1926-05-28

PRINTING OF PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure) presented the second report of the joint committee of both houses on the Printing of Parliament.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo) presented the third report of the select standing committee on Railways and Shipping, owned, operated and controlled by the government as follows:
The attention of your committee having been drawn to the omission from the interim supply voted by parliament during the present session, of any part of items 372 and 373, of the estimates 1926-27 respecting loans to the Canadian National Railway and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited;
Your committee therefore recommends that parliament grant as interim supply the sum of $10,000,000 of the said item 372 and the sum of $200,000 of the said item 373.

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to lay on the table of the House a full description of the motif and artistic design of the seal, the inkstand and the calendar made by Mr. Paul Beau, ironmaster.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING moved:: That on and after Monday, the 31st of May, instant, and every Monday thereafter to the end of the session, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all business except questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I understand the whips have had a conference over this motion and that they recommend one more private members' day. I am quite agreeable to the motion so amended.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If it is the wish of the House to have an extra day I would amend the motion by striking out the words "on and" so that it will read 'after Monday the 31st of May."


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


Mr. COOTE:: It was impossible to hear what the Prime Minister said. I want to be sure that we have next Monday.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The object of the amendment is to give that day.
Motion as amended agreed to.



INCOME WAR TAX ACT 1917 AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 147, to amend the Income War Tax Act, 1917 (payment by Canadian residing abroad).
He said:	The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to prevent evasion of payment of income taxes by Canadians temporarily residing abroad. Under the present law some
3S12
Canadian National Railways
[Stage Direction]
wealthy Canadians now in London, England, are able to evade both Canadian and British income taxes. The bill provides that income tax is to be collected from Canadians so temporarily living abroad who ordinarily reside in Canada and receive income from purely Canadian investments. The burden of proof of residence is placed1 on them. It is not intended to increase taxation, which can only be done by a minister of the crown. I refer the House to Bourinot, fourth edition, pages 430 to 434. It is simply intended to provide for the collection of the income taxes already imposed upon residents of Canada by existing legislation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Hewitt Bostock: I have my doubts as to
the legality of this bill. It seems to me that its purpose would bring it within the authority of the government, the question being one of finance. However, I will examine the authorities.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): I desire to submit supplementary information, in connection with a question asked by the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Foster) on May 17 relating to Montreal Tramway property purchased by the Canadian National Railways, as follows:
The amount paid for this tramway property is $1,250,000.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: There is a matter of very considerable importance to the city of Vancouver, having relation to certain outstanding contractual agreements between the Canadian National Railways and that city, in regard to which I desire to ask a question of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) if he will be good enough to reply. There is reported in this morning's press an interview with Mayor L. D. Taylor to the effect that certain contractual arrangements have been entered into between the National Railways and the city of Vancouver by which an hotel will be provided in Vancouver for the service of the railways. In addition to this the question of certain drainage and sanitary arrangements, which are under contract with the railways is discussed. I would ask the Minister of Railways to intimate to the House, first, whether or not a decision

has been arrived at between the city and the railways and, secondly, whether such a decision has secured the final approval of the government.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): I saw the newspaper despatch in question which intimated, I believe, that arrangements' had been completed for the Canadian National Railways to erect a hotel in Vancouver. So far as the report is concerned I can say that it is premature, to say the least. The position, briefly, is that certain contractual relations exist between the Canadian Northern Railway- my hon. friend said the Canadian National, but it should be the Canadian Northern-


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is correct.


Mr. DUNNING:: -and the city of Vancouver. To a degree, I suppose, we may say the Canadian National inherited the obligations of the Canadian Northern. These obligations with respect to the city of Vancouver are certainly formidable-I think my hon. friend knows that-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Quite.


Charles Avery Dunning: -and negotiations have been in progress for some little time between the railway company, the government and the city regarding those obligations, but no definite settlement has been reached. The intimation that a decision has been reached to build a hotel at Vancouver is quite premature.



WESTON-WOODBRIDGE SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. T. H. LENNOX (North York):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) if he is aware that the Canadian National Railway has discontinued its service between Weston and Woodbridge, and yesterday directed that the road be dismantled. I should also like to ask him upon what authority the Canadian National Railway has discontinued operation, my impression of the Railway Act being that this can only be done by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the railway board.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	Mr. Speaker, I
am not familiar with the matter to which my hon. friend refers. I shall be glad to make inquiries regarding it and to communicate the information required at a later date.

Privilege-Mr. Dunning



BIOLOGICAL BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City):: Mr. Speaker, as it is a matter of very general importance, I should like to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) who is the present chairman of the biological board. On receiving an answer I desire to ask him a further question.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I must
admit that I have not the name of the gentleman in my mind at the present time.


Arthur Edward Ross: Has the chairman
of the biological board resigned?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am not informed of his
resignation.


Arthur Edward Ross: May I also ask the minister in this connection if, before the estimates are discussed, he will lay on the table the correspondence in relation to the chairman's resignation?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Certainly, with pleasure.



CIVIL SERVICE SALARY REVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (West Calgary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inquire of the representative in- this House of the hon. Postmaster General whether or not the government has completed the salary revision of the postal service; and if not, when we may expect it will finally be revised?


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (for the Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the salaries
of the postal service are only part of the salaries of the civil service and are included in the report which has been made by the Civil Service Commission, and on which a sub-committee of the Privy Council has worked. I was away at the time through illness, but I understand that at the request of representatives of the Civil Service Association that report was sent back to the Civil Service Commission for further consideration. There the matter stands at the present time.



UNITED STOCK GROWERS LIMITED

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I desire to inquire of the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) whether or not an investigation has been conducted into the operations of the United Stock Growers Limited at Calgary, and if a
report thereon has been received. If so, will such report be available for the members of this House?


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, an investigation has been held into the operations of the live stock pool at Calgary at the request of the pool itself and also, I think, at the request of the live stock exchange. The investigation was conducted by Mr. MeCallum, chief of the stock yards service, and Mr. Mackenzie, representative of our department at Calgary. The report just came to hand this morning, and I have not yet had an opportunity of reading it. Inasmuch as the investigation was conducted under the provisions of the Live Stock Products Act, the report naturally becomes a matter of considerable public concern, and if any hon. gentlemen ask for that report a decision will then have to be arrived at regarding the advisability of tabling it.



IMPORTATION OF BREEDING SHEEP DUTY FREE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. DONALD iSUTHERLAND (South Oxford) : Mr. Speaker, in view of the recent disposal of the budget resolutions, I should like to inquire of the government as to the correctness of a report which appears in the press to-day from British Columbia to the effect that thousands of sheep are to be imported into Canada during the next twelve months without payment of duty. If this report is correct why has the matter not been brought before parliament?
William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Speaker, it has been the practice both of the Customs department and my own, under certain conditions, to permit the free entry of breeding sheep into Canada.


Mr. SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: I might point out that the report states the Ottawa authorities plan to allow breeding sheep to be imported without payment of duty during the next twelve months, which would indicate that it is a recent move.


William Richard Motherwell: No, Mr. Speaker, the act provides for that.


Donald Sutherland: For pure bred sheep.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.



PRIVILEGE-HON. MR. DUNNING

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): Mr. Speaker, on a
[Stage Direction]
Old Age Pensions
[Stage Direction]
question of privilege, I desire to call attention to the following statement in an editorial on Canadian National Railways appearing in this morning's Ottawa Journal:
It is nonsense, for example, and not quite honest, for Mr. Dunning to point out as an illustration of the system's success that only ten millions of the fifty millions that parliament voted for the road last year was actually used, when almost in the next breath it had to be shown that the reason for this was simply that the railway raised some 45 millions on bond issues guaranteed by the government-and for which the country is responsible.
The reference quoted contains a rather serious misapprehension of the facts, which I feel sure is quite unintentional on the part of the Journal, and which the Journal will be foremost in desiring to set right.
The 50 millions of which only 10 were actually required of the government, were voted for the fiscal year 1925-26. The 35 millions, raised by guarantee of bonds, was part of the vote of the previous fiscal year 1924-25 and, while falling within the scope of the calendar year covered by Sir Henry Thornton's report, formed no part of my presentation of the railway estimates which were, of course, for the fiscal year 1926-27 as contrasted with the fiscal years 1925-26. The error arises, of course, from the fact that the accounts of the railways are on the basis of the calendar year while those of the government are on the basis of the federal fiscal year. This I was careful to explain when dealing with these figures. There were no bond issues, guaranteed or otherwise, during the fiscal year 1925-26.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from April 16 consideration in committee of Bill No. 21, respecting Old Age Pensions.-Hon. Mr. King (Kootenay).-Mr. Duff in the chair.
Hon. J. H. KING (Kootenay, Minister of Public Works):: When we were last in committee this bill was thoroughly discussed and most of the sections were passed. Sections 2, 3, 4, 7 and 9 were held over for amendments which seemed proper. I have prepared the amendments, first of which is that to section 2.
On section 2-Definitions.


The CHAIRMAN:: Mr. King (Kootenay)
moves that subsection (d) of section 2 be amended by adding after the word "territory" the following:
In respect to which "Commissioner" shall be read for "Lieutenant Governor in Council".


Mr. LADNER:: I would like to bring up
a matter in connection with subsection (b) 
of section 2, concerning certain petitions and circulars which have been received from different soldier organizations requesting some arrangement which would provide old age pensions for ex-soldiers who were prematurely aged through service in the war. There are a great many cases known to the department where an applicant for pension under the Pension Act was not able to establish what is known as attributability; that is, he could not relate the disability under which he. suffered actually to war service, but nevertheless a portion of the medical opinion established fairly well that his health had been undermined and that his condition actually arose from his service overseas.
I want to make this statement as brief as possible, but there is a question of policy facing the government. Is it the intention of the government to respond favourably to the request for legislation which will provide for pensions to those returned men who have become prematurely aged by reason of their war service? Do they propose to take a step of this kind; could they take such a step in this act, or will they make provision in the regular Pension Act under which military pensions are paid? Is that matter under consideration; will the petitioners, the ex-soldier bodies and a great many of the public, receive the favourable attention of the government, and will any amendments to the Pension Act be brought down?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: When we were in committee before I think the suggestions of my hon. friend were thoroughly discussed, and at that time the government intimated that they did not consider it advisable to interfere with the present act as drafted. It is true that certain soldier organizations have made such representations, but if it is considered desirable to deal with that class would it not be better to deal with them through the Pension Act?


Leon Johnson Ladner: That is all very well if
the Pension Act is coming before the House, but otherwise the opportunity of dealing with the matter will be lost, because the session will be over. Perhaps the minister can inform me whether or not it is the intention of the government to bring down any amendments to the Pension Act, so that a matter of this kind may be considered.


John Warwick King: We are now
dealing with the Old Age Pension bill, and I am not in a position to advise my hon. friend as to the Pension Act. I would repeat, however, that it is not considered advisable to incorporate a clause of that kind in this

Old Age Pensions
bill. I am sure the hon. gentleman is anxious to see this bill go through, and I think he will see the inadvisability of incorporating such an amendment at this time.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I appreciate the contention of the minister, but I, together with a great many of the public, am very much interested in whether or not the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment (Mr. Elliott) intends to introduce amendments to the Pension Act this session. If so, is it the intention to consider this question?


William Duff: Shall section 2 carry?


Leon Johnson Ladner: This is a matter of some
importance, and I would like an answer.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: I might say, Mr. Chairman, that so far as amendments to the Pension Act are concerned, no decision has been arrived at by the government to make changes of any importance this session.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I infer, then, that some
changes will be made, and that the matter will be before the House.


John Campbell Elliott: It is barely possible, but
there will be no changes of importance.


Mr. HANSON:: I would like to ask the
minister if, in the interim since this bill was before the House last, there has been any attempt made by the government to interview any of the provincial premiers with respect to co-operation in this measure.


John Warwick King: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am satisfied that this
bill is simply a washout unless the provinces are interested. I would like to point out to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King, Kootenay), who is sponsoring this bill, that I think there will be a meeting of the provincial premiers in Toronto within a week or so, and if this bill is to amount to anything there ought to be a determined effort on the part of the Dominion authorities to get the co-operation of the provinces. Otherwise, I venture the prophecy that this legislation will simply fall to the ground.


John Warwick King: I think that was
thoroughly discussed when we were in committee before. Parliament has a bill before it to provide for old age pensions in conjunction with the provinces, but the provinces do not need to avail themselves of the bill unless they see fit, it is optional with them. There would be nothing to be gained at this time by chasing around trying to interview provincial premiers. The bill, once it is on the statute book, will be available for the provinces if they wish to take advantage of it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister's answer
simply confirms the suspicion that most of us had when this legislation was introduced, that the government is afraid the provinces might take them up and that this might really amount to something


John Warwick King: We hope they
will.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Otherwise, I venture the
assertion that this bill means nothing anc: never will mean anything.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: It was impossible
to hear the amendment as it was read by the minister, or as you read it, Mr. Chairman, I do not think the House has any idea ol what the proposed amendment is.


