order to the superintendent of this small hospital to get in a fairly large amount of narcotic drugs. The superintendent who, as I say, is not of a very high moral character, could then sell them out as he or she chose, and there would be no check-up whatever. I suggest that the dispensaries of these private hospitals, as the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) says, should be checked up exactly as the druggist is checked. They should buy their supplies as druggists buy theirs, and the outgo should be checked up in exactly the same way.


John Campbell Elliott: I think my hon. friend
will agree that if it is dangerous to trust both a doctor and a medical superintendent who might want to do something illegal it would1 be much more dangerous to leave it in the power of the medical superintendent alone.
Mr. MANIO'N: Not at all; my hon. friend does not seem to get the point. The superintendent would simply buy his supplies exactly as the druggist buys his supplies; he would have to keep a record of every outgoing narcotic drug and another record of the physician giving the order for that drug. In other words, the minister and his department would have exactly the same check upon that private dispensary as they have upon a public dispensary, or in other words a druggist.


John Campbell Elliott: They have it now.


Arthur Edward Ross: If the widh of the minister and his deputy is to check this, it is much safer to leave it to the superintendent or matron. What doctor is going to take the responsibility? You are getting down to the same level as the Ontario Temperance Act, where the doctor does not care; he has no responsibility at all. The matron or the superintendent of the hospital has to go and seek out some doctor, because the house surgeon will be an under-graduate and not legally licensed in the province in which he is serving in the hospital. The superintendent has therefore to go to one of the doctors in the city and say:	Will you sign this order?
What responsibility has the doctor in that case? None whatever. I was just going to take the same ground as the hon. member for Fort William.

Opium and Narcotic Drug Act


John Campbell Elliott: Does either the hon. member for Fort William or the hon. member for Kingston suggest that the bill that is now before the House affects in any way the position of the hospital or of the matron or the medical superintendent? We have not attempted to deal with that.


Arthur Edward Ross: We are drawing up a failure in this bill. I admit at once that I cannot understand it; I do not know what it means. But the point has been raised here that you are making it difficult or impossible for a hospital to get its supplies. The hospital should stand in the same position as the druggist-should account for all the drugs it gets and see that they are issued only on a doctor's prescription. That is the point. You are making it difficult, if not impossible, for a hospital to get its supplies. I pointed out that once the hospital has its supplies it should be able to make a statement to the department accounting for every bit of it, just the same as the druggist. But do not ask the superintendent of the hospital to get a doctor's order, for it is impossible for him to do so. The doctor signs that prescription in a slipshod way. That is the whole point. The deputy minister's memorandum is quite wrong. Hospitals now are passing out of the old status where they had a medical man in charge, and it is difficult for them to get a doctor's prescription to-day.


John Campbell Elliott: May I again call my hon. friend's attention to the fact, because I know he wants to deal with the bill that is before the committee, that all1 we are doing by this amendment is striking out after the word "person" in section 5 the words "other than any such physician, veterinary surgeon, dentist or druggist." As I said before, all that means is that now the physician, vet-
10 p.m. erinary surgeon, dentist or druggist has to sign a written order to the retail druggist before he can get the drug. The position of the hospital and of the superintendent and of the matron and of everybody else is left exactly as it was except that we strike out the words "other than any such physician, veterinary surgeon, dentist or druggist." The whole aim of this amendment is to insist that when a physician, veterinary surgeon, dentist or druggist comes to the retail druggist for these narcotic drugs he must sign a written order.


Arthur Edward Ross: Then what was the intention of this memorandum?


John Campbell Elliott: That memorandum was
given to me after the question was raised.


Arthur Edward Ross: May I read it? It says:
With reference to purchase of narcotics by hospitals, there has never been any specific provision in the statutes. Narcotics required by such institutions are purchased through the medium of a physician's order.
That is knocked out. It goes on:
In most cases there is a medical superintendent in charge of the institution who signs such orders.
That is not correct.
In the case of smaller hospitals there is as a rule a physician in attendance at such institution, and such physician signs narcotic orders-
Now listen to this:
-the object of the law being to place the responsibility upon the physician interested tin the hospital or connected therewith, to prevent unscrupulous individuals who might be employed in the hospital using the institution as a medium of purchasing drugs for other purposes than required as a medicine in the hospital.
Now the doctor who would sign that order has no responsibility or charge over those who handle the drugs in the hospital. That is the point I make. The doctor who would sign that order, if it was required, has no responsibility or charge over the house surgeons and those who dispense the medicine inside the hospital. No one would sign the order under such circumstances, with that responsibility placed upon him.


Murray MacLaren: This section safeguards, as far as possible, the sale of narcotics to physicians, veterinary surgeons and dentists, but it does not provide for the sale of narcotics to hospitals, nor is that provided for in any other section of any other act. It has been pointed out a number of times this evening that it is important that regulations should exist regarding the sale of narcotics to hospitals. The sale is not even regularized at the present time. I suggest therefore that the minister might consider adding a further section to deal with the sate of narcotics to hospitals.


John Campbell Elliott: I appreciate the suggestion of my hon. friend, but I again call attention to the fact that this legislation has not for its object t'he dealing with the right of hospitals in any way, shape or form. It does not apply to them at all. The section under consideration only makes it necessary for the physician, veterinary surgeon, dentist or druggist who is obtaining narcotics from the retail druggist to give an order in writing. We are not affecting the hospital one way or the other. Certain other amendments were suggested this afternoon with regard to the word "prescribed", as to whether or not it should be a violation of the act for a physician to
Opium and Narcotic Drug Act

prescribe narcotics in certain cases. As the act will probably be gone over fully before another year-it is now contained ini three or four different amendments-I would suggest that these proposed amendments could be borne in minid then. But it is not intended to change the regulations in regard to hospitals under the present act at all. The only object is to tighten it up a little, so as to make it necessary for a physician to sign a written order in every case.
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton) r According to this bill and the statement of the minister, the retail druggist will not be allowed to sell narcotics to a hospital. It does not allow the hospital to buy narcotics. I think if we added in the thirteenth line after the word "druggist" the wordis "or hospital 'authorities" it would cover the hospital. The minister, being a layman, perhaps does not exactly understand how this affects the retail trade. What the hon. member for Kingston says is absolutely true. There are several hospitals, not only in the rural sections but right here in the city of Ottawa, that have not a medical man in charge. Suppose that hospital telephones to a retail druggist for a small quantity of drugs in an emergency; why cannot that order be sent to the hospital and the authorities from the narcotics branch trace it hud see that it is properly dispensed in the hospital? In that way you will be giving the retail druggist a square deal, which you are not doing at present. The law is being broken all the time.


John Campbell Elliott: We are passing this measure in anticipation of making new regulations or altering the regulations now in existence in regard to the matter of supplying narcotic drugs. This section enables the authorities to go to a physician and get an order. However, we are not dealing with hospitals.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: You are not dealing with
hospitals except to this extent, that the act expressly prohibits the sale of narcotics to a hospital except on a physician's written order. It refers to the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act and says:
Every person licensed under this act to deal in any drug, who gives, sells or furnishes any drug to any person other tlhan-a duly authorized and practising physician, veterinary surgeon or dentist, or to a bona fide wholesale druggist, or to a druggist carrying on a business in a bona fide drug store,-


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend would
not suggest that it applies to the retail druggist. He has not read the section throughout. That applies to the wholesale druggist and

this gives the form of license. It struck me in the same way as it struck my hon. friend when I first read it, but the first portion does not apply to the retail druggist.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: It means then that you are
prohibiting the hospital from applying to the wholesale druggist. Is there anything in the act which precludes the retail druggist from applying to a wholesale druggist without a doctor's prescription?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I think an amendment is
required to enable the hospitals, in a regular legal manner, to buy their goods without going to a doctor for an order, so that they might get their drugs under a block order You are prepared to allow the retail druggist to get his drugs without a doctor's order, and the hospital after all is nothing but an institution with a drug store virtually attached to it as an annex to its business. The same difficulties and the same dangers attach to allowing druggists to buy as attach to allowing the hospitals to buy. If you will only consider the drug department of a hospital in the same light as you consider an ordinary retail drug store, your difficulty has disappeared. You can make the same regulations regarding the drug department in the hospital as you do regarding the retail drug store. The only difference is that the one sells across the counter to anyone coming in with a doctor's prescription, and the other only dispenses narcotic drugs to patients in the hospital, and on a doctor's prescription.
Then there is another feature in connection with it. There are a large number of hospitals throughout the country districts, small municipal hospitals, which have not a resident medical superintendent. It may be that they have to telephone to a drug store three or four miles away. It may be absolutely impossible for them to get a doctor's prescription in time for pressing requirements if they run short of drugs. The whole difficulty would be solved if the minister would consider the drug department of a hospital as exactly in the same position as a retail drug store in the city, and hold it responsible in the same way.


Eugène Fiset: This amendment
is proposed on account of the practice that has prevailed for the last few years, namely, that doctors renew by phone prescriptions on their local druggist when needed. As far as hospitals are concerned, I think in every large hospital there is always a qualified druggist.


Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: Not always.

Opium and Narcotic Drug Act


Arthur Edward Ross: My hon. friend
(Sir Eugene Fiset) cannot speak for Ontario.


Eugène Fiset: It is the practice to have a qualified druggist in the hospital.


Arthur Edward Ross: I think my hon.
friend is getting the minister in wrong.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: If a doctor was suspected of making an improper use of narcotic drugs, the law as I understand it, is such that that doctor could foe obliged to show what he had done with the drugs so purchased. This is a perfectly proper restriction. It seems to me that you cannot make the restrictions on the handling of narcotics too severe. I may be wrong in my understanding of it, but I think that the superintendent of a hospital, no matter how that superintendent requires the narcotics, whether on the order of the physician or any other way, should be obliged on occasion, or if required, to show exactly what has been done with the narcotic drugs supplied to that hospital. I do not understand that that is the law at present, but I do say that if it is not the law, the same restrictions that apply to the doctor in obliging him to tell what he has done with every ounce of narcotic drugs he has obtained ought to apply to the superintendent of a hospital. The penalties imposed upon those infamous characters-the most infamous that it is possible to find in any country-who peddle narcotic drugs round for the sake of gain, struck me as being too light. In the case of a person who is not a physician, who has acquired a drug in some underhand method and sells it to whoever will buy, I would, if I had the matter in my hands, sentence the offender to eight or ten years and a fine which would take from him every cent he had in the world. If after serving the first sentence he was found guilty a second time, I think he ought to be sentenced to hang by the neck until he is dead, because he is just as much a murderer as a man who stabs or shoots another. He is worse, because he is murdering by slow degrees; he is entitled to no consideration. When I read about how these infamous creatures have been handled by the courts, I say they have been dealt with altogether too leniently. The point is not so much as to how the superintendent of the hospital obtains the drug. You provide for that; it must be done through a doctor's prescription or order. But the main point is that the superintendent of a hospital should be placed under the same restrictions
as a doctor, so that you could call on him at any time to show just what had been done with every ounce of narcotic drugs in his possession.


Mr. HOWDEN:: For many years it was possible for a doctor to go to a drug store and obtain morphine without giving a written order. Morphine was sometimes distributed rather freely. I understand the chief object of the bill is to make it impossible for even a medical man to obtain morphine without giving a written order. With regard to hospitals not having medical superintendents,
I might say that so far as I am acquainted with hospitals-and I have some knowledge- even if the superintendent of a hospital is not actually a medical man there is always a nominal medical head for every hospital.


Arthur Edward Ross: Who would that
nominal medical head be?


John Power Howden: I know a hospital of 250 beds in the city of Winnipeg which has no resident medical superintendent, but a recognized medical man practising in that city is its ostensible medical superintendent.


Mr. HAMILTON:: After that medical man has given a certificate for drags for the hospital, what guarantee has he that they will be used properly in that institution?


John Power Howden: What guarantee has anybody that a drag is going to be used properly in any case? All hospitals and all medical men in Manitoba are put on an allowance of morphine.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: Under what act?


John Power Howden: I am not able to say, but I know it is so. If they want to use more than they are allowed they are without morphine. The same thing precisely holds good for the hospitals. The superintendent or the matron of a hospital now is accountable to the narcotic department in precisely the same way as if the drug were obtained through a medical man. I do not think there is any trouble about this amendment at all. It seems to me it is to control medical men and no one else. It is a very good move and one that is necessary.