William Duff: The amendment is to
add after the word "territory" in paragraph (d) of clause 2 the words: "in respect to which 'commissioner' shall be read for 'Lieutenant-Governor in Council.' "


Mr. BURY:: Are the Northwest Territories being left out?


John Warwick King: No, another section provides for them.


Mr. McGIBBON:: I would ask the minister again, providing this bill falls through as a result of the provinces not participating in the scheme, will this government assume the full responsibility? I think we ought to have a direct answer to that question.


John Warwick King: I would say no, Mr. Chairman.


Peter McGibbon: Then the bill, on the very face of it, is an absolute absurdity. It will never amount to anything.


John Warwick King: That is my hon. friend's opinion. I have not that opinion. I am satisfied that many of the provinces will avail themselves of this legislation.


Peter McGibbon: Time will tell.


John Warwick King: Time will tell.


George Black: Has any plan been
formulated as to the operation of this act in the Yukon? Has the minister had any communication with the gold commissioner of that territory, who is in charge of the administration there, how it is going to be worked out?


John Warwick King: The Yukon territory will be in the same position as the other provinces, except that the commissioner will take the place of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. H he sees fit, he can make his
Old Age Pensions

representations to the Governor in Council, and his representations will be considered.


George Black: There is no such
official in the Yukon and has not been since 1918. The position of commissioner was abolished by the government.
Mr. KING Kootenay):	That is not our
information. He may not go by that title in the Yukon, but under the act he is known a3 the commissioner.


George Black: I am sure that I
am correct. I quite agree with other hon. members that this act will be abortive. Whether it is the gold commissioner or anybody else, I am sure that this act in its present terms will never come into operation in the Yukon, and it is just a waste of time considering it.


Mr. TOLMIE:: I am strongly in favour of the principle of this bill, but I think that some meeting or conference should have been held with the provinces first. Have any of the provinces indicated their willingness to come in under this legislation?


John Warwick King: Since this legislation was introduced?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Yes.


John Warwick King: There has been no correspondence, I think, with any of the provinces since this legislation was introduced.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Or before?


John Warwick King: There was correspondence during the time the committee of 1924 was sitting.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Which of the provinces indicated that they were willing to co-operate in this scheme?


John Warwick King: There was no
communication directly from the provinces.


Peter McGibbon: Is it not a fact that the member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) put on Hansard the opinions of the different provinces, and that not a single one of them was favourable to accepting this bill?


John Warwick King: There was no bill at that time.


Peter McGibbon: There was a proposed
bill, which is the same thing. The minister is merely quibbling over words.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend is entirely wrong. There was an inquiry made of the provinces as to whether they were interested in old age pensions. There was no bill at that time, but there is a bill before
	; .. _ ,_
the House to-day, and if it becomes law there will be the opportunity for the provinces to come in or stay out, as they see fit.


Mr. MANION:: Practically eveiy one of the provinces spoke against the idea.


John Warwick King: No.


Robert James Manion: None of them promised to co-operate with the government in the scheme. I remember well reading the opinions of the different provinces and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) and I had some argument about it, but I do not remember any one of the provinces agreeing to come in under this scheme.


Mr. BROWN:: Was there not at that time a question as to jurisdiction in the matter?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Mr. NEILL:: It is unnecessary to go into the principle of this bill. It is entirely out of order at this stage, but I suppose, Mr. Chairman, as one member has been allowed to digress, he ought to be answered. I will do so very briefly by reading again for the second, if not the third, time the resolution passed by the British Columbia legislature last year, on the 24th day of November. After a suitable preamble, it says:
Therefore be it resolved that the necessary steps be taken to formulate some plan in connection with the Dominion government to provide for old age pensions, and that the other provinces of the Dominion be requested to take similar action.
Then it goes on to say that copies shall be sent not only to the Secretary of State for Canada, but to the provincial secretaries of the various provinces, the clear idea being to try and bring pressure or influence to bear on them to co-operate to that extent. As the hon. member for Lisgar has said, the opinions which the hon. member for Fort William read a few weeks ago were founded upon a misapprehension of the law as it has since been found to exist. The provinces were then under the impression that the Dominion government was trying to foist on to them some of our responsibilities It has since been ascertained by a decision, not questioned, of the Justice department that the whole responsibility for legislation of this kind, or rather for the expenditure of the money, rests on the provinces. Now that the provinces are finding that instead of them being handed a gold brick they are being offered assistance to 50 per cent of their expenditure in connection with old age pensions, they are much more likely to accept it, and that is seen by the resolution I have just read, which is very different in character from the one they passed twelve months be-

Old Age Pensions
fore. Therefore it is reasonable to suppose that British Columbia will certainly be in the forefront in accepting this legislation, and will use its influence, and its example may be followed by the other provinces.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: Did the British Columbia legislature follow up that resolution with the formulation of any plan and its submission either to this government or to the provinces?


Alan Webster Neill: That, I presume, comes within the province of the British Columbia government. The resolution was only passed at the last session, and presumably the provincial government are taking steps, as instructed by the legislature, looking towards co-operation with the Dominion.


John Wesley Edwards: My hon.
friend in reading the resolution read words which indicated that the government of British Columbia proposed to formulate plans in connection with old age pensions, and submit those plans for approval to the other provinces and to this government. I am asking him if after the passing of that resolution, which may be taken as an expression of opinion of the British Columbia legislature, the British Columbia government followed up that proposition and formulated and submitted any plans either to this government or to the provinces? Did they iollow up the resolution or not, or was it merely a resolution passed and then dropped, and nothing more ever heard of it?


Alan Webster Neill: It was passed only a few months ago. I am not in the confidence of the government of British Columbia, but presumably, after the habit of most governments, they are proceeding to carry out the mandate very emphatically imposed upon them by the legislature and that unanimously.


William Duff: I must call the attention of the committee to the fact that the discussion is getting away from the clause altogether I have allowed considerable latitude and I must ask the committee to confine their remarks to the clause under discussion.


Peter McGibbon: I want to enter my protest against legislation of this kind. It is going to raise the hopes of tens of thousands of people in this country only to cause them utter disappointment in the future. I want this government to take the responsibility for the present legislation if the promises which it holds out fail. I am sure we are all indebted to the lay member who has just
spoken for reading us a lecture on law. Of course, we appreciate the authority from which that lecture comes.


Alan Webster Neill: I am not a "late" member.


Peter McGibbon: I may tell my hon.
friend that there are lawyers in this House, including the leader of this party, who see clearly what the effect of this legislation will be. What I want the government to do is to promise the people of Canada who are going to be disappointed by this bill that if the provinces do not take this matter up they will do so themselves.


Alan Webster Neill: I would just like to point
out to my hon. friend that I am not a "late" member.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: The hon. gentleman referred to you as a lay member-1-a-y.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
On section 7-when payments to provinces to be made.
Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: What about sections 5 and
6?


William Duff: They have been passed.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: When were they passed?


William Duff: About a month ago.


John Warwick King: I have an amendment to propose to this section. I move:
To strike out the words "Treasury Board" in the third line and substitute the words "Minister of Finance", and to strike out all the words after the word "appropriated" in the fifth line.


John Wesley Edwards: What is
the reason for that amendment?


John Warwick King: When we were
last in committee a question was raised in regard to the phrase "Treasury Board" and it was considered better to substitute "Minister of Finance." That has been done. As to the other change the balance of the section as it now stands reads:
-not otherwise appropriated, and the Governor in Council may borrow from time to time such sums as may be required for the purpose of making such payments.
I understand this wording is unnecessary and it is being struck out.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps you are going to
make the payments out of profits.


John Warwick King: Yes, surely.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Immigration Act
John Warwick King: I think that completes the amendments contemplated.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT

Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: moved the second reading of Bill No. 91, to amend the Immigration Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Duff in the chair.
Charles A. Stewart: There was
a mistake made in the printing of this amendment. I do not know who is responsible, probably I am. There were two amendments prepared and the wrong amendment got into the hands of the law clerk and was printed in the first edition of the bill that was distributed. However, the bill was reprinted and it is the reprinted copy that we are now dealing with.


Mr. BOYS:: Where do we get copies of
the reprinted bill?


Charles A. Stewart: Copies have been distributed and must be on the files of hon. members.


Robert James Manion: How do the changes
read?


Charles A. Stewart: The amendment in the reprinted bill is a short one. I will read it so that hon. members may be quite clear about it. Under the old provision certain persons were deemed to belong to undesirable classes and liable to deportation. The amendment that we are proposing is -as follows:
1. Section forty-one of the Immigration Act, chapter twenty-seven of the statutes of 1910, as enacted by chapter twenty-six of the statutes of 1919, is repealed and -the following is substituted therefor:
41. Whenever any person other than a Canadian citizen has been convicted of any criminal offence as defined in Part II of the Criminal Code, it shall be the duty of any officer becoming cognizant thereof and of the clerk, secretary or other official of any municipality in Canada wherein any such person may be, to forthwith send a written complaint to the minister giving full particulars.
That is the substitution.


William Duff: Shall section 1 carry?


Robert James Manion: Just a moment, Mr. Chairman. I have not had time to study the provisions of the first bill that was put on the file but there does not seem to be any resemblance between the reprinted bill and the one originally introduced.


Charles A. Stewart: No, because the amendment that was printed by mistake did not cover what we were aiming to cure in the act, namely, the right of the minister to deport without trial. If my hon. friend will look up section 41 of the act he will find very wide powers given there to the Minister of Immigration and Colonization with respect to deportation. Those powers were given during the period of the war. The amendment is simply to give to the inindividual the right to a trial before deportation can take place.


Robert James Manion: When was the bill read
a first time?


An hon. MEMBER:: April 26.


Robert James Manion: Which amendment was
read a first time?


Charles A. Stewart: The one
in the first copy. I have not it before me.


Robert James Manion: That is the reason I
want to know. It is not for any particular purpose. I do not wish to hold it up, but if it was the other bill that was read the first time, then this one will not be in order until it is read the first time.


Charles A. Stewart: I took the
precaution to make inquiries to see whether or not I would be able to avoid the introduction of the amendment, and I was informed by the law clerk of the House that this bill was quite in order.


Robert James Manion: I have not studied out
the cause of it, but the new bill was just put on the file to-day. Would the minister permit it to stand over? It will only take a half a minute. Somebody might wish to study the matter.


Charles A. Stewart: I would
like to put it through now and the hon. member could bring the question up on the third reading.


Robert James Manion: But if we pass it now
we approve of the principle. The bill contains only one clause. I have no interest in it, but some hon. member might wish to study it especially when it was the other bill that was read the first time.


Peter McGibbon: Who is asking for the
amendment?


Charles A. Stewart: I think
this is the fourth time we have amended it. I think my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition amended this section 41. On three different occasions we have sent this amendment to the Senate and it was killed.

Immigration Act
3S19
It was a war measure, enacted during the war period, giving the Minister of Immigration, too much power, in my opinion.


Peter McGibbon: The minister is not
answering my question.


Charles A. Stewart: The government is taking the responsibility. I am taking the responsibility.


Peter McGibbon: Has a request come
from any part of the Dominion?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, from various parts of Canada. I have not the requests before me, but I well remember that when I introduced the amendment, perhaps not worded as it is at present but in somewhat similar language, requests had come in from a number of bodies in the country asking for the repeal of section 41 in its entirety.


Peter McGibbon: H*as the minister not
confidence in himself?


Charles A. Stewart: Oh absolutely.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: What is the
definition of a criminal offence as contained in part II of the Criminal Code referred to in this bill? The reason I ask is that this reprinted bill seems very different in character and in scope from bill 91. That bill provides:
Whenever any alien advocates in Canada the overthrow by force or violence of the government of Great Britain or Canada, or other British dominion, colony, possession or dependency, or the overthrow by force or violence of constituted law and authority, or assassination, or shall by word or act create or attempt to create riot or public disorder in Canada, or shall by common repute belong to or be suspected of belonging to any secret society or organization which extorts money from, or in any way attempts to control any resident of Canada by force or threat of bodily harm, or by blackmail;
And so on. I should think that such a person is just as dangerous an individual or class of individual as a person convicted under the Criminal Code, and why the restriction? It appears to me it is a restrictive section, and why?