Charles Murphy: The hon. member for St. Boniface has missed some of the point. My object in raising this discussion this afternoon was not to make the provisions of the act wider, but rather to tighten them up. Under the act .as it now stands a retail druggist must give a written order to the wholesaler or manufacturer for a narcotic drug. He

Opium and Narcotic Drug Act
must keep a record of the quantity of the drug when it comes into his drug store and a record of sales, and the department have a complete check of the narcotics which he has in stock and his purchases. He must make a report to the department and the police come in and inspect his books. Under the act as it now stands the minister says that a hospital can purchase a drug by means of an order from a physician. After the physician gives that order nobody is responsible for the drug. The physician is not responsible because he is not in the hospital all the time and other physicians are there prescribing. The hospital is not required to keep any record of its purchases and the quantities nor to keep any record of the quantities dispensed. Thus under the act there is a large loophole through which narcotie drugs can be used illegally. That is the point which 1 have brought up and which I wish to emphasize.
If the superintendent of a hospital has to give a written order for a narcotic drug and keep a record of the quantities purchased and the quantities dispensed, you have a complete check-up just as you have in regard to a retail druggist. At the present time you have no check at all. As regards the statement that 'a physician is nominally the head of a hospital, that may apply to a hospital of 250 beds in Winnipeg, but it certainly does nolt apply to hospitals of ten beds at country points. Somebody should be responsible for those drugs, but under the act as it stands and as it is proposed to be amended no one is responsible.


John Power Howden: Does the hon. member
say that in a small hospital there is not one particular medical man who has charge of the building?


Charles Murphy: In many of the smaller
hospitals the medical men are all on an equal footing. The matron or the superintendent is the person now responsible, not any practising physician.


William Findlay Maclean: Has the minister any reason not so far disclosed for taking the position he has?


John Campbell Elliott: I would be glad to give any information I could. The discussion has disclosed, so far as I am able to sense it, that everybody who has spoken is in favour of having the doctor who goes to' a retail druggist for a narcotic drug give an order in writing. That is all that this amendment provides. If it is necessary to have some further legislation with regard to hospital superintendents or matrons that is a matter for

consideration. It is not being dealt with or intended to be dealt with at the present time. The present amendment is simply to.provide that the physician who hitherto has been able to go to a retail druggist and get a narcotic drug without a written order must now give an order in writing for it.


Hugh Guthrie: The minister must see
that it is the sense of the committee that some provision must be made in respect of hospitals. Surely the easiest way to settle this matter would be to have a short clause inserted in the bill in regard to narcotic drugs in hospitals.
M!r. ELLIOTT:	Section 6 provides that
the hospital superintendent or matron who requires a drug can get it for the hospital on a doctor's order.


Hugh Guthrie: The point objected to is that the doctor does not or should not assume responsibility for the disposal of that drug over which he has no control. I think the opinion of this committee is that some restriction should be placed upon the use of narcotics by hospitals and that there should be some precise method by which the hospitals can obtain the supply.


Charles James Hamilton: Why could the minister not insert in the bill a provision whereby a superintendent of a regularly qualified hospital should be permitted to give an order, and that a record of that prescription be kept in the hospital to be inspected by the government inspector as is done in the case of druggists? Hon. members would imagine from the discussion that heretofore you could get drugs without a prescription. That is not the case. A doctor cannot get it for himself without giving a prescription and having it registered in the book before he leaves the drug store. I know that personally. You cannot prescribe a little cocaine for an eye-drop without giving a prescription and signing your name and the date, and that has to be registered. You cannot get paregoric that mothers used to give to their children many years ago to stop their stomachache without giving a prescription. When children eat too many pies and cakes at Christmas time; in fact, every time people get into trouble the first man they run to is the doctor and he has to carry the load in all cases. An amendment should be inserted so that the superintendent of a proper hospital should have authority to get a reasonable quantity of drugs and have them recorded and the books inspected the same as is done in the case of a druggist.

Opium and Narcotic Drug Act


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My objection to this bill is not that it purports to amend the act as the minister suggests. Everyone is quite in favour of the amendment that he proposes.


John Campbell Elliott: Let us pass it, then.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The drafting of section 5 is
so carelessly done that we are bound to see whether the proposed amendment is sensible and adequate. Under section 3 of chapter 22 of the statutes of 1923 it is provided that the minister may issue licenses, making regulations and prescribing fees, in connection therewith, for the exportation and importation of drugs. There is another license for a manufacturer or dealer other than a retail druggist, and still another license for the retail druggist iwho manufactures any drug. And so on. Every one of different classes dealing with the importation and exportation, the manufacture, wholesale and retail, of drugs, must have a special license from the minister. Then section 5 begins:
Every (person licensed under this act to deal in any drug,-
And only a person licensed under the act can deal lawfully in any drug.
-who gives, sells or furnishes any drug to any person, other than a duly authorized and practising physician, veterinary surgeon or dentist, or to a bona fide wholesale druggist, or to a druggist carrying on a business in a bona fide drug store-
Let us leave out for the moment the intervening words.
-shall be guilty of a criminal offence, and shall be liable upon summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars.
And so forth. Dealing with the first provision, I hold that it is impossible under the law for a druggist, wholesale or retail, to sell to a hospital even on the prescription or on the order of a physician. Under that part of the section dealing with the sale, drugs may be sold only to a practising physician, or to a veterinary surgeon, or to a dentist, or to a bona fide wholesale druggist, or to a druggist carrying on a busines in a bona fide drug store. Under that provision you cannot camouflage as a sale an order given by some consulting or superintending physician at a hospital for a large quantity of drugs, for the reason that the sale must be made, if it is made at all, to some one of the persons specified, namely, a physician, a veterinary surgeon, a dentist, a bona fide wholesale druggist, or a druggist carrying on a business. Then, to show the folly of this wording, it goes on to say:
Or who gives, sells or furnishes any drug ito any such physician, veterinary surgeon, dentist or druggist without a written order therefor, signed and dated;
This part of the section does not say that this written order must be signed by such physician, or signed by such veterinary surgeon, or signed by such dentist, or signed by such druggist. You never could convict any person under that brovi8'on- Anyone could give an order and if it were acted upon there would be no offence even though the person giving it were not a physician or one of the other persons mentioned.


John Campbell Elliott: Is my hon. friend reading from the second part of section 5?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am reading from the first part of the section.


John Campbell Elliott: The hon. member has got
down as far as the words:
And any druggist who gives, sells or furnishes any drug to any penson, except upon a written order or prescription signed and dated by a duty authorized and practising physician, veterinary surgeon or dentist.
Surely it is clear from that who shall sign the prescription.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There are two parts in this section. The "and" in line 14 ought properly to be an "or", because the penalty which is imposed from lines 25 to 30 applies to the acts prohibited from lines 6 to 12. There is no doubt about that. I am dealing for the moment with the language contained between lines 6 and 12 of the bill. Therein it is provided that every person licensed under this bill-that is to say, every class of persons who can possibly deal with these drugs-
-who gives, sells or furnishes any drug to any person, other than a duly authorized and practising physician, veterinary surgeon or dentist, or to a bona fide wholesale druggist, or to a druggist carrying on a business in a bona fide drug store.
That is one provision to which the penalty applies. The next is that every person licensed under this act:
Who gives, sells or furnishes any drug to any such physician, veterinary surgeon, dentist or druggist, without a written order therefor signed and dated.
And there that part of the section ends. That written order under the provision of the clause from line 11 to line 14 may be given to a wholesale dealer or to an importer, or it may be given to a retail dealer or to a druggist, and it may be signed by any person in the world. There is no restriction whatever. I am not surprised, therefore, that as the act now stands any person can go and give an order to the wholesaler or to the manufacturer, and for that reason I suppose the superintendent of a hospital can now go and give the order to the wholesaler or the manufacturer. From line 14 down to line 24 it is provided that:
Any druggist who gives, sells or furnishes any drug to any person, except upon a written order or prescription signed and dated by a duly authorized and practising physician-
Opium and Narcotic Drug Act

And so forth. That refers only to a written order given to a retail druggist, while with respect to the orders above mentioned given by the manufacturer or the wholesale dealer the signature may be anybody's at all. Anyone in the wide world may sign those orders. The clause as at present draiwn is both doubtful and inconclusive. Some second or third rate clerk who drafted that section in 1923 had it amended again in 1925, and the wording is a disgrace to a third class clerk in any law office in this country. The minister is not responsible for that. But when he comes to the House with this amendment, I think he should take our suggestion and have it drafted clearly so there can 'be no doubt about it. His amendment, so far as he makes it by leaving out certain words, is properly applied and is within the approval I think of the whole committee; but when we come to read it we find these other objections which certainly demand the minister's attention.


Thomas Cantley: I think, it is abundantly evident that the amendment as drafted should be withdrawn. As has been pointed out by my hon. friend who has just sat down (Mr. Cahan) anybody can sign the order. have signed-it a dozen times. Here is what is done in local hospitals. I have been on the board of a local' hospital for thirty years. We have there 75 or 100 patients; we have a resident superintendent; we have a medical board; we have a board of management. Every month the superintendent presents a list of supplies that ought to be bought for the ensuing month and in some cases for two or three months. This list includes drugs of all kinds. The list is submitted to the board and passed on, and as president, which I have been for twenty years, I sign that order and it goes out to a wholesale drug firm in Montreal, Toronto or some other city. There is nothing to prevent me doing it. Is there any other way of doing it? If the local doctor signed the order, would it make it any better? Does the wholesale drug house in Montreal, Toronto or any other city know any more about that medical man than it does about me, John Smith, Tom Jones or anybody else? The fact of the jnat-ler is :t does not. I have very little use for legislation of this kind. This bill, -as I read it, is simply an inducement to the drug bootlegger and peddler. AH the restrictions and all the penalties imaginable will not stop this traffic. The moment we began to tinker with prohibition we opened the door to other things that are infinitely worse. As I said before, I have little sympathy with legislation of this 
kind, and I think the minister ought to redraft the amendment in a way that would make it at least less harmful than it is in its present form.


John Warwick King: Mr. Chairman, I understand that generally speaking hon. members are in favour of the amendment that physicians or others who are entitled to prescribe narcotics should give a written order. We know that in hospitals the attending physician writes his prescription, just as 'he does in the home, for the narcotic or other drug required, and I think that the interjection of the hospital situation is absolutely foreign to the amendment. In my opinion the amendment is quite proper. If a narcotic drug is required there should be a written order signed by the physician or those entitled to prescribe, and I think that is the generally accepted practice. That is as far as the amendment goes. Following that through, in hospital practice a written order will be furnished.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: What the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) has said is not quite correct. The Minister of Health asks us to pass an amendment on these lines.
Section 5 of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Aict 1923, as amended by chapter twenty of the statutes of 1925 is repealed, and the following is substituted therefor:-
We are asked not merely to make the few amendments in this bill, but we are also asked to substitute the section in this wording. It is immaterial that it is practically the old section. He is asking us to pass the old section again. He is not only introducing an amendment; he is asking this House to pass a new section-to re-enact the section, if you like to call it so, which is villainously drafted, and which it has been shown to the House may mean anything or nothing. It certainly does not mean what the minister intends it to mean. Therefore I take exception to the statement of the Minister of Public Works that the criticism has not been relevant. It has been relevant because it is criticism directed to the new section as the minister wishes us to pass it.


John Campbell Elliott: Does not the hon. gentleman see that the amendment is exactly the same as the old section, except that where a physician, veterinary surgeon or dentist is obtaining a drug from a retail druggist he must give the order in writing? AH' that is done is to strike out from the old section these words:
And any druggist who gives, sells or furnishes any drug-
I will read the old section.

Opium and Narcotic Drug Act


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I understand my friend's
point.


John Campbell Elliott: It continues:
-to any person other than any such physician, veterinary surgeon, dentist or druggist, except upon a written order or prescription.
All we do is strike out the words:
Other than any such physician, veterinary sungeom, dentist of druggist.
That is, they must give a writen order.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I invite the minister to deny what I state, that he is asking this House to re-enact by way of amendment a section which we have discovered to be without form, and void. Here is the way the bill reads:
Section 5 of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act 1923 as amended by chapter twenty of the statutes of 1925, is repealed, anJd the following is substituted therefor
He asks us to re-enact this section after discovering all its absurdities. No matter how the minister argues, that is what he is asking us to do. When I asked the minister as to hospitals, he assured me very strenuously and very dogmatically that the first few lines:
Every person licensed under this act to deal in any drug,-
referred only to wholesalers.


John Campbell Elliott: I beg my hon. friend's
pardon. Persons who are licensed.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: He said it referred to wholesalers, not to retailers. Now it is perfectly plain from the language that legally it includes not merely the wholesaler 'but the retailer, because the retailer has to be lecensed under the act too.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend will see
that the first part of the act refers to those who have to be licensed, and then where it speaks of "any druggist" it refers to the retail druggist.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The hon. minister does not
see the point. The section reads:
Every person licensed under this act to deal in any drug,-
The member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) has shown that those words are the legal and proper description of the retailer as of the wholesaler. The minister has no right to take words which are legally a quite proper and adequate description of a retailer and tell me that, because of something in his mind, they do not refer to a retailer at all, but only to a wholesaler. They refer to every person who has to get a license to deal in drugs under the act, whether he is a wholesaler or a retailer, and the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George showed that very plainly .
Mr. HOWiDEN:	The bone of contention
seems to be that hospitals should be obliged to procure a prescription from a medical man before they are able to obtain a supply of narcotic drugs. The hon. member for Pictou, (Mr. Cantley) speaking a few moments ago pointed out that it was possible for hospitals in his part of the world to get unlimited amounts of narcotic drugs with no prescription at all, just on the endorsation of the director of the hospital. It must appeal to the serious thinking members of this House that it is rather a disastrous state of affairs when hospitals or any other institutions can obtain large supplies of morphine on the order of a layman; surely it is time that sort of thing was checked. I believe there is a hardship in that hospitals always have to obtain a prescription from a medical man in order to procure a supply of morphine or cocaine or whatever it may be, but why not license the drug departments of hospitals, as retail druggists are licensed? Then their supply of narcotics would be checked up and they could obtain their supplies as a retail druggist obtains his.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: That is exactly what we ask.


Donald Sutherland: There has been a good deal of discussion on this matter and I am free to say that I cannot see eye to eye-with everything said from this side of the House. It is news to me that narcotics can be obtained anywhere without a written certificate from either a dentist, doctor or veterinary surgeon; I do not believe it has been possible in Ontario to do that. If that has been the case in Pictou, and drugs are obtainable in that way, the minister is well advised in bringing in this amendment to check that practice. With regard to the hospitals, I think that question does not enter so much into this discussion. There is a doctor connected in some way with every hospital; in the smaller hospitals a doctor is in attendance for a week or a month, whatever it may be, and he could take it as part of his duties as a matter of course. If the superintendent told him these drugs were needed he could give an order in the proper way, and if that has not been the case in the past I think it should be so now. I cannot see that there is anything in this amendment but what is Iquite in order and quite proper.


Charles Murphy: The hon. member who
just took his seat said he could see nothing wrong in the amendment. Possibly he is right, but I would like to point out that there is absolutely no check on the hospitals having
Opium and Narcotic Drug Act

a supply of drugs on hand. The retailer has to keep a cheek on all his narcotic drugs; would the hon. member tell me why the hospitals should not keep a record of the drugs they have on hand? There is no provision in the act covering that, which is one of the reasons why I considered that there should be a proper way for a hospital to secure drug supplies, and why there should be a proper record kept of those supplies while in the possession of the hospital.


Donald Sutherland: If
this amendment goes through a proper record will be kept of the supplies going into the hospital. Any nurse who has sufficient ability to become superintendent of a hospital should certainly be worthy of confidence, I should think. In a hospital drugs go out in little tablets by ones and twos; they cannot keep a book showing where each quarter grain of morphine goes. You must believe in the superintendent, and I never heard of a hospital where this point came up at all.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would like to put myself on record before the bill is read the third time; the minister, by passing it in its present form, must take responsibility because it is passed in a way which allows unlimited bootlegging in drugs without penalty. I am sorry he did not take the suggestion made from this side of the House and withdraw the bill for re-drafting.
Bill reported.


CANADA-WEST INDIES TRADE AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 15, an act respecting trade relations with British West Indies, Bermuda, British Guiana and British Honduras.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Before we go
into committee and before making any objections to the motion I take it that this will be the last order of business called to-night?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I understood the Minister
of Finance to agree that before the bill would be finally dealt with we were to have some further information. He was to give us a complete statement of the probable cost of the subsidies for the ships on this service, the capital cost necessary to build the ships to carry out the agreement if it is ratified, and the probable annual cost of maintaining them.


Hewitt Bostock: I might suggest that this information could be better given in committee.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee thereon. Mr. Duff in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Agreement approved.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think, Mr. Chairman, before the agreement is approved is an opportune time for the minister to give us the information which he promised when the resolution was before the House, as to what is the capita! cost of carrying out this agreement and what is the probable annual cost by way of subsidies and otherwise.


James Alexander Robb: That is quite a proper question. When the measure was before us a few weeks ago I told the House that we had advertised! for tenders and that the tenders were to be opened on a certain date. We received in answer to our invitations submissions from two parties. Neither of these tenders was accepted. We concluded that it was not in the public interest to accept them; they were too high. Since that time we have been advised that the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, which for some years has carried on a service to part of the islands, was- now prepared to carry on a monthly sendee without a subsidy, and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine are giving alternate services on dhtes that will not conflict with the sailings of the Royal Mail Company, so that the service generally agreed upon in 1920, while not actually coming up to the 1920 requirements, will be as good as we have had heretofore.
I have been approached by people who were largely interested in the trade between Canada and the West India islands wanting to know how soon this agreement would be brought into force. My hon. friend knows that this agreement comes into force by proclamation. The West India islands has passed the necessary legislation, and when Canada passes the legislation the Governor in Council will have a time within which to issue the proclamation if they so desire.
Bermuda adopted the necessary legislation on August 7, 1925; British Honduras, August 20, 1925; British -Guiana, (September 25, 1925; Trinidad, October 16, 1925; Jamaica, October 22, 1925; the Windward Islands, Grenada, St. Vincent, St. Lucia, February 20, 1926, approximately; the Leeward Islands, Antigua, Montserrat, St. Kitts, Nevis, March 3, 1926; Barbados, April 6, 1926. The Baha-

Canada-West Indies Agreement
mas is the only colony that has not yet ratified the treaty.
I said that I had been, approached to know how soon this agreement would come into force, and! I asked the gentleman why he desired that information. "Well," he said, "I would not like you to make it public just now, but we are in-
11 p.m. terested in the trade between Canada and certain 'West India islands, and we propose to put on a line of steamers between Canada and certain of the West India islands, the only condition being that we do not wish to be bound down by any subsidy."
We are also advised by a gentleman from Vancouver that he is putting on a line of steamers between the Canadian Pacific coast and the West India islands. My hon. friends will observe from this that we may possibly get a better service than we had at first anticipated, and at very much less cost. That i3 the position to-day. After parliament has approved of this agreement the government, I submit, will probably be able to provide the necessary service without very much additional cost to the Canadian people. My hon. friend will recall that for some years past we were paying to the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company $340,000 a year. The service required under this agreement is practically the same as was required under the 1920 agreement, but Canada has never lived1 up to those requirements. We have never been able to provide the service, for the reason that it cost more than we thought was justified. Now it would appear that under the new agreement letting down the bars and enabling trade to flow more freely between Canada and the West India islands, the West India islands reducing their tariff against Canadian products and Canada reducing her tariff against West India products, the trade will be such as to encourage shippers to put vessels on that service. That is the position as it is to-night.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am grateful, Mr. Chairman, to the hon. minister for the summary which he has given of our previous discussion, but the committee should have information as to the cost of carrying out article IX of part II of the agreement. I suggest to the hon. minister that the fact that the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company has announced that it intends to carry on a service without any subsidy whatever from this government, but a service which does not comply with the terms of this contract, renders it still more difficult for the government to obtain a service in competition with 14011-263
the Royal Mail which' will comply with the terms of this contract. It means more competition. It means that the company which supplies the service to carry out this contract with the British West Indies will have greater competition than any West India service ever had before and will require a heavier subsidy in order to comply with the terms contained in article IX of part II of this agreement.
Again, the minister says that other parties are speaking of putting on an additional freight service. It is quite possible that they may. One service may have two or three competing steamship lines, but the fact that these competing lines are now being inaugurated by independent companies, instead of enabling the government to perform its contract with the British West Indies, places a heavier burden still upon the minister, as it means a still greater subsidy from the federal treasury in any event, in order that the government may procure suitable steamship service to carry out the terms of this agreement.
Further, I think the minister will admit that none of these other independent lines to which he refers will give the service of the quality called for in this agreement. When in another bill reductions were made in the tariff to correspond to a reduction made in every item under this agreement with the British West Indies, I thought the minister was granting them as a solatium to the West Indies without having any real intention of carrying out the other part of the bargain with regard to the steamship service. It was a most extraordinary proceeding. I think I am right in saying that every single reduction in the proposed tariff under this agreement in favour of the West Indies has already been made in the bill which has passed this House dealing with tariff reductions. By section 3 of Bill No. 15 these reductions are only to come into force when this agreement is ratified. Section 3 reads:
After the said agreement is brought into force, and so long as it remains in force, goods mentioned in the said agreement, the produce or manufacture of any of the colonies parties to the said agreement, which are conveyed without transhipment, except transhipment at a port of any of the said colonies, by ship direct into a sea or river port of Canada shall be admitted to Canada at the rates of duties provided in the said agreement.
I do not know whether the tariff bill has already passed the Senate and been approved By His Excellency the Governor General, but when it is so approved there will be no further need for section 3, because every reduction contemplated by this agreement has already been made by special enactment. Bear-



Canada-West Indies Agreement
ing that in mind, and proceeding to article IX of the contract, I find the following:
Subject to the ratification of the present agreement as hereinafter stated in Article XII, the government of Canada will arrange for a mail, passenger and freight steamship or motor ship service to come into effect as soon as possible, and in any case within fifteen months after the date of the ratification of this agreement, between Canada, Bermuda, the Leeward islands, the Windward islands, Barbados, Trinidad and British Guiana, on the following lines:
1.	A fortnightly freight, passenger and mail service from Canadian ocean ports all the year round, calling eacii way at Bermuda, St. Kitts, Nevis, Antigua, Montserrat, Dominica, St. Lucia, Barbados, St. Vincent, Grenada, Tobago, Trinidad and Demerara.
2.	The vessels shall be of from 5,000 to 6,000 tons gross, capable of maintaniing an ocean speed of not less than 12 knots, and providing accommodation for 100 first-class, 30 second-class, and 100 steerage or deck passengers, and shall be provided with 'tween decks, and cold storage accommodation as required, but not less than 10,000 cubic feet.
Now dealing with that question of that competitive route, I ask the minister to tell us frankly whether there is any probability of any of these independent companies to which we have alluded, giving a service which will be adequate to the demands of these sections of the contract with the West Indies? I think not. In view of the additional competition which we now know there will be on that route, it will require a still larger subsidy from the treasury of the country in order to secure a new competing line under government direction to meet the demands of clauses 1 and 2 of article IX. Clause 3 of that article reads:
In addition to the foregoing the government of Canada will provide a fortnightly freight service with vessels of 4,300 tons or thereabouts dead weight, and a speed of about 10 knots, from Canadian river ports in summer and from Canadian ocean ports in winter calling at St. Kitts, Antigua, Barbados, Trinidad and Demerara.
It is possible that that particular freight service may be obtained in some way. I am so ignorant of it that I cannot speak decidedly, but I do not think there are in the government merchant marine at the present time boats that would adequately supply the freight service called for by clause 3. By making arrangements with some other freight line however, that service may be provided. But what is it going to cost? What is the estimate of the government as to the subsidy necessary to provide the service? If new steamships have to be built, as they may have to be, what will be the capital cost of their construction? The minister should not expect us to go it blind. We are all willing to make concessions to the British West Indies, but we should know what the cost of these concessions will be. We have already made, and parliament has voted, con-
[Mr. Cahan.l
cessions in the past, but we should have some estimate of the probable cost of these services.
Then there are some provisions in article X with regard to the reservation of freight space and passenger accommodation. Then article XIII has to do with another service which is likely to prove the more costly of the two. Article XIII reads:
The government of Canada undertakes to provide as soon as possible, and in any case within fifteen months after the ratification of this agreement as provided in article XVI, a fortnightly mail, passenger and freight service between St. Lawrence ports in summer and such Canadian ocean ports in winter as may be designated by the Canadian government, and calling both ways at Bermuda, the Bahamas, and Kingston, Jamaica, alternating with a fortnightly freight service between the said Canadian ports and Kingston, Jamaica, direct.
1.	Passenger steamers to be similar in size to those proposed for the eastern route, that is to say, from
5.000	to 6,000 gross tons, ocean speed 14 knots, accommodation for 100 first-class passengers, with 'tween decks, and refrigeration for about 70,000 stems of bananas, and also cold storage for Canadian meats, fish, butter, cheese and other dairy products from Canada to the colonies and for fruit, green vegetables, etc., from the colonies to Canada.
2.	Each of the freight steamers shall also have a speed of about 10 knots and refrigeration for about
50.000	stems of bananas.
3.	A steamer operating on a fortnightly schedule connecting with the steamers specified in Article XIII-1 shall be supplied by the government of Canada between British Honduras and Kingston, Jamaica, of about 1,000 tons, speed 10 knots, with accommodation for at least 20 first-class passengers, and cold storage.
I do not think the minister can suggest that any steamship company in Christendom proposes to perform this service under article XIII without a very large subsidy. In fact I would suggest to the minister that no subsidy parliament would offer would be sufficient to procure that service at the present time, and, the contract if ratified may necessitate the construction of steamers at the government's expense for the purpose of carrying it out.
With regard to the subsidiary service between Kingston, Jamaica, and British Honduras, it is only a ship of 1,000 tons with a speed of ten knots and accommodation for twenty first-class passengers, but I do not think any sane man would suggest that that sendee could be supplied without a subsidy, I know something of conditions in that country and I do not believe any sane steamship man is going to tender for that service, even though it is only a small service of 1,000 tons, without a considerable subsidy. Therefore we are in this position: we are asked to pass a bill ratifying an agreement, and under clause 6 of the bill the Governor in Council may make such orders and regulations as are deemed necessary to carry out the provisions