Charles A. Stewart: For the
very simple reason that it places the constitutional authority to act entirely in the hands of the minister. The old section 41 gave very wide powers to the minister to seize and deport individuals for a number of causes, and during the war it was necessary.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Is the new section 41 merely
a more succinct and briefer way of comprehending all the offences included in the old section 41, or are any of the offences
under the old section 41 omitted from the new section, and if so which?


Charles A. Stewart: I say very
frankly that I think, and have always thought, that the officials of the Department of Immigration should not be police officers. However the act has so fixed it. Section 41, which we are discussing to-day, simply brings to the attention of the Department of Immigration the conviction of any individual who is liable to deportation and whom the officers of the crown will have the authority to deport. It puts the matter in the hands of the police, rather than in the hands of the officials of the Immigration department. There it is however at present and this amendment is simply for the purpose of bringing these convictions to our notice. Now we propose to cancel section 41; it will go out of existence. Under the old section 41, without conviction at all, the minister could take action and deport. The minister will no longer be able to deport persons without trial-that is what it means- but the minister will still be the police officer for deportation purposes.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The answer of the minister
has not dealt with the question I raised. There are two elements in the problem. One is the offences in respect to which the machinery provided by the section is to operate; the other is the particular machinery which is to operate. The minister's reply has dealt entirely with the machinery. I am not concerned with the machinery now, but I am asking the question, whatever the machinery, whether the old or the new, what offences does it deal with? Does it deal with offences under old section 41 or only with some of them? In respect of the offences, and not the machinery, is there any difference between the old section and the one that is intended to take its place?
Mr.	STEWART	(Edmonton):	No	there
would not be. It deals with the same offences with this single exception, that the Minister of Immigration could not lay violent hands on an individual until he was tried.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: All the present offences are
there with the addition of this provision?
Mr.	STEWART	(Edmonton):	Yes	they
are still offences.
Mr.	EDWARDS	(Frontenac):	The	minister has shown a disposition to answer the questions which have been put to him very fairly,	but I think his answers	indicate a
lack of knowledge of the provisions of this bill and the changes in section 41, which leads me to believe that the minister would be
Long Term Farm Loans

well advised if he accepted the suggestion made by the hon. member for Fort William.
This is an important matter.
4 p.m. The very fact that it has been dealt with on five or six occasions in this chamber shows that it is advisable to spend a little more time on it, so that we con compare the section now submitted with the old section. I think it should be laid over.


Charles A. Stewart: I move that the committee rise report progress and ask leave to sit again. If any hon. members who are not here to-day are interested in this perhaps hon. members would direct their attention to the bill as reprinted.


William Alves Boys: I would like the minister to
consider a slight amendment to this section. The closing part of the section contains very much the same language as the closing part of old section 41, and that language is $uite applicable to the old section, because that does not contemplate a conviction at all. It merely states that persons who do certain things shall be reported to the minister. In section 41 you are dealing with a conviction and not a complaint, and no fewer than three officers will be required to send in full particulars-first, the officer cognizant of the offence who, I suppose, would be the police constable; secondly, the official of the municipality who would be the justice of the peace or the magistrate trying the case; and, thirdly, the clerk of the municipality. It seems to me ridiculous that three different officers should be called upon to send in full particulars, and I would suggest that the minister amend the bill to make it the duty of one person, the magistrate or any other judicial officer to submit a copy of the conviction.


Robert James Manion: I do not as a rule insist
very strongly on an absolute adherence to technicalities, but I do think that in the interests of a proper observance of the rules of the House the procedure which is being followed in this instance should not go unchallenged. With all deference to the law officers, I cannot see how a bill consisting solely of one clause can be completely redrafted after it has been once introduced and then taken up in committee without reintroduction. Surely the introduction of the original bill cannot be considered as having introduced a bill which is virtually different. Personally I would offer no objection to the bill in its present form being formally introduced now, and I do not think that the House would object.


Charles A. Stewart: I understood that the present procedure would be in order but I shall inquire further into the point and ask the indulgence of the House to allow me to introduce the bill and go right on with the consideration of it.


Robert James Manion: That is all right.


Charles A. Stewart: I am afraid I did not get the amendment proposed1 by my hon. friend (Mr. Boys).


William Alves Boys: The minister in this section is providing that three officers shall submit certain particulars. I think it would be well to make it incumbent upon one person, say the magistrate, to send to the minister a copy of the conviction which is registered.


Charles A. Stewart: I shall consider the suggestion.
Progress reported.



LONG TERM FARM LOANS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That there shall be a board known as the Canadian Farm Loan Board which shall be a body politic and corporate consisting of four members, one of whom shall be the Minister of Finance and the other three shall be appointed by the Governor in Council and of the latter one shall be designated by the Canadian Farm Loan Commissioners.
That the board shall issue farm loan bonds to make long term loans to farmers, and the government of Canada shall provide initial capital for the board to an amount not exceeding five million dollars and subscribe an amount of 5 per cent of the capital stock as loans are made by the board.
The government of each province in which loans are made shall be required to subscribe to the capital stock of the board as loans are made in such province an amount equal to 5 per cent of the said loans and each borrower an amount of 5 per cent of his loan payable at the time the loan is made. The loans shall be made on the security of first mortgage on farm lands; the interest rate shall be such a rate in excess of the interest payable on the farm loan bonds as is sufficient to provide for the expenses of operation; the farm loan bonds shall be legal investments and may be purchased by the Minister of Finance provided that the amount of such bonds held by him shall not at any time exceed $15,000,000; and the amount of any payment by the government of Canada on account of capital of the board or as payment for farm loan bonds purchased shall be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund on the authority of the Governor in Council.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Duff in the chair.
Mr. ROBB:: Hon. members will be in a
better position to discuss the merits of the proposal once the bill is introduced, and I

Railway Act Amendment
would ask the committee to allow the resolution to go through. I move to amend the resolution by striking out the word "by" in the fourth line and making the word "commissioners" in the fifth line, singular, so that it will read "one shall be designated the Canadian Farm Loan Commissioner."


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Why not strike out the word
"designated"?


James Alexander Robb: I think the word is all right.
It has been suggested by the Department of Justice. I move further that in line sixteen after the words "provide for the expenses of operation" there be added the words "and for the necessary reserves for losses."


Robert James Manion: Is this the rural credits
scheme?


James Alexander Robb: It is popularly discussed under that name but the rural credits scheme as understood in western Canada contemplated short term loans. This is better known as the long term farm loan.


Robert James Manion: I am not objecting to the phraseology. I simply want to know whether this is to take the place of what has commonly been called rural credits.


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr BOYS:: Will the minister kindly explain just what is meant by the last paragraph of this resolution? It provides that the province shall subscribe 5 per cent of the loan and that the borrower shall provide 5 per cent. What about the other 90 per cent?


James Alexander Robb: They will market their own
bonds.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman will be able to put his question on the bill. We are out of committee stage.


William Alves Boys: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 148, for the purpose of establishing in Canada a system of Long Term Mortgage Credit for Farmers.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: The hon. minister might explain now the point raised by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Boys).


James Alexander Robb: I will get all the information for my hon. friend and send him a memorandum.


William Alves Boys: Probably I can satisfy myself
by reading the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



RAILWAY ACT, 1919 AMENDMENT FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION TO ELIMINATION OF LEVEL CROSSINGS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend section 262 of the Railway Aot, 1919, and to provide that the total amount of money to be apportioned and payable from any annual appropriation shall not, in the case of any one rail level orossing, exceed forty per cent of the cost of the actual construction- work, and shall not, in any such case, exceed the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, (Mr. Duff in the chair.
John Wesley Edwards: This money comes out of a special fund, does it not?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


John Wesley Edwards: What is the amount available each year, or is there any limitation?


Charles Avery Dunning: The Railway Act provides for a grant of $200,000 per year for ten consecutive years, from April 1, 1919, to be applied as set out in the act. It might possibly be well to explain at this stage that the government has received many representations to the effect that on account of the relative smallness of the Dominion's contribution from this fund the use for which it was designed has been very little availed of during recent years. The Good Roads Association of Canada has been particularly urgent in its representations. The subject was referred to the Board of Rail-ways Commissioners for a report, and after examining it the board thoroughly recommends the provision contained in the resolution. Briefly, it is to the effect that the Dominion's contribution shall be increased from 25 per cent to 40 per cent, with a maximum of $25,000 for a level crossing instead of $15,000 as heretofore.


John Wesley Edwards: Would the
minister tell us how much has been expended for the last four or five years?
Railway Act Amendment


Charles Avery Dunning: I can go back to 1909
and give my hon. friend particulars of each
year's operations:
1909- 10	
$	701910- 11	
"	6091911-	12	
7,6441912-	13	
20,8071913-	14	
399681914-	15	
92,0991915-	16	
47,0791916- 17	
46 6301917-	18	
13,7401918-	19	
8,7151919-	20	
12,3591920-	21	
56,7721921-	22	
13,2921922-	23	
46,8851923-	24	
44,4391924-	25	
394361925-	26	
66,2241926-	27 (to May 12/26)	
16,361
That is the whole history of the payments year by year.
Mr. GEARY-:	What is the present appropriation?


Charles Avery Dunning: The appropriation under the act is the same annually, $200,000.


Mr. GEARY:: Then is it quite plain from the amendment that this will apply to individual crossings, and not to works which contain more than one crossing? It has sometimes been said with regard to section 262 of the Railway Act that the contribution should be limited to a work, and not to any individual crossing in a work.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think, Mr
Chairman, the minister would be well advised to make that point clear. Very often in cities it is not a question of one crossing but of a big scheme which gets rid perhaps of a dozen crossings. My recollection is that there was difficulty in dealing with it at certain times.


Charles A. Stewart: Does my
hon. friend mean there would be a combination of several crossings in one?


Henry Lumley Drayton: In one scheme. Take, for example, Edmonton, where my hon. friend is familiar with the layout. When we started to straighten out things we found a whole lot of crossings had to be considered at the same time, and the point was taken- I forget whether by the Department of Finance or of Railways-that you could only give aid for one particular crossing, although a whole lot of different crossings might be involved in the one work. I think the minister might well look into that. The resolution contains the phrase, "in the case of anv one rail level crossing." The proper thing to do
Mr. J. W. Edwards.]
is to get rid of the level crossing altogether and put a bridge, tunnel or something else in place of it. The original idea was to aid the elimination of grades, and to make safe highway and railway crossings. I do not think the word "level" comes in there very happily, but the minister can take that up with his legal advisers.


Mr. IORKE:: I quite agree that the right thing would be either a subway or a bridge, but I am afraid that is impossible in every case. In the meantime we should make the crossings as safe as possible. I did not understand the purpose of this resolution because, as I have said before, we at the other end of the House sometimes do not know what is going on until the next day. I am afraid to come over on this side too often-


Henry Lumley Drayton: You probably belong there.


Robert Forke: [DOT]-because my hon. friends opposite get a good deal of amusement when I sit over here, and I do not like to give them any more amusement than I can.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not come on this side?


Robert Forke: That would be all right too. I would like to emphasize the necessity of making level crossings safe in every possible way. I will admit that they are out of date, but under the circumstances it is impossible to have bridges and subways, so the only thing to do is make the level crossings as safe as possible.


Mr.   BOATS@: I presume the minister has the Railway Act before him; I do not recall the provisions of section 262, and if it is not too long perhaps he might read it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am just trying to clear up the point as to the number of crossings; if hon. members will permit I will try to deal with each question as it comes up.


George Gibson Coote: I wish hon. members would speak a little louder; we cannot hear what they say.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will try tc remember. The definition of a crossing is dealt with in the act of 1909, subsection 5 of section 7, as follows:
"Crossing", for the purposes of this section, means any steam railway crossing of a highway, or highway crossing of a steam railway, at rail level, and every manner of construction of the railway or of the highway v the elevation or the depression of thr

Railway Act Amendment
one above or below the other, or by the diversion of the one or the other, and any other work ordered by the board to be provided as one work of protection, safety and convenience for the public in respect of one or more railways not exceeding four tracks in all crossing or so crossed.


George Reginald Geary: I know the definition, and the point has been raised that When you are combining several grade crossings in one work ordered by one order of the Board of Railway Commissioners you may only ask for a contribution from the annual appropriation for the whole work and not for each crossing, although the work may contain ten crossings. For instance, the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) mentioned the city of Edmonton, where there was a separation of grades throughout part of the city. That took care of several crossings, and each of these crossings should receive its contribution if, in the view of the board, it is a proper case. The board should not be limited to $25,000 in respect of a whole work, but only in respect of each separation of grades, that is each highway crossing.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will be glad to give consideration to that point, although part of it would appear to be covered by the provision that no such money shall in any one year be applied to more than six crossings on any one railway in any one municipality, or more than once in any one year to any one crossing.