Canada-West Indies Agreement
and intent of the agreement. Am I right in inferring that clause 6 empowers the Governor in Council, without any further enactment by parliament, to subsidize these steamships or, if a subsidy will not procure the service, to build ships at an expense of, say $5,000,000, a reasonable amount for one service, or $10,000,000 for two services? Does that mean that the Governor in Council is now taking authority to make all the financial arrangements for carrying out the provisions of this legislation and the said agreement? The legislation is broad enough, and I suggest that it should not be passed by the committee until we have some clear idea of the capital cost and also of the annual expenditure. I would ask the minister, having had the information which is available to him: what is the capital cost of constructing ships with an adequate capacity and giving a quality of service such as is demanded under this agreement for the two main services and the subsidiary service to British Honduras?


James Alexander Robb: As I have already intimated,
the promised increased trade is such that we hope the subsidy required will be much less than we at first anticipated. I do not want to repeat, because I imagine my hon. friend was following me, I have already told him that the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company are carrying on a monthly service without any subsidy; that another company are prepared to put on a line of steamers plying direct to Canada.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Which service is that?


James Alexander Robb: That will be on the western
service. A line of steamers is already plying between the British West Indies and the Pacific coast of Canada. We think the better way is to ratify the agreement in the hope that the promised increase trade will encourage shippers to go on that route with very little subsidy. I admit at once that it may be necessary, in order to meet the wishes of the different smaller islands, to subsidize a certain service to connect with some of these trunk lines for trans-shipment in the islands, but we are not going to ask parliament at this session to vote any more money than we have been voting for a number of years. Under this agreement, if it goes through, as regards subsidy and the promised steamship service Canada will be in no worse position than we were in under the arrangement of 1920. We shall be in this much better position, that owing to the reduction of Canadian tariffs and the tariffs of the West Indies, there will be a larger flow of trade to and from the West India islands.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The minister has not been
entirely frank with me. He has not met the clear objection that those services which are entirely independent of the government, which refuse any subsidy from the government, which refuse to come under the control or direction of the government, will be directly competing with the service which he is engaging to subsidize.


James Alexander Robb: If we get the transportation
between Canada and the West India islands without subsidy, does the hon. member imagine that the West India islands, who are a party to this agreement and who under it will be compelled to pay for certain services, will subsidize another line? All they want is transportation to get the business.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But the minister knows that neither of the services projected are of the character, class and quality demanded by this agreement. He knows full well that this agreement will not be complied with by any of the services projected by any of these independent parties. He knows that this very competition necessitates a larger subsidy from the federal treasury in order to induce another competing line under the direction of and subsidized by the government to supply a service of the character, class and quality demanded by this agreement. The governments of the West India islands are not to be put off simply because some independent company comes in and supplies a second or third-rate service which does not comply with the terms of the agreement and does not fulfil the obligations that the government and parliament of Canada are undertaking in this legislation.
We are already making reductions in the tariff in favour of the West Indies, but the minister is very optimistic when he assumes that the increase of trade under those reductions is going to be so enormous as to supply two or three competing services. I know we had the figures in regard to the trade supplied by the minister, but anyone who knows the British West India islands knows that there is only so much trade and that even under these reductions that trade is not going to increase very largely in volume. I would ask the minister again: Will he give us some estimate of the cost to the government of building the ships necessary to carry out these two main services and the subsidiary one to British Honduras in case it becomes necessary for the government to build ships and to put them into those services? It is utterly useless to say that we are no worse off than under the 1920 agree-

Canada-West Indies Agreement
ment. The minister knows that we could not carry out that agreement; he knows that both the former government and his own found it impossible to do so. It was impossible to supply ships of the quality, character and class demanded by that agreement. Why therefore put our necks in the noose again before we find out whether we are now in a position to live up to the agreement, and what the capital cost will be if we build ships of our own-ships which in any ease will undoubtedly run at a heavy loss-or in the event of our having to subsidize other steamship companies to assume the service. We ought to have clear information on these points.


Murray MacLaren: An important part of
the West India agreement is the provision that there shall be a steamship service of certain specifications. The ships shall be of a stated size and speed, with a specified amount of cold storage facilities. That is an important condition in the treaty. I understand from the minister that it is proposed to supply the service in part through the old steamship company which previously operated.


James Alexander Robb: Not necessarily. I said they
were carrying on the service now.


Murray MacLaren: That part of the service will be performed by the old line, and in addition to that the Canadian merchant marine will operate between this country and the West Indies. Now it has always been considered of high importance that the steamship sendee shall consist of larger and speedier boats, properly equipped with cold storage. Is that true of the Canadian merchant marine? 1 understand that these boats are not up to the requirements in speed, size or accommodation. If this service is to be performed in part by the Canadian merchant marine will these boats meet the requirements called fo*-in the treaty? The minister might inform us on that point.
This question occurs to me: Will the West Indies be satisfied with the service which the minister has suggested to be carried out by the Canadian merchant marine? The committee would like to hear what the minister has to say in this regard. But whether the West Indies are satisfied or not, I am afraid that we shall not get the improved service which we counted upon and which is essential if we are to develop a proper trade. I have been looking through the bill, but I have not been able to find the section in reference to the option of calling at United States ports. I understand there is a section making it optional for ships to call at United States ports either coming or going. While this may

not affect the general principle of a preference being given to freight coming to Canada, it is nevertheless very Objectionable, in that it interferes with the policy, which is supposed to have been kept in view, of furthering the development of trade through Canadian ports. There is a possibility that in view of this option, United States ports may be made use of. I know that representations have been made to the minister from different boards of trade protesting against this clause, and we shall be glad to hear what he has to say, if he still adheres to the provision making the use of American ports permissive.


James Alexander Robb: When we invited tenders we
put in this provision:
In addition to the calls specified above, tenders may be submitted for either or both services or any part thereof including calls at one port in the United States in either or both directions.
That was inserted with the idea that possibly we might secure a somewhat lower bid, while steamers would be able to stop at one of the United States ports and pick up passengers. The tenders received were not accepted by the government, and there is no provision in this bill for calls at United States ports.


Murray MacLaren: The tenders are based
on this bill.	.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, but in the bill itself there is no reference to United States ports. My hon. friend (Mr. Cahan) has stressed the importance of submitting to parliament an estimate of what the service is going to cost. The tenders to which I have referred were called for in order that the government might know approximately what the service would cost, and I think hon. gentlemen will agree with me that it is not in the public interest to advertise what those tenders were which the government deemed too high. We shall have fifteen months in which to determine what service can be provided and whether or not it will be mutually satisfactory to Canada and the West Indies. If any vote is needed for the subsidy we shall be obliged to come to parliament, and parliament will have the power either to reject or to accept any such vote. My hon. friend (Mr. MacLaren) points out that boards of trade have protested against any calling at United States ports. As I have already indicated, we are not pressing that provision. It was included in the tenders only for the sake of obtaining information. Certain boards of trade protested against some aspects of the agreement, but there are other boards of trade that have strongly urged us to put the matter through. Before I sit down let me quote a couple of

Canada-West Indies Agreement
communications under my hand. The first is from the Toronto Board of Trade and is dated March 20, 1926:
At a meeting of the executive of this board held yesterday the new trade agreement between Canada and the West Indies was discussed. It was the unanimous opinion of the committee that it was of the utmost importance that as all of the islands interested had approved of the agreement, it should be ratified by the parliament of Canada with the least possible delay. It was particularly gratifying to learn from the press last evening that you had brought the matter forward in the House yesterday, and that the recommendation of the government, through the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, that the parliamen ratify the agreement, was so favourably received by both sides of the House. This action is most commendable and we sincerely trust that no time will be lost in completing whatever further procedure is necessary to ratify the agreement and advise the various West India islands accordingly, so they may be assured of the sincere desire of the Dominion of Canada to co-operate with them in getting the best possible results in our mutual interests from the operation of the agreement.
The communication is signed by Mr. Wilson, the president. I have also a letter from the Montreal Board of Trade directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce on June 16, 1925:
Steamship communication. Satisfactory and successful steamship services are dependent on favourable tariff arrangements and resultant increased business; our recommendations therefore in regard to the steamship communication should be consideraed accordingly.
Now we have by reduction of our tariff encouraged more business with the West Indies, and the West Indies have encouraged more business from Canada. That is why today the steamship companies are coming to the government and saying, We are prepared to put on this service as soon as the agreement is ratified. I think the government might well be trusted to find out how far these steamship companies will go in providing a service to the extent that will meet with the approval of the different West India islands. I repeat, before going into the additional expenditure the government must come to parliament, and we have fifteen months to do it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is it not a fact that by
ratifying this agreement not. only are the government and parliament bound, but the honour of the country is irrevocably bound to carry out its terms.


James Alexander Robb: No more than we were bound in 1920.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not talking of the breach of faith in 1920, which was complained of so much and gave rise to a great deal of discussion. W'e do not want another breach of faith. If parliament is bound by this agreement, it will not be bound any more
than when that breach was made; but now, knowing that the government of Canada declared it was impossible to carry out the terms of that agreement, knowing that that is what caused the breach of faith on the part of the Canadian government and the Canadian people, we should know exactly what we are doing now. We are pledging the honour of parliament to carry out the terms of this agreement to the full. The government cannot complain that they entered into the agreement with lack of knowledge; they have had ample opportunity and had their eyes opened by the previous breach of faith on the part of this country-a breach of faith for which I am not blaming the hon. gentleman. Therefore we should consider tha/t fact now when we are pledging ourselves to carry out this agreement. What good is it to say that within twelve months, that is, within another session, the government will come down to the House, and parliament may then be called upon to vote the necessary supplies to carry out the agreement, say $10,000,000 on capital account and $1,000,000 or $2,000,000 to provide for the annual deficit? Parliament next session is in honour bound to ratify whatever sum the hon. gentleman may ask for to carry out the agreement, because to-day we have pledged our faith to carry it out to the full. The hon. gentleman says, But let us wait for a year or fifteen months; we have not to put on the new steamers before that time. Well and good. Will he suggest that the Royal Mail Company or the other independent steamship company have announced that without any subsidy from the government they are entering upon the freight and passenger business for one service oi the two and a half services-because it is a sort of two main services and one subsidiary? He knows that neither the Royal Mail nor the other company to which he referred has the slightest intention of placing in the service steamships of the character, class and quality required under this agreement, and he knows just as well as he sits in his seat to-night that the British West Indies, after having been fooled once and having received formal encouragement as to the class and character of this service, will not be satisfied with the inferior service which these independent companies propose.
The hon. gentleman says he has received two tenders both of which he has rejected. Did he receive tenders for the two main services and for the subsidiary service? I do not know; he knows, but he has never told us. The general impression of the public is that no tenders were received whatever for one of the main services, or if it was re-

Canada-West Indies Agreement
ceived that the cost was so appalling there was no prospect of the government accepting it. Now the hon. gentleman can tell us at once if he received any tenders for the two main services. Did he receive a tender for the subsidiary service from Jamaica to Honduras? If so, now that those tenders have been rejected, why should we not know in round figures what was the aggregate of the tenders received? That will give parliament some idea of the financial obligations which we are undertaking and of the amount we will be called upon to vote at the next session of parliament in order to implement this statutory pledge and demonstrate the good faith of Canada towards the British West India governments.


Mr. MALCOLM:: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to answer for the minister as to the cost of the service, but it seems to me that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George is simply putting up a bogey man to be knocked down. As a member of the committee which negotiated with the representatives of the West Indies, I found no feeling of such a terrible breach of faith as he speaks of on the part of the Canadian government in not supplying the full service under the 1920 agreement. Hon. gentlemen who came from the West Indies deplored of course that the service was not quite what had been hoped for, but they did not charge the Canadian government at all with any breach of faith. They pointed out that by the negotiations of past governments trade had been increased. Our imports from the West Indies have grown from $9,000,000 in 1913 to $24 000,000 in 1921, and our exports have increased from $5,000 000 to $18,000,000 under the service that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George claims was so inadequate. They did point out to us that they wanted a somewhat better service. We all realized that it is difficult to obtain boats of a suitable class for that particular service. Only boats of eighteen-foot draft can be used on account of the bar that has to be crossed at Demarara, and such boats are not easy to secure. But I think the House should view the matter in a veiy broad sense. Practically every business man who has seen our trade increase with the West Indies between 1913 and 192(1, and realizes that the total trade of the West Indies with other countries is $90,000,000, feels that is will be easy to develop our trade to the $30,000,000 mark. It is easy to imagine 100 per cent increase. Supposing by a diversion of the trade bananas are brought in through Canadian ports, supposing we do (Mr. Cahan.]
double our trade with the West Indies, I think the minister is perfectly justified in asking parliament to trust him. He has knowledge which he has not revealed to me, and which I think it would be unfair to ask him to reveal to the House, and although I cannot speak authoritatively for him, I believe from what I know of the negotiations there is every reason to expect that the increased volume of business with the West Indies will decrease the cost of the subsidies.
The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George speaks of national honour. I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, there is going to be any loss of national honour whatsoever under this agreement. I believe it is going to be possible to provide the service required, for the reason that the trade will be there to justify it. We have been endeavouring for some years to divert Canadian money to the British West Indies as a winter resort. A good deal of Canadian money goes to Florida and California, but the West Indies contain delightful spots in which to spend the winter months, as we all know. If anything like a reasonably good passenger service is provided there is every reason to hope that there will be many more Canadians travel to the West Indies than go at present. Speaking calmly, as a member of the committee, I have every reason to assure the House that, from my knowledge of the negotiations, the members of the West India delegation hold no grievance against either the late government or this government because of the service of 1920. We did the best we could; the service was not what it should have been but, Mr. Chairman, I think every member of the House will admit that the trade did increase enormously even with the service we gave. With the advantages of trade which have been given by both sides it is surely reasonable to suppose the trade will increase, and that because of the increase the Minister of Finance will have no difficulty whatever in supplying the service provided for under this contract.


Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):: I wish
to say a few words in support of the position taken by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), whose remarks were referred to by the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm) as a bogey. If the hon. member will carefully read this agreement into which we are now asked to enter he can come to no other conclusion than that it is a most serious and vital question with which to deal. If he will read clause 9 referred to by the hon. member for St.

Canada-West Indies Agreement
Lawrence-St. George he will see why members of this House should take great care as to the way in which this treaty is accepted.
This treaty demands that we establish a fortnightly passenger and mail service from Canadian ocean ports all year, calling at certain ports in the West Indies. Then paragraph 2 says the vessels shall be of from 5,000 to 6,000 gross tons, capable of maintaining a speed of not less than twelve knots per hour and providing accommodation for one hundred first class, thirty second class, and one hundred steerage or deck passengers. Does the hon. member for North Bruce think that is an easy thing to agree to? Does he think this government would be wise to undertake to build such vessels?


James Malcolm: We do not have to
build them.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: This is the agreement.


James Malcolm: We have to provide
them.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: That is true, but if we enter into a definite agreement with the West Indies we must carry it out.


James Malcolm: We will carry it out.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: In addition to all that in paragraph 3 it says:
In addition to the foregoing the government of Canada will provide a fortnightly freight service with vessels of 4.300 tons or thereabouts dead weight, and a speed of about ten knots, from Canadian river ports in summer and from Canadian ocean ports m winter-
Calling at a number of places. Then article XIII goes on in the same way. There is apparently no end to the promises made by this government in this connection. If we are going to carry out these promises we must expect to spend an enormous sum of money, and the member for St. Lawrence-St. George has merely asked the Finance minister to give us a reasonable estimate of the amount of money which will be expended. If he does not care to do so surely it is a wise thing to ask him to place on record the amount of money asked by those who have tendered for this service? I certainly support the hon. member in his request.


James Malcolm: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question? If he were Minister of Finance and received some tenders would he like to give in advance to those tendering an idea of what he expected to pay?


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: The minister has asked for and received certain tenders. Is it unfair or unreasonable to ask that the members of this House as well as
the Minister of Finance should have access to those tenders?


James Malcolm: It is very unfair.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Should we not know the
amount, without knowing who the tenderers are?


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: We should know the amount, and we would then have some idea of the cost of this treaty.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There seems to be a fair
approach to unanimity of opinion as to the desirability of developing this trade. Speaking for myself I heartily approve of any reasonable effort to stimulate trade between Canada and the West Indies. This particular treaty is one of the things I have urged in the House for many years as a desirable step in our trade development. The minister will also recall that I often pleaded with him for the development of trade with other sections of the empire, and I hope he will find it possible to take those matters up now. There is, of course, some apprehension in the minds of some who have spoken with regard to the cost, and I have no hesitancy in saying that so far as it is reasonable the minister should, and I am sure will, be desirous of satisfying that anxiety or curiosity. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George has asked the minister to uncover the tenders he received, and I confess that I see some difficulty facing the minister in so doing. I think W'e should assist the minister as much as we can in this regard, and if the minister were to uncover these tenders here-which would mean to everyone-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will you allow me to interrupt? I did not ask that; I asked for a general statement of the aggregate cost, based upon these tenders.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think what my hon.
friend asks is not unreasonable, but I am now arguing rather from the minister's point of view. I can see a difficulty, and I think perhaps there is a way out. It would be unfair to ask the minister to uncover these tenders, because the ultimate result would be to prejudice his efforts to bargain for better terms from other sources, or even from the same sources. If it were possible to satisfy the demand of my hon. friend as to the round figures without uncovering these tenders, that

Canada-West Indies Agreement
I think might be conceded. I was sitting here thinking the matter over pretty carefully, not only to-day, but I have thought this agreement over pretty carefully for some months, and I was going to suggest to the minister that he might as the Minister of Finance and on his responsibility as a minister give to the House some general assurance in the matter. I realize that it is difficult for him to pledge himself definitely to any maximum figure. It is very hard to adk a government to tie its hands to any fixed amount; that may be difficult. On the other hand, I think the House is entitled to some assurance from the government to which parliament could hold the government afterwards. In other words, the government ought to take some responsibility, and the minister, I know from his past record and from my acquaintance with him, has never hesitated to take responsibility where he felt he could properly do so. I gather from his words that he might be able to give to the House an assurance that would meet fairly all the demands and still leave himself free to carry on negotiations with these various interests that he must approach and deal with in order to give full effect to the treaty.
I would like to say this, Mr. Chairman, for my own part. This treaty is of very, very great interest to the western section of Canada. To the eastern section we know that it is important. We have developed in the last six years a trade running from about $5,000,000 to $17,000,000, and in one year it ran to $22,000,000, which is quite an important factor. But there has been very little development of trade from the Pacific coast largely because during all the years of the war there was no traffic through the canal at all through lack of tonnage, and subsequent to the war, up to three or four years ago, the value of tonnage was so high as to make it unprofitable. But if I am not mistaken, from correspondence I have had recently, the minister is assured of some service from the Pacific coast. If we get that service I can say this from my knowledge of the trade, that it will open up an opportunity for a great expansion of trade from the western section of Canada 12 m. which I hope in time will parallel the development from the eastern section. All of this is of value, something that I think we ought to strive to secure.
So my general feeling towards the treaty is one of encouragement and support, and I would again suggest to the minister-I do not do it in any spirit of "riticism or obstruction-that perhaps he could give to us some measure of assurance as to the limitation-shall I say? 
-of the cost of these services. I think if we could receive that, there might be fair unanimity of opinion regarding the advisability of the passage of the agreement.


James Alexander Robb: That looks like a fair compromise.


Thomas Cantley: If I did not misunderstand the minister when this matter was up before, he made some objection then to giving to the House the figures as to the cost of the service until the tenders were opened, and until he had reached some decision in regard to the matter. I take it that he has reached a decision, and I do not quite see how his hands are going to be tied or he is going to be hurt very much if, having made up his mind that the tenders were too high and that he is not going to accept them, he should tell the House the figure that he will not accept. Giving the figure would only intimate to the people who are likely to tender for the service that the service cannot be entertained at that price.
In regard to another point, I understood the minister to say that he had fifteen months in which to negotiate and1 make up his mind. I do not so understand it. As I read the contract, the government have fifteen months after ratification in which to provide the steamship service. I assume that we will ratify the agreement now. But the boats have to be provided, and if we are going to keep faith with the West Indies, the boats must be in active service within fifteen months. The minister and everybody else in the House knows that you cannot take eight or ten boats of this character down off a shelf. It is going to take months, the large portion of a year, to build those ships. The ships are of a character not to be picked up. They are of shallow draft, of a certain size and a certain speed. Contracts have to be made with shipowners who are prepared to go into the market and contract for the ships, and then they must *have them built and in service within fifteen months to comply with the terms of the agreement.
I am rather surprised that the hon. member for North Bruce should inform the committee that there was no great feeling in the West Indies in regard to the character of the service we have had in the last few years. My information, and from what I have seen of the West Indies and of West India people up in the Maritime provinces, is quite the contrary. We ourselves, as a matter of fact, were ashamed of the service. That is the real fact, and any Canadian who has travelled on those boats should have been

Canada-West Indies Agreement
ashamed of the service. They were four old discarded boats that the Royal Mail Company was running down to South America
fifteen years ago. They were dirty. We shall never get any great volume of West India tourist traffic with boats of that character. Are we going to break faith with the people of the West Indies again?
I take it that it is not honourable on the part of this country to enter into a contract such as this, and with our tongue in our cheeks say:	We have fifteen months to decide, and then we will see whether we will put on this service or not. If we are going to ratify the treaty, let us do it in good faith; let us carry out our obligations. If we do not intend to face the cost, let us say so now; let us tell our cousins in the West Indies that we are not prepared to meet the cost. But for the Lord's sake do not now sign another contract with no intention of eanying it out. I was hopeful that we would have a large tourist trade from this country to the West Indies. The senior member for Halifax is not at all sanguine in regard to the outcome of the treaty. He ought to know better than I do. but I know this, that without first-class boats it is impossible, and to keep on the route boats of the character we have had is simply impossible, a disgrace to this country, and an insult to the people with whom we have made the contract.