George Reginald Geary: That is true, but the definition confuses a work with a crossing. If the minister would be good enough to consider that matter with his legal advisers the point might be cleared up.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will be glad to consider it.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenae):: I would like to ask the minister a question. I entirely agree with the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), that these crossings should be made as safe a3 possible. Let us suppose a municipality makes a request to the Board of Railway Commissioners for the elimination of a level crossing. Does the Board of Railway Commissioners apportion the cost of such work as between the municipality and the railway on the one hand, and in relation to the 40 per cent paid by the government, on the other?


Charles Avery Dunning: Not to exceed 40 per
cent.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Then is the
apportionment of the other 60 per cent entirely within the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners as between the municipality and the railway company?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the position.


William Alves Boys: And the 40 per cent is also dealt with by the board.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, but the board's authority to order payment from the con-soldiated fund is limited to 40 per cent.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Then the board, in its judgment, might give 30 per cent or 20 per cent, but not over 40 per cent?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right. Sometimes the province comes into the matter also, as hon. members who are familiar with the operations of the act know. Now someone has asked me to read section 262:
(1) The sums appropriated and set apart to aid actual construction work for 'the protection, safety and convenience of the public in respect of highway crossings of railways at rail level in existence on the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and nine, shall be placed to the credit of a special account to be known as "The Railway Grade Crossing Fund", and shall be applied by the board subject to the limitations hereinafter set out, solely towards the cost (not including that of maintenance and operation), of actual construction work for the purpose aforesaid.
Then comes subsection (2) which we are now amending, which deals with the proportions, and then subsection (3) goes on:
In case any province contributes towards the said fund, the board may apportion, direot and order payment out of the amount so contributed by such province, subject to any conditions and restrictions made and imposed by such province in respect of its contribution.
Apparently none of the provinces have made use of that privilege, because so far as I know they have not contributed anything towards this fund. Then subsection (4) is as follows:
In this section,-
"crossing", means any steam railway crossing of a highway, or highway crossing of a steam railway, at rail level, and every manner of construction of the railway or of the highway by the elevation or the depression of the one above or below the other, or by the diversion of the one or the other, and any other work ordered by the board to be provided as one work of protection, safety and convenience for the public in respect of one or more railways not exceeding four tracks in all crossing or so crossed;
"municipality", means an incorporated city, town, village, county, township, parish, or rural municipality.
That is the whole section.


George Reginald Geary: That is the capital cost
of construction of the work. The hon.
Railway Act Amendment

member for Brandon is more interested, I think, in the safeguarding of grade crossings by the installation of a gate or a wigwag or a signal which requires maintenance from year to year, rather than by a bridge or subway. The amount attributable to construction is very slight, and the real cost is in the annual maintenance either by mechanical means or by watchmen. Sometimes three or four watchmen are required to take care of a day and night crossing. That bears rather heavily on the municipality, I happen to know, and probably my hon. friend has cases in mind in his district where the municipalities are paying heavily for that sort of protection going on from year to year. Perhaps the minister would consider authorizing the railway board to contribute some part of the annual protection cost.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am afraid I cannot
undertake to do that. After all, we are increasing the proportion to be borne by the Dominion from 25 to 40 per cent and are increasing the maximum from $15,000 to $25,000. That is a big jump, and undoubtedly it will encourage the building of more works to eliminate level crossings than has been the case for a number of years past. I think we had better be content to move slowly and see what the effect is going to be after this present enlargement of the Dominion's contribution, before we undertake anything in the way of looking after maintenance. I am afraid that it would run into a very great deal of money if any provision were to be made for that. I think the hon. member for West York has probably more information on this matter than any other member of the House, and I would appreciate his view on the suggestion of providing at this time something additional for maintenance cost, as well as for the original cost of construction.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no
doubt about it that the real cost in connection with protection of level crossings is the maintenance. H you are going to put in gates-I do not know what the cost is now, but once you could put in pretty good gates for $2,500 or $3,000. If you have a more complicated layout, it may cost double that amount, or a little more when you have something else tied up with it, but the gates as gates are not very expensive to install originally. Nevertheless, even in the old days, putting in gates had the effect of creating a capital carrying charge of $50,000. What I mean by that is that it took at least the interest on $50,000 to look after the mainten-
ance of those gates, watchmen, the supply of oil. and the like. It would cost even more now I should think-I have not looked at the figures for a long time-and that is quite a burden on the municipalities.
But in justice to the minister I have to admit that the underlying idea of the act was the elimination of crossings more than anything else. At the same time there is this practical thing we have to remember. The step that is now being taken is wise. We never gave enough to crossing elimination before; we were simply playing with it, but even with what we are now doing we are not going to have very many more crossing eliminations. Grade eliminations to-day run to a great deal of money. Subways and bridges are very, very expensive. Most of them cost a great deal more than $15,000, which is the maximum contribution to-day, I understand.


Charles Avery Dunning: It will be $25,000 under this amendment.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That helps quite materially, but what I think the minister might well do is to have just a little addition made to his resolution, which would not throw much burden at all on the government, but which would help the municipalities very materially in the construction of new gates. I think the most we could contribute from the grade crossing fund towards the cost for a gate protection-of course, this is a recollection of a great many years standing-was $200. For the ordinary level crossing protection, where there is no grade separation and the like, I think in such cases we might have a maximum not exceeding say $1,000 or $1,500 per crossing.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not get my hon.
friend's point.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In cases where the whole cost mostly is maintenance rather than construction, I am suggesting that the maximum contribution which might be made from the grade crossing fund be say $1,000 or $1,500, or something like that. That would really help in the case of level crossings where the necessary money, owing to the position of the municipality and the railway, cannot be obtained for the purpose of putting in a subway or a bridge. Increasing the maximum would make it just that much more easy and render it more probable that we would have proper protection, watchmen and the like, without involving us in an annual contribution which might run into a great deal of money.


Charles Avery Dunning: The object I had in
mind, Mr. Chairman, in bringing this forward at all was to forward the original objective

Railway Act Amendment
of the legislation, which is the elimination of the level crossing, by increasing the amount which could be attributed by the Dominion to $25,000 per crossing. I regard it as much more advantageous to the people that the crossing should be eliminated than that we should encourage the installation of gates to a greater extent than now exists. I shall be glad to give consideration to the last suggestion made by the hon. member for West York, although it occurs to me offhand that, with the many thousands of level crossings in Canada, such an increase might result in our general fund being depleted in providing for maintenance along the line suggested.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not maintenance.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, a contribution
towards installation. In that connection may I say that the board can now order up to 40 per cent of the installation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But not if
the installation exceeds $2,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: The contribution then
would be about $900.


Sir HF:: NRY DRAYTON:	But we know
that both the municipality and the railway will have to go on paying two or three or four thousand dollars a year for all time.


Charles Avery Dunning: The real objection I
have to that is that it is rather an abandonment of the objective of the law. It is substituting the encouragement of level crossings guarded by gates for what the legislation was obviously intended in the first place to bring about, and that was, through assistance, the complete elimination of level crossings. However, I shall be glad to have the matter further looked into from the point of view my hon. friend has taken.	.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We might as
well be absolutely frank with ourselves. We shall never entirely eliminate level crossings. It cannot be done. Why, if we were to eliminate all level crossings it would double the cost of your railway capital in some cases. So the thing to do is to make up our minds what is the practical way of making these crossings just as safe to the public as we can.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I am exceedingly glad
that the minister has brought this matter before the House, and I am only sorry that he did not go a little further. I should like to ask for information. In two cases in Nova Scotia recently, one in the county of Cumberland and one in the county of Halifax,
road diversions were made by the highways board, and in each case, certainly in one, the diversion eliminated three railway crossings. Now, under the bill as brought down, will the amount contributed be limited to $25,000, or to $75,000 on account of the three railway crossings eliminated? These three railway crossings are being eliminated by an entire reconstruction of the road at a cost very much greater than $75,000. Will the minister be good enough to give me an interpretation of the act as relating to a case of that kind?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am afraid I must not attempt to interpret any act, but my understanding of the administration is that under the act the Board of Railway Commissioners can give consideration to any kind of work which has for its objective the elimination of level crossings.


Thomas Cantley: I am not sure the minister has understood my question. I will read from the resolution as it is here:
The total amount of money to be apportioned and payable from any annual appropriation shall not, in the case of any one rail level crossing, exceed 40 per cent of the cost of the actual construction work, and shall not, in any such case, exceed the sum of $25,000.
Now three level crossings were eliminated by the diversion. Would the contribution be limited to $25,000 or to $75,000? One of these diversions cost the highways board of the province of Nova Scotia something in the vicinity of $150,000. The other one costs less, but both of them cut out three level crossings on which accidents had occurred resulting in great damage to the rolling stock of the railway. I would be very glad if the minister could raise the amount both in the case of the 40 per cent and as to the sum total of $25,000. An enormous number of people are being killed every year and that number is unfortunately increasing. Therefore, any money which can be expended in preventing accidents of this kind is surely justified. The highways were created before the railways came into existence, and bearing that fact in mind the railways should assume at least one-half the cost of making diversions which will not only give more protection to the public, but will also protect railway property.


Mr. MILLAR:: I should like to bring to
the attention of the committee a matter that has been on my mind for some little time. I believe that if a slight and very inexpensive addition were made to the signs placed at railway crossings a good many accidents might be prevented. The necessity of this was brought very forcibly to my attention
Railway Act Amendment

last summer, when a very sad accident occurred near the town where I reside. Perhaps if I described this accident hon. members could better get my point of view. A family of five, on their way to the exhibition at Regina came up to a railway crossing where there was a double track, a fact of which they were not aware. A long freight was proceeding westerly, and they waited for it to pass. Immediately that freight passed the automobile driver pulled up onto the track. But a short freight was proceeding eastward at the same time,, the sight of which was hidden from the driver's view by the long freight. Apparently the engineer of the short freight blew the whistle as required by law, but the engines being close together the driver of the motor thought it was the engine of the train he was watching. The result was that he got on the track. The east bound freight was only about forty yards away and travelling at a fast rate. It struck the car and two of the occupants were so badly injured that they died within an hour or two. Two others were seriously injured, and a fifth person escaped with a few scratches. I asked the driver afterwards, when he was in the hospital recovering, this question:	Had there been some additional
sign denoting that the track was a double one would not some of the occupants of the car have noticed it with the result that the accident would not have taken place? The injured man told me that he felt certain such would have been the case. It seems to me that if some additional device carrying the word "double," in a different colour, or perhaps in red letters, were placed above the present sign "railway crossing" so that it would read "double railway crossing," a good many accidents would be prevented. It would cost very little because it would only need to be placed where there was a double track crossing. Recently I was informed that a similar accident took place in western Ontario, but I failed to notice it in the paper and could not find out exactly where it happened. There is nothing to indicate at these crossings that there is a double track, or that there are three tracks, and many people who are accustomed to driving across single track are apt to forget the danger. I should like to point out that in the particular instance I spoke of the west bound freight was right in front of the people sitting in the car and thus prevented them from seeing the second track on the other side. That is all I wish to say in connection with this matter, but I hope the minister will seriously consider the representations made.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: May I just remark that accidents of this kind seem to me tc indicate very clearly the necessity not of more signs, but of having crossings which make such accidents impossible. 1 do not think that level crossings can be justified simply because of their cheapness or a sufficiency of signs. I should like to look at this matter not merely from the standpoint of people who are travelling in motor cars, but also from the point of view of the railway employees, I know that representations have been made again and again to the government by railway employees as to the dangers which exist at level crossings. These employees are under a very great strain constantly in trying to be on the lookout for possible traffic when they should be attending to their engines or to other duties. It seems to me that these representations, made by men who are daily brought into contact with the possibility of accidents, ought to be listened to, and the comparatively small expenditure involved ought not to stand in the way of taking adequate measures for the protection of human life.


William Alves Boys: Who is administering the act?


Charles Avery Dunning: The Board of Railway
Commissioners for Canada.


William Alves Boys: I know, but when disbursements are made by the Department of Railways directly?


Charles Avery Dunning: The amount voted each year is paid into the consolidated fund, and payments are made out of this fund on the order of the railway commission and through the Department of Finance.


William Alves Boys: Dealing with the point raised by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley), I would ask the minister for his unoersbanding of the phraseology appearing in the third line:
-money to be apportioned and payable from any annual appropriation shall not, in the case of any one rail levdl crossing, exceed 40 per cent-
What is meant by " one rail level crossing "? Does " one rail " mean one track and if there are four tracks will they be treated as one? I presume the bill has already been drafted, and it might be important to know whether the wording in the bill will be identical with the wording in the resolution. If so, what I have to say would certainly be more important. If the wording is going to be different, it may be that the resolution can stand until we get the bill itself. In the meantime I think it' would enlighten the committee to have the minister say what is meant by one rail level crossings.