James Alexander Robb: As I was proceeding to say in
answer to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, there might be a possibility of compromise if we were to make a commitment on behalf of the government that we would enter into no additional subsidy without the approval of parliament, that any contract we make will be subject to the approval of parliament. We will ask parliament this year for the usual vote of $340000, but we may vary the wording of the vote-I have not looked at it lately-so that we shall not be confined to one company.
Answering further my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre, I had a letter from a firm in Vancouver advising me that they were putting on this service, but unfortunately the letter has been mislaid and I have not got it here to-night, but as I recall the letter, the following statement which appeared in a western newspaper is correct:
Bright trade prospects in the Caribbean, resulting from the consummation of a treaty between Canada and the West Indies, have induced the Canadian Transport Co. Ltd., to establish a direct steamship service, between Vancouver and other Pacific coast ports to Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, and other ports in the islands, as inducement offers.
The service, to be known as the Vancouver-West Indies Line, was inaugurated on April 23 with the departure of the S.S. August from Vancouver, the next sailing to be in June, the company announces. Present plans call for a sailing every six weeks or as often as the volume of cargo offering demands.
Agents for this company at Port-of-Spain will be Messrs. Furness, Withy and Co. Ltd.
I repeat that we will not enter into any obligation or any commitment. It will be made subject to the approval of parliament. I agree with all my hon. friend from Pictou has said, and I know that the service was not satisfactory. That is why we did not accept the tender at one time to increase the cost of this service from these people. But it is fair to the Royal M-ail Steam Packet Company to say that they have carried on that service for some time at the request of the Dominion government. They were ready to quit. They were not satisfied with the service. But as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Bruce a moment ago, the increased trade has induced other companies to come along, and the government believe we will be able +o obtain service at a lower cost than previously estimated. But my hon. friend is wrong in one thing. I hope I did not say that we have fifteen months to decide; I said that we had fifteen months to provide the service. The hon. member from Vancouver Centre has taken proper ground: if we give the figures now it is an invitation to other tenderers to come up nearer to them. I think it is better in the interest of Canada that these figures should be left in the department. If necessary we will invite other tenders and consult our friends of the West India islands, who were a party to this agreement and who must provide a percentage of the subsidy. If the increased trade will encourage the shipping firms to put on, a service that will be satisfactory to Canada and the West India islands, why should we pay a large subsidy to others to compete with them?


Thomas Cantley: I certainly understood the minister to say

and I think he did say it, but I accept his explanation-that the House had fifteen months to decide. I understand he thinks differently now. The point so far as the Royal Mail is concerned is that the boats will not meet the expectations of our people or the people in the West Indies.


James Alexander Robb: We admit that.


Thomas Cantley: So that the talk about
those boats is to my mind out of the question. Now to provide a service of boats

Canada-West Indies Agreement
of the class asked for, 5,000 to 6,000 tons, with a speed of 12 to 14 knots, is going to run into a lot of money. It will have to be a special class of boat.


James Alexander Robb: How much will' the cost be?


Thomas Cantley: Eight or ten millions. I hope we will get them. I would like to see the service inaugurated, but it will not be inaugurated except at a much greater cost than the minister has in mind.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: A capital expenditure of ten million dollars at the least.


James Malcolm: The hon. member for Pictou misunderstood me. I did not say the people of the West Indies were not complaining about the West India service. I said the delegation which came here did not consider the lack of service as a breach of honour. They realized that the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company were doing the best they could. They were willing to keep on the service year by year at the request of the government, and they realized that something had to be done to justify a better service. But after negotiations were over they left with the feeling that the volume of trade between the West Indies and Canada, with the concessions offered to Canada by the West Indies and the concessions offered to the West Indies by Canada, would justify the establishment of a better service. I was pointing out that the stand taken by the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George, that we were being accused of a breach of faith, was hardly justified. It was admitted that while the boats were not good they were as good as could be expected for the volume of trade offered.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I did not say the commissioners who were here in their negotiations with the government openly stated that there had been a breach of faith with regard to the 1920 agreement. They were here to negotiate; they were met by commissioners who told them it was practically impossible for the government to carry out the 1920 agreement, and they accepted that statement. They then sat down and negotiated this arrangement, the assumption being-and I think the hon. member who has just spoken will admit it-that this was an agreement that would and could be carried out by the government in good faith, if approved by the Canadian paifisi-ment. I was referring to the West Indian people. I know the West Indies; I have been there time and again. I see their journals, and I know that throughout the West Indies, in the public press, the suggestion has been

made that there had been a breach of faith on the part of the Canadian government in respect to the 1920 agreement. I was not referring to the officials who were negotiating. Here we are ratifying the agreement, and its ratification, we undertake to provide, either by subsidy, by purchase or by construction, the ships required to perform this service. When we do that we are bound in honour to carry it out, because we have entered into it with our eyes open. It is not a proper reply to the House to say that the capital expenditure of $10,000,000 required to build those Ships or to purchase them will be provided for in a measure which may be accepted or rejected by the House. If the minister comes down next year with a provision for a capital expenditure of $10,000,000 for that purpose and tells us that that is the only practical way in which we can carry out the agreement, we cannot refuse him the money. We have already voted, or we are bound in honour to vote at a subsequent session of parliament, the entire amount required; if the minister says it is necessary to construct these ships at a cost of $10,000,000 we are bound to vote that amount. We may criticize him a bit, but, so far as parliament and the public and the government of the West Indies are concerned, we are bound to vote the money. We should not commit ourselves without having a reasonable idea as to what the cost is going to be.
With reference to making tariff concessions to the West Indies and receiving certain concessions in return therefor, this treaty agreement has general approval, but the whole country is looking to ascertain what the cost will be, the ancillary cost, the additional cost of providing this steamship service. The Minister of Finance read some resolutions passed by the Montreal Board of Trade last year. I think there have been some subsequent communications from the Montreal Board of Trade dealing with the matter, in which they said they are anxious to trade with the West Indies, that they were hoping for an increase of trade with them, but that they wanted to know what the capital and the annual cost of securing that trade was going to be. In the Maritime provinces we have a number of men who are not Liberals nor Conservatives, not confined to one party or the other, who are engaged in the West India trade. They understand that trade, and if you talk to any one of them he will tell you that this proposition should be accepted or rejected according to the cost of this steamship service which the government is bound to carry out. The whole issue before

Canada-West Indies Agreement
parliament and the country as to whether the treaty should be ratified or not depends upon the cost of carrying out the treaty after it is ratified. I fully realize, as every hon. member must, that once the treaty is ratified we are committed to the entire cost.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend seems to be
well posted in discussing costs. How does he arrive at this figure of $10,000,000 that he is repeatedly quoting?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have asked different competent men as to what the cost would be of providing a steamship service. In Montreal there are a dozen men who can look at the specification of the service and tell you within a few dollars at least the cost per tonnage of the ships to [DOT]'supply that service. If you ask any of them they will tell you that if you cannot get the ships by a reasonable subsidy, it will cost about $10,000,000 in capital expenditure.


Charles A. Stewart: That is to
build a completely new fleet?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: To build ships to carry
passengers to perform the service in addition to supplying by other means a large part of the freight service. There are many men who understand the shipping business who doubt very much whether you can get ships for both of those services by means of a subsidy.


James Alexander Robb: How much subsidy?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not know; I am not
in a position to say. The hon. gentleman knows, and that is the information I am asking him to give the committee. My information is-and he has not told me whether it is correct or not-that he could not get a tender for one of the services for any subsidy whatever. Is that right or not?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is right as
regards one company. I am satisfied now that he is fairly well posted.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: All I can say is that I
have not been in communication directly or indirectly with any company that has tendered, but there are a large number of people interested who know generally the facts. If it is true that no company of British steamship men could be found to make a tender to carry out the more expensive service-


Finlay MacDonald: My
hon. friend is misinterpreting the remarks of my colleague. The minister said that one company would not tender for both services, but there was a tender for both services.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I did not understand him
so. I would like to have that statement from the hon. gentleman.


James Alexander Robb: There was a tender for both
services.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will take back the statement. I know now, and the committee knows, but was it not really the government subsidiary company, the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, that tendered for both services? Was it a private and independent company that tendered? Let us be fair to the committee in this matter. My information from competent shipping men is that no independent company-that was the term I used or intended to use-tendered for one of those services. It is true the government has a tender from the Canadian merchant marine, but that tender implied that at the cost of the government the ships would be built or purchased to carry out that service. Let us have the facts fairly. If one of those tenders was from the government's own service, a branch of the government-because the Canadian government merchant marine is simply a branch and under the control of the government in every way-they must have before them the actual facts of the cost of building the ships to carry out that service. Why not tell us? The government are not making a breach of faith with some independent concern.


Finlay MacDonald: Why
does the hon. member want to know?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Because to-day we are being asked to commit ourselves to the entire expense necessary to provide the ships; we are being asked to-day to pledge parliament to provide subsidies necessary to carry out the other service if it is carried out by subsidy. We are now undertaking, without any adequate knowledge of the cost, to provide the money when the money bills are brought down to provide for these services over a term of years. What is the position of hon. members? It is a matter of utter indifference to hon. members from the west; it does not mean one dollar to Saskatchewan.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Saskatchewan is a part of the Dominion of Canada as much as any other province.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It does not mean a dollar to the trade of Saskatchewan.


Mr. McPHEE:: Does the hon. member
want to get into a quarrel with us?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No.
4160	COMMONS
Canada-West Indies Agreement


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: Let us express our own opinions and the hon. member can express his.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am saying thalt this sendee does not mean one dollar of additional value to any of the products of Saskatchewan at the present time.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: We believe
Saskatchewan is a part of Ganada and anything that helps any part of Canada indirectly helps Saskatchewan. We have never taken any narrow, selfiA view and we do not like to have a narrow, selfish view placed in our mouths by the hon. member.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I commend the spirit of the hon. member. The position is this, that this is a service which is voted particularly for the benefit of the eastern provinces.


Finlay MacDonald: Not at all.


James Malcolm: Does the hon. member realize that the preference on butter and flour is vital to Saskatchewan?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I venture to say that not one hundred pounds of Saskatchewan butter will go over those lines to the West Indies.


James Malcolm: Why should so much Saskatchewan butter be exported to Great Britain?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am prepared to discuss the matter of butter with my hon. friend, because I know something about it. This is being promoted for the advantage of the trade of the eastern provinces, and if it is going to cost as large an amount as may be reasonably anticipated for one of those services, there is a great deal of hesitation on the part of members from the eastern section of Canada to give it support.


Charles A. Stewart: Suppose it cost 18,000,000 to provide the service and a subsidy was required commensurate with that investment, would it be too much to pay for the service?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would think it would be the most ridiculous thing in the world to vote it.


Charles A. Stewart: I am speak-ng not of the investment itself, but of the subsidy that would be required. We are paying now $340,000. It would not entail a very much greater expenditure if we went even to the extent of paying one-half the interest on the cost.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There are two alternatives. If you provide capital expenditure necessary for these services you have an investment of $10,000,000 which will not return one dollar in income.


James Malcolm: Why?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Because it cannot earn one-half of the amount required as interest upon capital.


Finlay MacDonald: How
do you know?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I know from conversations I have had with people who do know, and I am putting it forward as an intelligent opinion. I am asking the hon. gentleman as a member of the government to give us facts to the contrary. We want to know. We are not going to vote in support of this blindly, without knowing just what the facts are. We' are not going to vote in favour of a capital expenditure of $10,000,000 and an annual deficit of a million and a half. The government comes to the House to-night and asks parliament to sanction an annual loss of a million and a half, and it has not the facts to furnish in support of its position. The minister cannot produce one fact in contradiction of what I say. But he hopes to bluff the House into committing itself now to this huge capital expenditure and this considerable annual deficit. We are entitled to have some definite assurance that this capital expenditure to which we are now asked to pledge ourselves will be fairly compensated by a prospective increase in the trade.


Finlay MacDonald: My hon. friend is either in favour of the treaty or he is not; and notwithstanding all his casuistry in discussing the subject I gather that he is not in favour of it. If he is not, then why does he not say so frankly, instead of evading the issue and suggesting all sorts of difficulties that do not occur to the mind of any other hon. gentleman? What is the situation? Here is a considerable portion of the British Empire which has been trading with the United States, and which now desires to do business with this country. Both the Mother Country and other parts of the empire are anxious to have all British tropical products sold here, marketed in Canada directly instead of through the United States as at prseent. The hon. gentleman comes forward now and declares that while a great number of people are in favour of the treaty he and other hon. gentlemen opposite want to know what were the tenders that were submitted to the government in connection

Canada-West Indies Agreement
with the steamship service. He has had conversations with a lot of imaginary people who have told him what the construction of these vessels would cost. Now the government called for tenders and in the case of one service the subsidy was so surprisingly low that I am satisfied the House would accept it without question. In regard to the other service there was only one tender and for an amount which the country need not be afraid of for a moment. My hon. friend pictures a situation in which the government will spend $10,000,000 to provide the necessary service to carry this inter-empire trade, *wherein we shall be able to supply from our products such things as the West Indies require and which at the present time they secure from the United States, giving them in return certain favoured treatment. Does any hon. gentleman think that any sound business man would consider it wise for the government to disclose the details of the tenders which have been received? Surely the government would be ill-advised if they did anything of the kind. All these fears which the hon. gentleman has expressed tonight are conjured up purely in his own fancy. The proposition before the House is quite simple: either we want to trade with this portion of the empire, or we do not. If hon. gentlemen are not in favour of the treaty, let them say so. We have no desire to impose any onerous burden on the country for the purpose of providing proper steamships, and there is no ground for the fears of hon. gentlemen. We believe that we can secure tenders from people who are prepared to furnish steamers of the right type for a reasonable subsidy and we ask the House to confirm the treaty.


Thomas Cantley: The government has already asked for tenders and has received some which are deemed unsatisfactory. The minister asks what the cost of the fleet will be. May I ask him in turn how many steamers he thinks it will require to maintain the service? Will it be eight or ten?


James Alexander Robb: You will find that in the
agreement.


Thomas Cantley: I do not find the number of boats mentioned in the agreement; I find merely a reference to a fortnightly service. How many boats will maintain the service adequately? That, I submit, is a fair question.


James Alexander Robb: Three or four on the eastern service and two passenger and four freight boats on the western.


Thomas Cantley: The two small 1,000 ton boats can be picked up easily, but the others are not in existence to-day and they will have to be provided. Whether the government themselves will provide these boats or whether they will be built by private capital is not very material to the case except that in one case the country will be committed to a further expenditure in connection with steamship property. And that I do not believe any of us want. There are three items that must be met; (1) insurance; (2) depreciation, and (3) interest on cost. Taking the second first: depreciation on such a fleet would be at least 5 per cent, which would write off the cost of the vessels in twenty years. Less than this would not suffice. Then insurance would run to between 5 and 10 per cent. Suppose we put it at 6 per cent- and it certainly will cost more than that. It may be observed in passing that one of the boats which the company had while in the service becarqe a total loss, so that the insurance is low and is bound to be a considerable item. The least that you could expect shipping people to look for on their investment would be 5 per cent by way of interest. Here, therefore, you have three items of 5 per cent each-all low estimates-or a total of 15 per cent. The minister wants to know what the fleet will cost. I do not know, but I am certain it will cost $6,500,000 and probably $10,000,000. But assuming the capital cost to be $6,500,000-[DOT]


Finlay MacDonald: The
cost varies according to where the ships are built.


Thomas Cantley: Not a great deal.


Finlay MacDonald: Yes.


Thomas Cantley: I do not care where you build them. They may be built a trifle cheaper in Germany, but there would not be very much difference in the cost. I am satisfied there would not be a difference of 10 per cent. Now, the mercantile marine have no boats of their own to put on this service, and if that organization is to take up the service they must therefore go into the market and acquire boats either by purchase or by long term time charter. If therefore we put the cost at $6,500,000 it means that in respect of the three items I have mentioned, insurance, depreciation and interest at 5 per cent each, we shall have an annual charge of something like $1,000,000. And, as I say, these items are all too low. You could not, for example, induce capital to invest in that class of shipping on 5 per cent, nor would you

Canada-West Indies Agreement
be able to get insurance at that rate. These items will therefore exceed a million annually. I do not believe the freight and other revenue, in the first few years at all events, would be sufficient to meet the cost of operation. It is difficult to eee how the minister is going to get tenders for ia service of this kind at a yearly cost of less than $1,000,000. If he does, he is to be congratulated.
The Minister of National Defence wants to know if we on this side of the House are in favour of the treaty or against it. I am in favour of it, but before committing himself every reasonable and intelligent man wants to know what it will cost. That is all we ask of the government.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend appears to be
a shipping man who is well posted. I suppose he would be willing to admit that the subsidy paid should be in proportion to that trade we are doing with the West Indies? Would that be a fair proposition?


Thomas Cantley: I presume you will have to pay a subsidy to provide the ships for the service.


James Alexander Robb: But suppose we pay a subsidy in proportion to the amount of trade, would that be a fair way of measuring it?


Thomas Cantley: I suppose it would. You majr pay too much.


James Alexander Robb: In 1900 we paid a subsidy to
the firm of Pickford & Black-I suppose my hon. friend knows that firm?


Thomas Cantley: It is a very good firm.


James Alexander Robb: 
Thomas Cantley: It is not the same kind
of service, and conditions are not similar to what they were in 1900. I am not saying a million dollars is too great; all I want to find out is what the service is going to cost.
I have made an estimate; the minister makes none. He comes back at me and asks what the ships will cost. I ask him how many will be required for the service. He says he does not know, at least he would not care
[Mr. Cantley.J
to decide. I say the cost of the vessels to meet that service will be between $6,500,000 and $10,000,,000, and he cannot run them for less than 15 per cent.


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: Mr. Chairman, I
have been more or less associated with the West Indian trade for a long number of years. As a matter of fact, I think my firm
inaugurated not only the steamer sendee from Halifax to Jamaica, but also from Halifax and St. John to what is called in the contract the eastern group of islands. At its inception the sledding was hard, it was very difficult to obtain cargoes and to operate the boats at a profit-in fact they were not operated at a profit. The cargoes were largely of fish, lumber and some other products, which were shipped to the West Indies on consignment, and payment was made by the shipment back of the products of the West Indies, chiefly molasses and sugar. It was a sort of barter trade. The introduction of steamers developed that trade, and later on tariff concessions were made in what might be termed a trade treaty between Canada and the West Indies. That led to a very considerable increase of business, and at the present time Canada is supplying the West Indies with the bulk of the staple commodities used there, such as flour, lumber and fish. The fish were always supplied from the Maritime provinces, I think chiefly from Halifax and from Lunenburg, Yarmouth and other southern shore ports of Nova Scotia. Recently the West Indies gave the same tariff advantage to Newfoundland as to Canada, and at the present time our market in the West Indies for fish is absolutely destroyed so far as the Maritime provinces are concerned, for the reason that Newfoundland ships its higher grade fish to the markets of the Mediterranean and the cullage to the West Indies in large quantities.
I take no objection to the treaty except in one or two points, which I shall refer to later. Anything that will tend to increase the trade of Canada with other countries on a fair and equitable basis I heartily endorse. But I may say that the eastern group of islands is supplied to-day by Canada with 99 per cent of the flour which they consume. That being the case, what possibility is there of an increase in that business, which is one of the our most valuable lines? All the lumber they require of the kind produced in Canada is now supplied by us. As regards manufactured articles, Great Britain stands in the same tariff relation as Canada, and to

Canada-West Indies Agreement
my mind the possibility of increasing our export of manufactured goods to the West Indies is limited.
So far as imports from the West Indies are concerned, my information is that to-day and for some considerable time past Canada has been receiving all the sugar that our refiners require of that grade. Therefore the reduction in the duty on sugar I believe was quite unnecessary. It was made at a cost of from $300,000 to $400,000 a year to the treasury of this country. I repeat that we are to-day receiving all the West India sugar we can consume; the same thing applies to molasses, and a reduction in the tariff will not add to our importations from that country. What eles we can get from there I know not, and I think anyone will find it difficult to mention any product which can be brought from the West Indies to Canada in large quantities and which we are not already getting. So I do not look for the increase in trade because of this treaty and this steamship service which the Minister of Finance thinks will come.
So much for the treaty, and I might here say that had the government stopped with the treaty no one would have found fault or criticized. But they went further and undertook to provide, with a small assistance in the way of a subsidy from the West Indies, a steamship service. The government did that in the dark, so to speak; a busines man would have first estimated the cost of such a service and carried on negotiations intelligently with some idea of the cost of subsidy if it were to be done that way, or if not, with some idea of the cost of construction and the cost of operation. If that had been done parliament would know exactly what we were being asked to contribute to this service. I view that part of the treaty as on a par with the absurd, unbusinesslike proposition which was before this House last year, the so-called Petersen contract. I know that proposition was regarded by many hon. gentlemen opposite as an unbusinesslike proposition, and I believe the same thing applies to this part of this treaty. It has already been said here to-night that parliament is asked to ratify an agreement the cost of which no one knows, and at which we cannot arrive.


Charles A. Stewart: Does my
hon. friend argue that because of the cost we should not enter into the treaty? There seems to be the utmost assurance in the minds of two or three hon. gentlemen opposite that the cost is prohibitive and that therefore we should not have a treaty at all. We cannot have the
treaty unless we have the ships, and it must therefore naturally follow, according to hon. gentlemen opposite, that it is a very bad piece of business to go into the treaty.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: Does my hon. friend think it neeesary to have all these ships?


William Anderson Black: Is it customary in making treaties of this kind to couple up steamship services, and to commit the country to large expenditures for such services? I do not think you can find anywhere a treaty which binds the parties to provide steamship service, and that is what I take exception to. Besides all) that, this proposed service is extreme to a degree. The service to the eastern group, that is to Jamaica, is such that no one would tender on it, notwithstanding what the Minister of Finance has told us. He says they have had an offer for this service, but I am informed that the suggestion is that the merchant marine might do it, and that the cost would be so and so. There was no tender at all for that service, which goes to show that steamship owners are not prepared to make themselves rediculous by offering that service at a price which they know would be almost laughed at. The ships for either group are not afloat; they have yet to be built. The merchant marine ships are unsuitable; I challenge contradiction when I say there is not one of those ships qualified to perform the service required.


Charles A. Stewart: Does my
hon. friend say there is too much service provided in the treaty?


William Anderson Black: There is too much service provided in the treaty.


Charles A. Stewart: I have not
heard that argument before.


William Anderson Black: That is my judgment, and I think if you will take the record of exports and imports and go minutely into the traffic you will find far too much service provided. Especially is that the case with regard to the Jamaica service.


Charles A. Stewart: Are there
not five vessels operating at the moment, three on one service and two of the merchant marine?


William Anderson Black: At present there
are six vessels operating on the eastern route, two government vessels and four privately-

Canada-West Indies Agreement
owned. There is another point; you propose putting on a government service which will probably drive off the private services being operated to-day.


Charles A. Stewart: Then there are eight vessels operating at the moment?


William Anderson Black: They are operating at the moment and have been operating for years. Now government competition comes in and interferes with the private interests. We all know that the government can operate at a heavy loss and drive private interests to the wall. That is the situation with regard to the Jamaica service, and I submit that if this proposed service is to be maintained it will cost Canada millions annually; the traffic is not there. It is all very well to say what we should have; the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley). condemns the Royal Mail Steam Packet ships, saying they are dirty and finding other faults with them. I can tell this House that the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company have been ashamed of that service for years; they have come repeatedly to this government asking that they be allowed to improve that service, which is not creditable to them and is a disgrace to the country. I take issue with the hon. member when he says those ships are dirty and badly run. Only the other day a friend of mine went with his wife from Ottawa to the West Indies in one of these ships; they were perfectly satisfied, had a very delightful trip and enjoyed it very much. The ships are well run and well kept, but they are slow and their passenger accommodation is antiquated. We all admit that and no one knows it better than does the company.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is it not a fact that there
are no ships in existence to-day which can fulfil the terms required by the treaty in respect of the Jamaica service?


William Anderson Black: 
Finlay MacDonald: Then Americans do not go there in the summer?


William Anderson Black: No, that is what I say. There is another point. Our friends to the south, with their West India trade extending over years and years, have never considered it worth their while to put on passenger ships, such as are called for here, between New York and the West Indies, and they have 120,000,000 people and all the nearby large cities like New York and Boston to get traffic from. Then to what extent can Canada expect to support such a line of steamers? I do not know that it is of any great advantage to Canada to carry a few hundred or a few thousand people to the West Indies. They simply spend their money there and then come back home broke, and I do not see any great advantage to us in doing that. So that as far as the passenger part of the steamship service is concerned, I do not look upon it as of any great value.