Chicoutimi Harbour Commission


Charles Avery Dunning: I have a draft, copy of the bill here and the provision proposed to be substituted for subsection 2 of the present act reads as follows:
The total amount of money to be apportioned, and directed and ordered by the board to be payable from any such annual appropriation shall not, an the case of any one crossing,-


William Alves Boys: That is better.


Charles Avery Dunning: -exceed forty per cent of the cost of the actual construction work in providing such protection, safety and convenience, and shall not, in any such case, exceed the sum of $25,000, and no such money shall in any one year be applied tc more than six crossings on any one railway in any one municipality, or more than once in any one year to any one Crossing.
That is the actual section as drafted.


William Alves Boys: That does, for the moment, raise the point as to what is a crossing. I have in my mind one in my own part of the country where, as a matter of fact, I think there are four tracks. I am not quite sure from that reading just how this will work out. I should think that each track would be a crossing.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Charles Avery Dunning: The definition of a crossing as now contained in subsection 4 will of course apply. That reads as follows:
"crossing'' means any steam railway crossing of a highway, or highway crossing of a steam railway, at rail level, and every manner of construction of the railway or of the highway by the elevation or the depression of the one above or bellow the other, or by the diversion of the one or the other.
That answers my hon. friend. The section continues:
And any other work ordered by the board to be provided as one work of protection, safety and convenience for the public in respect of one or more railways not exceeding four tracks in all crossing or so crossed.
I have read that section three times to the lawyers in this House and they have not got it yet.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 149, to amend the Railway Act 1919.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CHICOUTIMI HARBOUR COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to incorporate the Chicoutimi Harbour Commissioners,
and to make provision for <the improvement, management and regulation of the harbour of Chicoutimi, in the province of Quebec.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Duff in the chair.
Robert James Manion: Before the resolution is
carried, I am interested to know something about it in a general way. We have harbour commissions at Quebec, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, and I should like to know why one is required at Chicoutimi?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is proposed to incorporate the Chicoutimi Harbour Commissioners, more particularly in view of the development which is taking place in lake St. John and vicinity. The Chicoutimi harbour is somewhat important at the present time. Chicoutimi has a population of nearly 10,000, and in view of the development taking place in that district, it has been found necessary to place the harbour of Chicoutimi under the jurisdiction of a hatbour commission.


Robert James Manion: How much money has
been spent on the harbour there?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I could not say. It has
been under the Department of Public Works.


Robert James Manion: I do not want to appear
in the position of opposing the measure, but I want information. The minister says it is necessary, and it struck me as strange. There are a great many harbours on the Great Lakes where the government has spent millions of dollars and where there are no harbour commissions. The development at Chicoutimi is pulp and paper is it not?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, aluminum.


Robert James Manion: I cannot imagine that one industry at Chicoutimi would make the harbour compare with the harbours on the Great Lakes where they are handling coal. I have no objection personally however. What is the intention of the government in regard to the harbour commission? Is there any hope of it being self-supporting?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We hope it will be.


Robert James Manion: From dues collected in the harbour?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Robert James Manion: Is there anything in the
bill which will be based on the resolution providing for expenses?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The expenses will be met
by the harbour commission.

Chicoutimi Harbour Commission


Robert James Manion: But the commission will
have no money until it is collected by them. Will there be any advances by the government?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We must not
assume too quickly that the minister is 100 per cent right. He is not asking for any advance this session, but next session or the following session he will be asking for it. It will be just the same as Three Rivers. Does my hon. friend remember the nice discussion we had when Three Rivers wanted to get a commission, and our genial friend, who is now in another chamber, was very much in favour of it? I think he found that it was a regular nuisance. We know there is the matter of necessity. Somebody wants a job in connection with the harbour commission. It is a great necessity sometimes to supply the job.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Is the hon. member speaking from experience?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh yes, but I
was always able to withstand the pressure. We never incorporated one harbour commission while I was in office. My hon. friend is not quite so successful in that respect as I fortunately was. The minister is quite right in asking me about that matter. Of course we experienced the same thing. People want patronage here and jobs there all over the country, and every now and again the government falls for it. I think hon. members will agree with me that we have larger harbours without commissions and harbours where the government has spent considerable sums of money. What really is the idea of having this commission? Must we give it to Chicoutimi because Three Rivers got it three years ago? Is that the real idea?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
real necessity?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We believed that the affairs of the port could be administered to better advantage by a commission in close contact with the harbour at Chicoutimi and familiar with the conditions there. We
5 p.m. thought that preferable to sending someone from the department down there to look after the affairs of this port. I am quite sure the harbour is going to take care of itself, in view of the development, as Three Rivers has done. We have not advanced any money to Three Rivers up to the present time, and I am informed they have a surplus. We expect great develop-

mentis will take place around lake St. John, and if later on they come to parliament asking for any assistance they will probably be in a position to show that they are capable of paying interest on the money we may advance to them. It may be that the government has made large expenditures in places where there have been no harbour commissioners, but I think hon. gentlemen will agree that the request in this case is legitimate.


Robert James Manion: Unquestionably it is legitimate so long as it does not involve the people of Canada in any expense. I would point out to the minister however that large sums have been spent in harbours, much more important than that of Chicoutimi, without any reference at all to harbour commissions. Take for instance one of the most important harbours in the whole Dominion, a harbour through which probably more freight is shipped than through Montreal, even. I refer to the head of the lakes, were 80 or 90 per cent of the grain of western Canada is handled, not to mention coal going west and all package freight westbound which does not go via the Panama canal. That harbour is immense and some $14,000,000 has been spent on it; yet there has never been a harbour commission there. It is obvious therefore that very much can be done without the assistance of a commission. Howver, if it pleases the people of Chicoutimi to have a harbour commission, I have no (Objection, although it would be rather a different matter if we were asked later on to pay the expenses of that commission. The construction of public works is of course another question.


William Alves Boys: What is the present revenue
of Chicoutimi?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have not the figures under my hand, but I shall give them when the bill is before the committee.


William Alves Boys: Unless the revenue were substantial I should not think this would be a paying proposition, and if it is to be made at all appreciable there will be imposed on those using the wharves an additional burden.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What sized ships use the
harbour now?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: All ocean liners can get
into the port, and they go there for pulp, coal, aluminum and other things necessary for development purposes.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Can the harbour accommodate a vessel of eight or ten thousand tons?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think so.

Forest Reserves and Parks Act
Mr. TOLMiTE:	What is the population of
Chicoutimi?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Ten thousand.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What is the depth of water at the docks?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Thirty feet, at least.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Can the minister tell us on what principle, in his opinion, harbour commissioners should be appointed? When should we have harbour commissioners, and when not? Can he tell us whether it is a question of asking for them and, if so, how many times the request must be made and reinforced? Or 'whether it is a question of a number of gentlemen having to insist upon it and, if so, how many gentlemen? Or whether it is a matter of tonnage and so forth? In other words, on what basis does the minister recommend the appointment of harbour commissions?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I recommend the establishment of the commission because I am disposed to accept the representations of the people residing in the district. I may assure my hon. friend that although I am interested in the port of Sorel, where I live, we have no harbour commission, nor do I propose asking for the incorporation of one.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why not?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not think it is necessary at the present time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Again, why not?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am satisfied with what
we have. In the case of Chicoutimi, however, the request has been very pressing and I do not see any objection.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How does the
tonnage at Chicoutimi compare with the tonnage at Sorel?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is probably about the
same in each case, but unfortunately there are not as many boats going to Sorel as there are to Chicoutimi.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, then, if
the tonnage is approximately the same we are to infer-what I thought was really the fundamental reason-that someone has been pressing for this commission. I have no doubt of course that my hon. friend feels safe at Sorel, and it is therefore not necessary for him to bother his head about harbour commissions or harbour commissioners. Indeed, that would be another reason why he would 14011-243
not want to ask for a commission for Sorel. Apparently however he is more interested in the fate of the chief whip (Mr. Casgrain), and so there are to be hatbour commissioners at Chicoutimi.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: That is not in my district.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is in the
vicinity.


Mr CASGRAIN:: I have the honour to
represent the constituency of Charlevoix-Saguenay and not Chicoutimi.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. member's district is on the Saguenay.


John Livingstone Brown: Guess again.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown) know where Saguenay is? It is the constituency adjoining that of the chief whip, who is naturally concerned in his neighbour's welfare. He h&s that neighbourly feeling which the hon. member for Lisgar shows for so many people who think in the same way as he does. As I say, my hon. friend (Mr. Cardin) is safe in Sorel, and so he does not ask for a commission there; but as the people of Chicoutimi are urging this upon the government they are going to get a commission.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Is there any body that exercises any control over harbour commissioners in respect of hatbour rates, and so on, just as the Board of Railway Commissioners does over the railways in respect of railway rates?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Department of Marine has fixed certain minimum rates which may be increased by the harbour commission, but all such increased rates must be submitted to the department and confirmed by the Governor in Council.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Cardin thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 150, respecting the Chicoutimi Harbour Commissioners.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



THE DOMINION FOREST RESERVES AND PARKS ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Edmonton, Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 97, to amend the Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Duff in the chair.
[Stage Direction]


Forest Reserves and Parks Act
On section 1

Schedule amended.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps at this point the minister can conveniently explain the bill.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, the bill is for the purpose of making some changes in the boundaries of the various forest reserves in the four western provinces where we are withdrawing agricultural land that was originally included in the reserves, and in other cases land that is not fit for agricultural purposes we are adding to the reserves. The withdrawals from the forest reserves in Saskatchewan amount to 167.27 square miles, and the additions to 15.40 square miles. The largest withdrawals are from the forest reserves of Saskatchewan because in the north, by mistake, we incorporated within the Porcupine and Pasquia reserves a considerable area of land that turns out to be good agricultural land. As soon as it is withdrawn it w 11 be thrown open for homesteading. Very careful inspection has been made of these lands, and we think it would be beneficial both from the agricultural standpoint and from the standpoint of forestry to make these changes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This bill is
doing two things, if I understand the minister aright, additions and withdrawals.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is it all done under the same section?


Charles A. Stewart: Under the
same bill.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I see only one
section.


Charles A. Stewart: It defines all lands added and all lands withdrawn.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Can my hon.
friend tell us what is added and what is withdrawn? What does paragraph 1 do?


Charles A. Stewart: The main withdrawals in Saskatchewan are from the Porcupine forest reserve No. 2, and the Pasquia forest reserve, and total 158 square miles. This strip is located partly in the Porcupine and partly in the Pasquia forest reserves. These withdrawals are considered advisable owing to the fact that areas with soil suitable for agricultural development, but covered with a dense stand of merchantable timber, were included in the reserves in order that proper fire protection might be afforded. Now that a large percentage of the timber has been removed, and the soil is of good quality, it is deemed advisable to make these areas available for settlement. Then the additionst Mr. C. W. Stewart.]


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not see in the bill which is a withdrawal and which is an addition. That is what is puzzling me.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: For the purpose of easy reference later, it seems to me it would have been advisable to have kept the withdrawals and the additions in separate sections. In the withdrawal of this land and opening it for homesteading is there any danger of encouraging the movement of homesteading away from railways, and thus intensifying the old evil?


Charles A. Stewart: There is
no such danger so far as the Porcupine reserve No. 2 is concerned, from which we are eliminating an extensive area. I think I have a report of the acreage of the sections which will be withdrawn.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In paragraph
1 are we subtracting or adding?


Charles A. Stewart: I must
frankly confess that I cannot tell my hon. friend. I have particulars in my notes of the subtractions. Clearly there is an oversight in the drafting of the bill; it should have been definitely stated whether a withdrawal or an addition was being made.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: It is proposed to withdraw from the Porcupine reserve certain areas, particulars of which I can furnish the committee.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Which paragraph covers it?


Charles A. Stewart: Undoubtedly it is paragraph 1.


William Alves Boys: I do not think there is any
doubt, Mr. Chairman, that you are adding, because I observe the closing part refers to an area of "187.75 square miles," which is to be struck out and "189.80 square miles" substituted. This would indicate the territory has been increased.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. I
frankly confess it is not very illuminating to a layman.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is worse to
a lawyer, for he is not a good guesser; he must follow the wording.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Would it not be possible to
have a map of the original reserves with the added and subtracted sections marked?


Charles A. Stewart: I have them very clearly set out in my notes. I can give the sections withdrawn for homesteading from the Porcupine reserve. The additions

Forest Reserves and Parks Act
to that reserve are small. We propose to add the northwest quarter of section 13 and the northwest quarter of section 25. comprising .5 square miles. The withdrawals are considerable in number, because this is the one reserve where we appear to have included a considerable amount of agricultural land.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Have you an
index to your notes so you can tell us which section deals with White Mouth river, for example?


Charles A. Stewart: White
Mouth river is in Manitoba.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: We should have more accurate knowledge of what is proposed to be done in this bill, or we might just as well give the government carte blanche to do what they like. The explanatory note here might very well have embodied what is proposed section by section. For instance, paragraph 1 of the explanatory note might have given us a brief statement of what section 1 of the bill does; it adds so many sections and takes away so many sections; the note might continue in the same way through the bill, but as it is now it is virtually valueless.


Charles A. Stewart: The difficulty is that the bill has been drawn as an amendment to the forest reserves act. I have the proposals here in quite concrete form, taking Manitoba first. The present area of the Sandilands reserve is 187.75 square miles; we are making there an addition of 1.55 square miles, which makes a total of 189.30 square miles.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is an
addition?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. In
Turtle Mountain it remains the same; in Riding Mountain-


Henry Lumley Drayton: We are rid of
paragraph 1; my hon. friend says we are to make an addition there. Then paragraph 2 reads:
Paragraph three of the said schedule is amended by inserting 'the figure "9" preceded and followed by a comma after the figure "2" in the twentieth line of the said paragraph.
What is the effect of that change?


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: May I ask if the
settlers along the Sandilands reserve know anything about these changes?


Charles A. Stewart: There is no change in the Sandilands reserve except the addition of 1.55 square miles; there is no change in Turtle Mountain-


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I misunderstood it.


Charles A. Stewart: In Duck
Mountain we are eliminating 19.80 square miles, so the total area is now 1,426 square miles instead of 1,446. In Porcupine No. 1 there is no change. That covers Manitoba. The biggest change is in Saskatchewan.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have sent for the act, to see if we can make anything out of the amendment with the act before us.


Mr. SPENCE (Maple Creek):: Will the
minister give us the changes in Saskatchewan?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. In Porcupine No. 2 we are eliminating 79.25 square miles and adding .50 square miles, which makes the total 2,791 square miles. The Duck Mountain reserve remains the same; the Elbow reserve is the same and Beaver Hill the same.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Would the minister just give
us the sections instead of the names, because we have nothing to show what section relates to Duck Mountain.


Charles A. Stewart: In Saskatchewan it is proposed to add the northwest quarter of section 13 and the northwest quarter of section 25, township 36, range 32, west of the first meridian. It is proposed to withdraw the following: the southwest quarter of section 4, township 36, range 31, west of the first meridian; sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 18 and the south half and northwest quarter of section 15, in township 44, range 3; that portion of township 44, range 4, lying north of the Red Deer river; that portion of township 43, range 7, which is included in the reserve; all of township
44,	range 7 except legal subdivision 7 of section 18; sections 6, 7 and the west half of section 18, township 44, range 11; all being west of the second meridian and comprising 79.25 square miles. From the Pasquia forest reserve it is proposed to withdraw township
45,	range 3, sections 19, 20, 29, 30, 31, and 32; township 45, range 4, all that portion of the township which is included in the reserve; township 45, range 7, sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 and those portions of sections 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 and of the south half and northeast quarter of section 7 lying south of the southern boundary of the Canadian National railway right of way; township 45, range 9, sections 13 to 36 inclusive; township 45. range 10, sections 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35 and 36, the south half of section 17, the south half of section 19, the south half and northeast quarter of section 21 and the east half of section 28.

Forest Reserves and Parks Act


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think I can
give the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bury) the information he desires. The first paragraph relates to the Sandilands forest reserve. Paragraph 2 of our present act relates to paragraph 3 of the original act, having to do with the Spruce Woods forest reserve; then paragraph 3 of our bill refers to paragraph 4 of the schedule, which is the Riding Mountain forest reserve. If the minister will just mark these in his bill he will be able to give us more information. Then paragraph 4 of our bill refers to the Duck Mountain forest reserve. Paragraph 5 refers to Porcupine Forest Reserve No. 2.


Charles A. Stewart: That is the big withdrawal.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Paragraph 6 refers to Moose Mountain forest reserve; paragraph 7 deals with Pasquia forest reserve; paragraph 8 with Keppel forest reserve; paragraph 9 with Fort a la Corne forest reserve; paragraph 10, with Nisbet forest reserve; paragraph 11, with Pines forest reserve; paragraph 12, with Cypress Hills forest reserve No. 2; paragraph 13, with Manitou forest reserve; paragraph 14, with the Rocky Mountains forest reserve; paragraph 15, with the Larch Hills forest reserve; paragraph 16, with the Fly Hill forest reserve; paragraph 17, with the Monte Hills forest reserve; paragraph 18, with the Niskonlith forest reserve; paragraph 19, with the Hat Creek forest reserve; paragraph 20, with the Shuswap forest reserve.


Mr. STIRLING:: Can the minister tell us where the Fly Hill forest reserve is?


Charles A. Stewart: It is proposed to withdraw legal subdivisions 9 and 10 of section 7, township 21, range 11, west of the sixth meridian.


Grote Stirling: Has the minister any idea where that is?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It must be near the Niskonlith forest reserve.


Mr. FRASER:: Is the minister adding areas to these reserves?


Charles A. Stewart: No, only the small withdrawals I mentioned.


John Anderson Fraser: And no additions?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Grote Stirling: Is the Shuswap to be a new one altogether?


Charles A. Stewart: That is a new one entirely.


John Anderson Fraser: Do these changes in any way affect the rights of the trapper to catch fur in the reserves?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


John Anderson Fraser: In no way at all?


Charles A. Stewart: No, the same laws prevail within the reserve as outside. The provincial law prevails with respect to hunting and trapping.


John Anderson Fraser: It is different from the park reserves.


Charles A. Stewart: Quite.


Arthur Meighen: Who are the officers who have recommended all these alterations?


Charles A. Stewart: Well, the
Forestry officials take the responsibility, but the investigations are made by the officers of the department.


Arthur Meighen: Which ones?


Charles A. Stewart: The officers in the various provinces.
Mr. M(E1GHEN: The officers of the provinces?


Charles A. Stewart: No, the
officers of the federal government, the forestry officials.


Arthur Meighen: Which officials though?


Charles A. Stewart: The officials under the control of Messrs. Finlayson and Cameron. I cannot tell my hon. friend who the local officials are throughout the provinces who actually do 'the reconnaissance work.


Arthur Meighen: Messrs. Finlayson and
Cameron have not examined the ground themselves.


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Is it the intention to open up the agricultural land at once or merely to hold it in reserve?


Charles A. Stewart: As soon as the bill is passed and the lands are withdrawn they will be listed for settlement.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: How close are they to a railway and to other settlers?
Mr. 'STEWART (Edmonton):	I cannot
give my hon. friend that information. A demand has been made to have them opened, and in response to that request an inspection was made last summer. The decision to withdraw the land was arrived at after inspection. As a matter of fact there are no closed areas, whether they be near or distant from railways, anywhere for homesteading. Therefore,

Private Bills
I did not think it was material to bring any data as to distance, and in the present case I have not got the exact distance of the ' land from a railway. This will simply be an addition to other lands that are in the vicinity. We do know that some of these withdrawals are quite close to the railway.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: M*y only point is this: We recognize now that ft was a mistaken policy to throw distant sections open to homesteading and have people go away up into the Peace river, to settle hundreds of miles from a railway, and almost starve until they could get railway accommodation. There is now no holding up of lands open for homesteading, I recognize that, but what I have in mind is this: If the old policy was a faulty one, are you not-in so far as these lands which are far from railways and far from settlement are concerned-increasing the evil? It is true you cannot hold up land that is open for homesteading, but if you keep these lands still in the forest reserve you yet accomplish the same result as holding them up from settlement.


Charles A. Stewart: If I may
say so I think my hon. friend is unduly alarmed. There is no demand for withdrawal of lands from forest reserves until settlement surrounds them as a rule. It is not the desire to select pieces of land in forest reserves for homesteading when there is open land about them. But when settlement has taken place around the reserves we get requests to open up these areas.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: That is the way in which the homestead areas like those of the Feace river and the Grand Prairie have increased in settlement. An old settlement was there and because of the presence of a little settlement the population grew, and at first there were no homestead restrictions. Now, you may have a slight settlement round these particular areas in the forest reserve, you may have enough settlement to induce more settlement; but if they are far from railways, and cannot come within decent railway distance for some considerable time, is it wise to encourage further settlement in those particular areas? That is all I am asaing.


Charles A. Stewart: Porcupine
No. 2, from which the largest number of withdrawals was made, is practically surrounded by settlement, and the demand has come to thicken up the settlement there rather than to have it take place farther away In that particular case I know there will be no request for railway communication, and it will not be an isolated settlement.


John Anderson Fraser: I understand the extension of the Shuswap reserve is for forestry purposes, not for agricultural purposes.


Charles A. Stewart: It is for
the preservation of these lands for forestry purposes purely and simply. But what we have been discussing is the withdrawal of land from the forest reserves.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister intend to have any more forestry weeks?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: I noticed that the last week was no sooner over than a forest fire started.


Charles A. Stewart: The good
Lord makes the weather, not tlie Department of the Interior.


Arthur Meighen: What has been the extent of the destruction?


Charles A. Stewart: 1 have not received any report. I understand that in Manitoba there have been some very bad fires, I think probably the worst, but I have no report as to the extent of the destruction.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Hewitt Bostock: Wrhen shall the bill be read a third time? Now?


Arthur Meighen: No, Mr. Speaker, not
the third reading.


Hewitt Bostock: Next sitting of the House.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Joseph Robert Crow.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Stanley Bennett-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Katherine Landon Foley.-Sir Henry Drayton.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Edith Annie Say.-Mr. White (Mount Royal).
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Isabella Stewart Carmichael	Wilson.-Sir Henry
Drayton.
Bill No. 103, for the relief of May Maud Mary Johnson.

Mr. Bell (Hamilton).
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Roland George Wickens.-Mr. Arthurs.
3S34
House Protective Service
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 105, for the relief of Marjorie Durham Morgan.-Mr. Mewbum.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of Amber May Wolfenden.-Mr. Bothwell.
Bill No. 107, for the relief of Enda Beatrice Burley.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 108, for the relief of Bessie Hyde Lanyon Calhoun.-Mr. Donaghy.
Bill No. 109, for the relief of Bleecker Foy Maidens.-Mr. Peck.
Bill No. 110, for the relief of George Almon Wickett.-Mr. Peck.
Bill No. 112, respecting certain (patents owned by the Sealright Company, Inc.-Sir Henry Drayton.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 93, to incorporate The Canadian Dexter P. Cooper Company.-Mr. Hanson.


Hewitt Bostock: Before the House proceeds with the next order of business I desire by unanimous leave to read the report which I have prepared in consequence of a meeting of the Board of Internal Economy this morning:
With regard to the complaints arising out of the action of the Sergeant-at-Arms in taking means to prevent theft in the members' rooms, the matter was brought before the Board of Internal Economy this morning.
After hearing Colonel Bowie's explanation and considering his memorandum, the board was of opinion that he acted in good faith, his sole object being to protect the property of members. Since 'the opening of the session, different objects, and sometimes money, have disappeared from desks in the members' rooms. It is a well known fact that there are several keys for each room, some of which are for the char service and secretaries, messengers and .pages. A patrol has always been carried out for fire protection and other services such as heating, light, et cetera. The emergency order given by the Sergeant-at-Arms on May 1st was not, as has been stated, for the purpose of raiding liquor in the rooms. The law allows anyone to have liquor in his possession, provided it is obtained legally or purchased from an authorized vendor.
It was because of several complaints that the above order was given. Unfortunately it was not written and the officer to whom it was intrusted, instead of carrying it out himself, with proper caution, passed it on to a subordinate who, in turn, gave it to another constable. The men who made the search found, in unlocked desks, several objects besides liquor, which they labelled and took over to the constables' quarters.
In view of the wrong impression caused 'by this urgent measure of protection, I 'have given instruction, after consulting my colleagues of the Board of Economy that, in future, none but the usual patrol will take place and members will have to accept the responsibility for the safeguarding of their personal effects in their desks and filing cabinets.
A fictitious and libellous list has been circulated purporting to give the names of .the members in whose rooms the effects were found. The Royal Canadian

Mounted Police has been requested to inquire as to how it originated.
. Action will be taken as soon as the report is received.
Undue importance was given to this incident which, after all, was nothing but a measure of protection unfortunately magnified and aggravated by the circumstance that it seemed connected with .the infraction of the temperance act.
Regarding the claim of extra territoriality raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) as applied to parliament buildings, it is a very big question which requires careful study and consideration. I may, however, state in a general way that the immunities, rights and privileges of parliament are of immemorial standing and, according to Anson, page 153, it has always been admitted by the courts that the House has the exclusive right "to regulate its own internal concerns."
I think this will put an end to an incident that, as I say, has been unduly magnified.



CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Duff in the chair.
Miscellaneous-amount required for remission of excise tax paid on automobiles remaining in the hands of dealers and unsold, at the time when such tax was repealed by order in council, December 18, 1920, P.C. 1/3163, $1,690,000.
Hon. GEORGE H. BOIVIN (Minister of Customs and Excise):	Mr. Chairman, this
item was inserted for the purpose of remitting to the automobile dealers of Canada the luxury tax which they had paid to the Dominion government in 1930, when the tax was removed by order in council without any effective provision having been made to recoup the dealers for the amount which they had paid to the Dominion government, but which they had not yet collected through the sale of their cars. I think the matter is well understood by the House, a very elaborate statement, I am informed, having been prepared by the Retail Automobile Dealers' Association of Canada and mailed to every hon member. I understand there is unanimity concerning this refund. I am quite willing to answer any questions as to the number of cars or the amount of the claims. It might perhaps be well to place upon Hansard a short history of the reason for the refund.
Mr. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):: At the commencement the minister might say why the government delayed so long in making this refund.	.


Mr. BOIVIN:: For the same reason that my hon. friends who sit on the other side of the House delayed making the refund from the date the order in council was passed in December, 1920, until they went out of power in 1921, a year later.

Supply-Customs and Excise


James Dew Chaplin: We had but one year.


Arthur Meighen: What was tha1 reason?


Georges Henri Boivin: I am informed that it was an effort to arrange a settlement between the automobile dealers and the automobile manufacturers under a certain verbal agreement which had been entered into between their respective representatives at the time the luxury * tax was removed. That agreement was never carried out.


Arthur Meighen: By whom?


Georges Henri Boivin: By the manufacturers. In justice to my right hon. friend and to the members of his cabinet I have just stated that they attempted to settle the matter by [DOT]getting the manufacturers to indemnify the dealers when the tax was repealed The present government endeavoured to adjust the matter in the same way without drawing upon the federal treasury.
There are two questions involved. The first is, Shall the refund be made? I think everyone is agreed that this should be done. The refund will be made by the government to those parties who paid the tax, but it will be safeguarded in such a manner that that portion of the refund which has not been made up by the manufacturer to the retailer will eventually reach the retailer who paid the tax.
The other question relates to interest. The sum included in the estimate is sufficiently large to repay the entire amount oi the taxes paid on all automobiles in the dealers' hands which were unsold on December 20, 1920, amounting to $1,2150,000. It is estimated that the interest upon that represents approximately the balance of $440,000.
The refund, of course, is more or less of a compassionate allowance, because it is admitted by all that the government which imposed the taxation had a right tc remove it, but the removal of the luxury tax, which was asked for by the automobile manufacturers of Canada, certainly caused a real hardship to the dealers. The total number of dealers affected and who submitted claims for a refund is 1,504. The lowest loss sustained by any dealer was $69.30. excluding interest to daite. The highest loss of any dealer was $19,012.98; the average loss per dealer was approximately $833.33, and the total number of cars included in the claims was 7,503. The Canada Motor Car Company of Toronto has gone into liquidation and its business is being wound up. The
liquidator of the concern has submitted a claim on behalf of the company and the creditors will, of course, get the benefit of the refund when it is made.


Alexander McKay Edwards: What is the refund in that case?


Georges Henri Boivin: I am afraid I cannot give
that information to my hon. friend. I do not think I have the names of the individual dealers. It is not the practice of the department to give the amount due any particular person or partnership, and while I could give the amounts by provinces, the number of dealers, and the amount of the claims in each particular province, I am afraid I cannot give any individual names and amounts. I would have no objection to doing so in this particular case, but I do not happen to have the information.


James Dew Chaplin: Will the minister say how he proposes to deal with the case where the autombbile manufacturer made certain refunds to the dealer?


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes. That matter has been arranged through the good offices of Mr. James R. Dixon of Ottawa; two different powers of attorney have been drawn up whereby he has been authorized to represent both the manufacturers and the dealers. The manufacturer makes proof of the amount of money remitted to each individual dealer and the dealer makes proof of the amount of money paid and of the number of oars on hand in each particular case. The amount of money paid by any manufacturer to any dealer who had cars on hand will be paid to the manufacturer, and the balance will be paid to the dealers.


James Dew Chaplin: Is it necessary to pay interest on these claims?


Georges Henri Boivin: No. I made the amount in the estimates large enough to pay the interest, but as I said before this is more or less in the form of a compassionate allowance; it is an amount paid to men who have suffered, but who I could Say have suffered "legally." They could not complain of the law; they could not take an action against the government; it is a claim in equity and a claim in justice, but iit is not a claim in law. My understanding is that in all countries where allowances of this kind are paid the interest is not included. On the other hand there has been great delay and it may work a serious hardship to these men if interest is not
Supply-Customs and Excise

paid. I made the amount sufficiently large to cover interest. I would welcome to-night the opinions of hon. members on both sides of the House as to whether or not interest should be paid.


Arthur Meighen: I remember this circumstance quite well, Mr. Chairman; it is a circumstance such as may arise at any time in the event of the removal of an excise tax. The only dangerous feature of this case is the precedent which will be set. I realize there is very great merit in the claim; of course it is not a legal claim and could never be established in law, but that the men lost the money I think there is no doubt. An excise tax is removed which they have paid prior to sale, as indeed must always be the case; then on the removal of that tax they are unable to collect it because of the competition of goods not Subject to the excise; they cannot possibly collect it, and the money is simply lost. I know the government could not be compelled to pay interest; this is what one might call a grant in misericordia, but if there is a claim for the principal the claim for the interest would be just as strong, and I do not see why it should be denied.
The removal of the excise giving rise to this condition was made, I thought, a little later than the minister said, but of course I cannot recall the exact month. The claim -was made some time later, and was very carefully considered at the time. The government of the day were confronted with the difficuty I have just stated; they were quite aware that in the future remissions of excise would inevitably be made and consequently feared to recognize claims of that kind because the precedent might lead us into paths very far-reaching indeed. As a matter of fact it might possibly reach into a sphere other than the removal of excise and the consequences that flow therefrom; however, I do not need to traverse that at the moment. So we started to work to find some method of getting the loss adjusted without calling upon the treasury of the country, and succeeded in having an arrangement arrived at. I am sorry the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) is not here, because he was chiefly instrumental in making the arrangement between the manufacturers on the one hand and the dealers on the other. For some reason which I do not even yet understand that arrangement was not carried through. The minister says the manufacturers failed to carry out their part of the agreement, and I accept his statement.


Georges Henri Boivin: Could I interject just a
word? It has been reported to me by the officials of the department that, as my hon. friend has stated, at the request of the hon. member for West York, who was then Minister of Finance, the representatives of dealers and of manufacturers came together at Ottawa and arrived at an understanding by which the manufacturers would recoup to the dealers on future sales 50 per cent of the excise lost on cars which were then on hand, and add the other 50 per cent to the cost of the new cars. A great many of the dealers were overloaded with cars and were unable to dispose of the quantity required to recoup themselves during that season, and I think the manufacturers contended that the agreement did not apply to subsequent years.


Arthur Meighen: I recall it quite well' now; that is the explanation. For that reason it fell through, and the falling through was not complete at the time we left office, so the matter did not come before us for reconsideration and adjustment. I am sorry there has been so much delay in coming to a solution and I am sorry that some solution was not advanced which would relieve the treasury. However, I suppose there is none possible now with the exception of this, anc for my part I support the vote.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am in accord with the grant, but I would like to know what portion of this money is to be paid in commissions, and if it is to be paid by the department. If this is to be a real compassionate allowance I think the dealers are entitled to get the money themselves without any rake-off.


Georges Henri Boivin: I will tell my hon. friend that the government has no knowledge of a rakeoff. I do know that Mr. Dixon of Ottawa has done a great deal of work in bringing the claims together, in getting all the dealers and manufacturers to sign the required powers of attorney and so on, but what his commission may be I have no knowledge. But I can assure my hon. friend that individual cheques will be made payable to the order of each individual dealer, and they themselves will arrange to pay their attorney. The government has no undertaking whatever to pay any commission in connection with the matter.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is very satisfactory.
I am glad to hear the minister make that statement.


Peter McGibbon: What proportion of these claims was adjusted by the manufacturers?

Supply-Customs and Excise


Georges Henri Boivin: Eightv-five thousand dollars is to be returned direct to the manufacturers who have paid claimi to the dealers, and the balance is to be paid to the dealers themselves.
Mr. MoGIBBON: That is $85,000 of this $1,690,000?	.


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister say that $85,000 is to go to the manufacturers to recoup them for-


Georges Henri Boivin: To recoup them for the
amount they refunded to the dealers.


Arthur Meighen: After the old agreement it. seems to be pretty generous.


Georges Henri Boivin: We felt that it would be a great hardship if we refunded the amount to the dealers and thereby gave a blanket discharge to the manufacturers who undertook to make this refund and did not live up to their obligations. We felt that the manufacturer who had really lived up to his obligation, and who had paid his proportionate share to the dealer, should be treated the same as the dealers themselves; in other words, that if we were going to remit this tax it would be unfair to reimburse some and withhold it from others; that the complete tax should be remitted, and that the manufacturer who had lived up to his agreement should not be penalized for having done so.


Arthur Meighen: Who are the manufacturers who lived up to their agreement?


Georges Henri Boivin: I cannot give the exact amount in each case, but the following Canadian motor manufacturers made reimbursement at least to a certain extent where the dealers were able to purchase new cars:
The Canadian Briscoe Motor Company.
The Chevrolet Motor Company.
The McLaughlin Moitor Company.
The Willys-Overland Company.
The Olds Motor Company of Canada.
The Maxwell Motor Company.
The Chalmers Motor Company.
The Ford Motor Company.
Mr. MEiIGHEN:	What others are left
out?


Georges Henri Boivin: The Studebaker Company did not reimburse its dealers for any portion of the tax paid on the cars, and there were also subsidiary companies of American concerns who import cars into Canada and sell them here through dealers and distributors who made no refund.


Arthur Meighen: It looks as though the Canadian manufacturers had acted quite fairly and rightly, and that the importers of American cars had not.


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes. There was evidently an attempt on the part of these Canadian manufacturers to live up to their agreement, and I think they would have done so if the sales of cars had been sufficient. But as the dealers had on hand all the cars that they had been unable to sell, and could not take as many new cars from the Canadian manufacturers, the manufacturers only lived up to their agreements in respect to the number of new cars taken by the dealers, and that number was not large.


Arthur Meighen: The American exporters to Canada made no attempt to co-operate at all?


Georges Henri Boivin: No, apparently no attempt whatever.


Arthur Meighen: There is a great lesson to be learned there.


James Dew Chaplin: Some of the firms the minister mentioned have passed entirely out of business.


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes, I understand they have, but I understand that their interests have been taken over by other concerns that their claims are legally filed, and that all these firms are legally represented before the department.
Mr. MoGIBBON: I am not opposing this in the least, but I would like to point this out to the minister: Every individual purchaser who bought his car one day or a week or a few weeks before the reduction had to pay that tax, and I think it would be quite sufficiently generous on the part of this government to reimburse the dealers for the capital only, and let them go without their interest. I do not think it is fair to pay the dealer the very last dollar and let the purchaser who bought his car just a few days before suffer the complete loss. I do not think that is fair to the ultimate purchaser of the car.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for expenses of maintenance of revenue cruisers and for preventive service, $376,510.
Georges Henri Boivin: In connection with vote No. 349, on pages 61 and 62 of the Estimates, we had reached this item and I had discussed it for about a day and a half on the 16th and the 18th of March. The department has so far been unable, indeed has not even at-
Supply-Customs and Excise

tempted to do anything, in the way of improvement or reorganization of the preventive service. I do not propose to make any change whatever in the way of reorganization or dismissals until the report of the committee at present investigating the Department of Customs is received by the House. If there is any objection on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite to allowing us to carry this item, with the distinct understanding that the whole .matter will 'be discussed again when the committee's report comes into the House, I shall not press the preventive service items, but will pass on at once to the item concerning the cost of collection of the income tax.
(Mr. MANION:	As one member of this
House, I would like to say that I think the preventive service items should be left over.


William Duff: The first three items
in vote No. 349 have already been carried.


Arthur Meighen: When did they carry?