Canada-West Indies Agreement


Finlay MacDonald: Is there any reason why freight should not be carried both to and from the West Indies during every month of the year?


William Anderson Black: There are times when the ships will come up with clean holds, with not 100 tons of cargo in them. That is occurring now, and always has occurred.


Finlay MacDonald: It would not occur if the treaty was in effect.


William Anderson Black: It occurs under the present treaty. These ships will come north trip after trip during the off season with not 100 tons of cargo. There is no question about that at all; that is the experience. Take the cargo returns of your own merchant marine, and you will see that that is the case with them. It is the case with all the services that have been operating down there all these years.
As I si_-d before, I have no objection to the treaty, bat I do seriously object to the government considering for one moment the operating of steamers of their own down to the West Indies. The experience of the merchant marine is sad indeed, and to add to that grief and sadness is something that should not be. Not one of the merchant marine boats is fit to put on that route, and other boats from outside will have to be provided. I have heard it suggested that these boats can be altered, that cold storage can be installed, and the engines and this, that and the other thing be changed. My answer to that suggestion is simply this: From Land's End to the north of Scotland and from east to west across Great Britain you will not find a single steamship owner who would consider such a suggestion as that. They would never for one moment think of adding expenditure to ships of that age and of that speed. It is money thrown away. Here we are with the ships of the merchant marine; they will have to go through their No. 2 survey presently, and what will they be then? Eight or nine or ten year old ships, worth not any more than the government has sold its other ships for during the past year, about $10 per dead ton. In my judgment the sooner they are sold the less expense they will be to the country. Those ships are not fit to put on the West India service. They will not fill the requirements, and therefore the whole eight or ten ships, or whatever may be required if the government takes up this service, will have to be procured from outside. The experience of the merchant marine, it seems to me, does not justify the investment by this country of any more capital in steamers.


Finlay MacDonald: I do not understand the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite. They have all been protesting that they are in favour of the treaty, and yet they have all been arguing about the one thing necessary to the treaty, namely, the maintaining of steamship communication to the West India islands. You cannot have trade with islands situated as the West Indies are in relation to Canada unless steamship accommodation is provided, and arrangements have been made by which all parties will contribute to that end. The committee will agree that it would not be in the interests of this country to make public the tenders that have been received. I am free, however, to say this, that the tenders that have been received for both services, which we have declined believing that we can get lower tenders, are for amounts well under $1,000,000.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: Is it not a fact that one of the tenders received was from the Canadian merchant marine?


Finlay MacDonald: My
hon. friend need not ask that question of me, because if we are going to state to the House who tendered and all that kind of thing, there will be no use asking for new tenders. Everybody who has to do with business agrees to that. Hon. members are either in favour of the treaty or they are not. That is the crux of the situation. I want to reiterate the remark I made earlier, that I regard the connection of the Mother Country and the situation of the West Indies to-day in relation to the empire as very important, on account of the increasing trade of the United States, and our endeavour here to provide communicatons on lines closer to us and to the empire is of the greatest possible interest to us. I would ask hon. members who say they are in favour of the treaty and do not want to give the steamship communication with the West Indies to realize where they stand. This government do not propose to spend one dollar more than they have to in order to provide the necessary communication. What interest have we in increasing that amount? Tenders have been called for, and in a general way we have indicated what the total expenditure in the way of subsidy would be. We believe we can get it for a less subsidy, and if hon. gentlemen are in favour of the treaty we as a government ask them to trust us to see that this service is provided at the lowest possible cost to Canada.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think my hon. friend's attitude, so far as the op-



Canada-West Indies Agreement
position is concerned, is quite fair. I would like to point out the position he is putting us in to-day, which is the result of the government's inaction and delay. Here is an agreement entered into last summer; we are dealing with it nearly a year later; the government do not know what it means, and yet we are told that unless we immediately fall over to the government, and accept everything they say and do, we are against this treaty. It is not fair. With the situation as it stands at present it may well be that the government cannot very fairly give out the tenders which have been received, particularly when they think they are too high, and when they are going to try to run one against another. But that is the situation the government is creating. It is not the opposition. The government held these things back all these months. They entered into an agreement last summer, and they have done nothing towards furthering it until the House has been in session for months. Now they expect the House to deal with it. What the opposition say is perfectly true. They are in favour of the closest trade arrangements that can be made with the West Indies. We are keenly alive to what the Minister of National Defence has said, to the fact that there has been altogether too much American penetration there; we have idly sat by and allowed them to get in. I do not think it is too late for us to get our share. But there is a little more in it than that. What has been said by hon. members on this side as to the attitude of the West India islanders is perfectly correct. I have been down to the West Indies since the former agreement was entered into, and I know what they think about it. They consider that Canada fell down on the contract of 1920, and so she did. There is no question about it, and that contract still stands. The West India islands are in a position to-day to practically ask for the service, whether this agreement is put through or not. The contract is there. They are still in a position to enforce it.
It has been pointed out that to-day we are doing a great deal in connection with the flour trade in the West Indies. Well, we are. We practically have that trade. One of the things necessary in connection with this agreement is to hang on to that trade, to give us some service which will make sure that the troubles which occurred there and the dissatisfaction which existed, is not going to become such as to compel us to lose that trade. At the present time we have a very favourable trade showing in connection

with flour, and we are very deeply interested in that commodity. We are all in favour of the treaty, but we would like to be in a better position to know what we are doing. One thing said by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Black) gave me some concern; he said we were calling for a much better service under this treaty than New York, with its enormous business, required. If that be correct, I should think it was very extravagant to say the least. When I was in Jamaica, as I recollect it, we had a weekly service with a boat of 5,000 tons, and a weekly service also during the passenger season of boats almost as large again. They were very excellent boats; we had both kinds. My idea of the service which was required was one which would enable us to do business with the islands. We have not got it today. I would like a service which would provide cold storage, but not necessarily a palatial passenger service. Some of the boats going down to Jamaica are very expensive boats. I should think they would be at least 7,500 tons. But we do not want that palatial steam service. We want a service with proper cold storage which would look after our banana business, which would enable us to increase that business and which would release our fruit trade from the grip of the present trust in connection with citrous fruits. We think that is all that is necessary, and I hope that is all that is being done. I hope we are not putting on a service which will give a better passenger service than is given to New York. Much as I am in favour of the trade, I never look for large earnings in connection with the passenger service. What we are interested in is the biggest volume we can get of the traffic of the West Indies going through our own ports and not through the United States. We want to get our freight and commodities at first cost, and we want to increase the trade of our ports. On the other hand we want to see to it that they get just as much of our freight as possible in return. That is what we are after, and not the passenger business.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. member for
Antigonish (Mr. Macdonald) cannot confound me with his casuistry as to whether or not I am in favour of the treaty. My position is clear. I am anxious to do everything possible to. preserve the most friendly relations with the West Indies. I do it, not because Great Britain regards it as our duty to do it, but because we are associated with the West Indies as a part of the empire. But I am not prepared to pay too high a price

Canada-West Indies Agreement
for trading with the West Indies, and I want to know what price I am called upon to pay before voting in favour of the bill.
I have a suggestion to make, and I say it is a fair one. Every tariff concession which Canada proposes to make under the agreement with the British West Indies, and which purports to be made under the clauses of this bill, have already been made by a previous tariff bill which has passed this chamber and which undoubtedly will be ratified by the Senaite and approved by His Excellency. Therefore every concession which we are called upon to make in the way of tariff reductions has been made in such a way as to open our market to the West Indies to the fullest extent demanded by them. We have still fifteen months in which to provide a steamship service. I would suggest to the Minister of Finance that the fair way to deal with the House and the country would be to withdraw this measure and to hold it over until another session. In six or seven months more the House will necessarily meet again and by that time he will be able to ascertain definitely the cost by way of steamship subsidy and the capital expense for steamships to carry out the agreement. In the meantime the British West Indies cannot complain; they have access to our markets under the other measure to the fullest extent possible, and they have certain new services proposed by way of competition for their freight. Why not hold this measure over until parliament meets again and then tell us the cost? If it is at all reasonable I think we on this side of the House will be prepared to vote ratification of the agreement. If it runs up into a capital expenditure of ten or even eight million dollars with an annual deficit of one to one and one-half or even one and three-quarter million dollars, I for one am going to oppose it.


James Alexander Robb: 
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The statement made by the Minister of Finance dealing with the Jamaica service is, as we now know, from an estimate made not by any independent shipping company but by the Canadian Government Merchant Marine.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is not going to put any words into my mouth. I said nothing of the kind.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is the only fair inference from what has been said to-night. From my seat in the House and knowing full well what certain of the facts are, I say that the hon. gentleman dare not rise in his seat and deny the statement I have made.


Finlay MacDonald: Who
told the hon gentleman?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is not necessary that I
should say who told me. The hon. member need not attempt to draw a red herring across the trail. Neither the Minister of Finance nor the Minister of National Defence dare say that a tender was made for that service by any independent company.


Finlay MacDonald: The
gentleman who is trying to draw a red herring across the trail is the hon. member who thinks he can get information from the government as to who the tenderers are, which information we do not propose to give.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is not a single ship in the Canadian merchant marine that can fulfil the terms of that contract. The ships are

Canada-West Indies Agreement
not in existence on the high seas to-day in Great Britain or the United' States or Germany that can fulfil those services.


Charles Gavan Power: Has the hon. member before him Lloyd's Register to give him that information?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is not necessary. Everyone knows it. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Black) has so stated and no one can deny his statement. That being the fact I appeal to the Minister of Finance, who has charge of the bill, that his statement is not based on an intelligent investigation of the facts or on such information as the government may rely upon in giving assurances to the House as to what the ultimate cost will be. I suggest in all fairness to the committee that the bill should be held over until the next session of parliament when we should have full information about the matter, because passing this to-night and binding parliament to all future appropriations will not put the project ahead for one hour of what it would be if it were passed in March or April of next year.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
On the preamble.
Donald Sutherland: This is rather unseemly procedure. The minister who has the matter in charge sits in bis seat and the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George has been trying to extract information which the minister has been refusing for hours to give to the committee. I think the country and the House may well be alarmed by any trade treaty that this government may make, in view of the treaties which they have made since 1921, I can mention three: the first with France, one with Italy and another with Australia. As a result of these three treaties there has been a loss of upwards of $20,000,000 in trade balances. I think this treaty should stand over for a little further consideration in view of the refusal of the government to give reasonable information to hon. members who have been asking for it to-night and who have discussed the question intelligently in a manner indicating that they know exactly what they are talking about. The minister sits in his place and asks questions trying to obtain information, without giving any to the committee. This is absolutely unfair and a most unusual attitude for any government to take. This

matter might well stand over at least until to-morrow for further consideration. It is now half past one o'clock in the morning, and the government has sat here for hours, refusing to give reasonable information repeatedly asked for by those' who understand the question better than members of the government do. I refer to these other treaties for the reason that while the government profess to be on the lookout for wider markets for Canadian producers they have been in fact losing trade for the people of this country through every treaty they have entered into since coming into power.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: Has the minister further considered the effect the treaty will have on the sugar beet growers of Canada? This question is of interest to my constituents.


James Alexander Robb: That question was fully discussed in the budget and I tried to satisfy my hon. friend, with what success I do not know, that the sugar beet growers would not be in any worse position than they were before. As a matter of fact they will be better off inasmuch as the market is now stabilized for the period of the agreement.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: I do not agree with the minister; on the contrary, their market has been undermined. However, will the minister promise to allow the sugar beet growers to appear before the tariff board and present their claim for reasonable protection against the raw sugar producers of the West Indies?


James Alexander Robb: If the sugar beet growers ot Canada want to appear before the tariff board there will certainly be no objection.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: Do I understand that if the board recommend an increase in the duty this will be agreeable to the minister?


James Alexander Robb: Surely my hon. friend does not expect me to commit myself to any finding the board may make.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported. '
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 1.25 a.m. (Tuesday).

Strawberry Importations
Tuesday, June 8, 1926.