Georges Henri Boivin: On the 16th of Mardh. I
do not think my right hon. friend was paying attention to what I said a moment ago. I said that while it is true we had discussed this for a day and a half, no changes had been made in the preventive service, no dismissals had been made, and there was no intention at the present time to make any changes or dismissals. We are merely -carrying on as best we can awaiting the report of the committee. The whole matter will be discussed when the report of the committee is before the House, and as we have already devoted almost two full days to the discussion of the estimates of this department I thought possibly hon. members opposite would allow us to carry this item with the understanding that we would merely carry on, and that the whole matter would be again discussed when the committee's report comes into the House. If my hon. friend -prefers to have these three items concerning the preventive service stand until after the committee's report comes in, there is really no harm done.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Stand.


Georges Henri Boivin: Then I would -move, Mr. Chairman, that further consideration of this item for 1376,510 be now postponed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Item stands.
Georges Henri Boivin: I would ask the Chairman
to call the two next items in order that I may make the same motion with respect to them and proceed in the regular way.


Arthur Meighen: May I ask if this is
preparatory to closure?


Georges Henri Boivin: No.


Arthur Meighen: There is no need for
having the motion made to -postpone except for that purpose. -Simiply pass on to something else.


Georges Henri Boivin: Then we will take the last item on the page:
To provide for tihe administiraition of the Business Profits War Tax Act, 1916, and the Income War Tax Act, 1917, and amendments thereof, and authority for this purpose to create positions and make appointments, notwithstanding anything contained in the Cirvil Service Act, and the said positions and the staff so appointed are hereby wholly excluded from the Operation of the said act; and salary of $10,000 for the Commissioner of Taxation-$2,000,000.


Arthur Edward Ross: I should like to ask the minister if the employees of this branch of his department have been classified?


Georges Henri Boivin: The employees of the Income Tax branch, the same employees that we found in office when we assumed control, have been classified, but not by the Civil Service Commission. They were classified by a committee of the officers of the Income Tax branch. The 'classification has been arrived at, and regular salaries have been fixed for the different grades and the different classes of employees. These salaries are slightly higher than the salaries paid to employees in the other branches of the Department of Customs and Excise owing to the fact that so far they do not enjoy the benefits of superannuation as the regular civil servants do.


Arthur Edward Ross: When was the
classification made?


Georges Henri Boivin: It was made in December, 1925.


John Wesley Edwards: I see thai the salary of the Commissioner of Taxation is $10,000. Has that been the salary for some time, or has there been a raise recently?


Georges Henri Boivin: No, that has been the salary for some years and remains at the same figure. The number of employees in the branch at the time of the last calculation, when the estimates were submitted to parliament, was 1,057, and the salaries paid were $1,539,702.04. The balance of this item is made up of the other charges in connection with the collection of the income tax. I desire to point out to my hon. friends that this is the only item in the estimates that has anything to do with

Supply-Customs and Excise
income tax collection. Everything is included. The details are as follows:
Printing and stationery	 $25,699	36
Hotel and travelling expenses of inspectors
and others	
31,651	84Telephone and telegraph expenses	
7,182	73Office expenses	
10,296	95Automobile hire	
3,028	41Freight and express	
4,176	49Postage	
63,419	50Advertising	
39	68Sundries	
1,034	10Excise stamps	
59	50Law costs	
6,484	63
These expenses are not, of course, only for the office at Ottawa, as everyone will understand. They cover the entire 1,057 employees of the branch in all the cities of Canada where there is an inspector of taxation.


John Wesley Edwards: Is postage placed on the returns sent from the various offices to the government?


Georges Henri Boivin: Most of these income tax returns are forwarded, of course, to the department by registered mail. All assessments have to be returned by registered mail, and it has been held that registered mail must bear the ordinary postage as well as the cost of registration.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister
might have done something in connection with the matter of excise stamps when he was making the other rearrangements.
9 p.m. It is one of the hardest things in the world, it goes harder against the grain than anything else, when making out a cheque for income tax to put stamps on also for the government.


Georges Henri Boivin: I gave considerable thought to that matter. The idea was expressed by members of the government that it would be well to exempt all cheques to the Receiver General of Canada from excise taxes, but I found that this would entail all kinds of unfairness in the collection of revenue. Because if income tax cheques were exempted it would be necessary to exempt customs cheques and all other cheques bringing revenue to the Dominion treasury. A great many of these cheques are paid through brokers to collectors of customs who have the right to keep accounts in trust in order that they may make speedy refunds. It was felt that if all tax payments could not be exempt from excise duty it would be unwise to exempt any at all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In view of the fact that - the war profits act must have run its course b.y this time, why does the number of employees still continue to remain so high? Has there been a reduction in the number of employees and if so, over what period of years? If there has been a reduction of employees, why does the appropriation remain the same? I would have thought from the history of the offices in the province oh New Brunswick where the number of employees has been very substantially reduced, that the cost of collecting this tax would have been proportionately diminished also.


Georges Henri Boivin: The cost of collecting the business profits and income taxes has been considerably reduced in recent years. The peak year in the cost of collection was the fiscal year 1921-22 when the cost Was $2,214,638.28.


Arthur Meighen: How much did you collect that year?


Georges Henri Boivin: The amount collected in that year was $101,500,021.38, of which $22,815,666.58 were collected under the Business Profits War Tax Act. The cost of collection that year happened to be 2.18 per cent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is the lowest,
I think, of any of them.


Georges Henri Boivin: In 1919-20 it was a little lower; it was 1.78. In 1922-23 it came up to 2.80. In 1923-24 it was 3.28 and in 1924-25, it was 2.87. The actual cost, however, has diminished. In 1921-22 the sum of $2,214,638.28 was paid, but in the following year it was reduced to $2,040,461.08. For the fiscal year 1923-24 the cost of collection was reduced to $1,935,274.96. Last year it was further reduced to $1,693,025.23. There is a gradual reduction, which means that there is a gradual falling off in the number of employees required, and we hope that under the amended income tax, in connection with which the returns will be less intricate, a further saving will be made.


John Wesley Edwards: How many employees are there in this work, and by whom are they appointed?


Georges Henri Boivin: There are in this work in Ottawa 186 employees, and in the entire Dominion 1,057.


John Wesley Edwards: How were * they appointed?


Georges Henri Boivin: It would be hard to tell how they were appointed, because they were practically all appointed by my hon. friend's friends when they were in power.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Very good
appointments.
Supply-Customs and Excise


Georges Henri Boivin: I am told, and I have no reason to doubt the statement, that they were appointed by the inspectors of taxation, under the authority of the then Minister of Finance. None of them has ever been dismissed for any political reason, and they are still in office. Thosq who have been required to replace them were appointed in the same way, by the inspectors of taxation upon the authority of the Minister of Finance, until last year when the branch was transferred to the Department of Customs, and since that time on the recommendation of the Minister of Customs.


John Wesley Edwards: The appointments were made on the request of the Minister of Finance at the time, or about the time, the Victory 'loans were started. He felt that the responsibility for the success of that loan depended upon his department, and that, on account of the weight of the responsibility, he should supervise the appointments, in order to be certain that everything was efficient. That may have held good then, but is it the intention for all time to continue this method and not to allow the Civil Service Commission to have anything to say in regard to this particular branch?


Georges Henri Boivin: In connection with this particular branch we found that the method has worked out so very satisfactorily in the matter of expense and collection of revenue that we thought it would be better not to interfere, but that we should leave matters as they were. It has been pointed out that a large majority of these employees have to come in contact with the tax paying public of Canada, and that the inspectors of taxation in the respective cities where these offices are established, are better judges of the men who will be able more efficiently to perform the work, meet the taxpayer, and, let me say, collect the money without trouble, without inconvenience and without recrimination on the part of the taxpayer, than if they were appointed by a Civil Service Commission sitting at Ottawa.


John Wesley Edwards: My hon. friend agrees with that?


Georges Henri Boivin: I certainly do.


John Wesley Edwards: So do I. Therefore I do not see any reason why the same rule should not be applied in reference to other appointments, instead of having them made by the Civil Service Commission. This work was very satisfactorily performed indeed when the Civil Service Commission had nothing to do with it. The minister says it is a fine system and they are getting along well, and I contend they would get along well in many other branches if the same system were adopted.


Edward Joseph Garland: It seems clear that both the old parties are unanimously agreed when it comes to a question of returning to patronage.


John Wesley Edwards: Which old parties?


Edward Joseph Garland: The one my hon. friend belongs to and the party to which the minister belongs.
Mr. EDWARD'S (Frontenac): Does the hon. member not call the group to which he belongs a party?


Edward Joseph Garland: I am
opposed, as I always have been, to the exclusion of the Income Tax branch from the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. I think the sooner we apply the merit system to all our public services the sooner we will have a satisfied civil service. Turn to England, the country to which hon. gentlemen look for a good deal of their precedents-


Richard Burpee Hanson: What about Ireland?


Edward Joseph Garland: -and you will find that in that country no member of parliament, no minister, ever attempts to interfere with the appointment of civil servants. It simply is not done. That is the ideal state, and that is the condition to which I hope at some time in the future the people of Canada will arrive.


Peter McGibbon: Was it on my hon. friend's recommendation that those who will take the western census were appointed?


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes. At the very time the minister suggested the appointment, I asked why they were not under the Civil Service Commission, and he told me they were temporary appointments made once everj' five years. I said, "I do not care whether they are or not, all appointments of this kind should be under the Civil Service Commission".


Richard Burpee Hanson: But you made the appointment?


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, it was much better for one who is a non-partisan to make the appointment.


John Wesley Edwards: He made the appointment and went round with these same fellows at election time and reminded them of it.


Arthur Edward Ross: I have made no
criticism of this matter, but my only reason for asking a few questions at the beginning was that lately I think the appointments have been political, whereas previously they were

Supply-Customs and Excise
not. I should like to ask the minister if there have been any opinions expressed by the employees of this department as to whether they would prefer to come under the Civil Service Commission or stay outside?


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes, there have 'been expressions of opinion. Some of the employees of the Income Tax branch, those who are sure of their positions and practically certain that they will remain in office as long as the collection of the tax continues have expressed a wish to 'be brought under the Civil Service Commission, not for the purpose of having their salaries arranged by the Civil Service Commission, but for the purpose of enjoying superannuation. It has been pointed out to them however-not to them in a body but to certain individuals-that if they desire to come under the Civil Service Commission, and if the government ever takes that step, and it is possible to do it without making new appointments under the act as it stands at the present time, they are liable to suffer considerable reduction in salary, because the salaries are higher than in other departments where the benefits of superannuation are enjoyed.


Arthur Edward Ross: Does the minister
not find some difficulty where these employees are in the same offices with the Customs department officials, when you have in the same building practically three sets of employees getting different rates of pay?


Georges Henri Boivin: I thank my hon. friend' for asking the question. There is no connection whatever between the other branches of the Department of Customs and Excise and the Income Tax branch. The Income Tax branch is continued as a separate branch, as it has been since its inception.


Arthur Edward Ross: My hon. friend has not grasped my question. I understand they are independent of each other, but they are in the same building, one working in the Income Tax branch, and the other in the Customs branch,.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not in Ottawa.


Arthur Edward Ross: I am not talking
of Ottawa. There are other places besides Ottawa. When some people get here they think there is only one city in the country. In my own city they are in the same building, and I ask the minister if, where they are in the same building under different heads, there is not some complaint where the grades of pay are different.


Georges Henri Boivin: There was for some time
some complaint before the classification. There were employees who, while they were doing the same work, were not receiving quite the same pay. That discrimination has been removed. I have received no complaint in regard to the point raised by my hon. friend. The officers of this branch realize the advantages they have over their confreres in the other department of the service, and so far there has been perfect harmony.


William Alves Boys: How many employees covered by these items are excluded from the operation of the act?


Georges Henri Boivin: They are all excluded-1,057.


William Alves Boys: Does that refer to the $100,000 item and the $2,000,000?


Georges Henri Boivin: What does my hon. friend mean by the $100,000 item?


William Alves Boys: On page 62 the minister will see an item of $2,000,000 and immediately preceding it one of $100,000, and apparently the staffs under those items are to be wholly excluded from the act. I wanted to know whether the employees are affected by both votes.


Georges Henri Boivin: We have been discussing the employees in the Income Tax branch, who number 1,057. They are all affected by the $2,000,000 vote. The $100,000 is for secret preventive service and by mutual agreement, that has been allowed to stand.


William Alves Boys: I am not quarrelling with that. I simply want to know the number of employees affected.


Georges Henri Boivin: By the previous vote?


William Alves Boys: Yes.


Georges Henri Boivin: I can give the hon. gentleman the information, but it has nothing to do with this vote.


William Alves Boys: Never mind, then. As regards the exclusion of civil servants from the operation of the Civil Service Act, we should have one thing or the other: either bring all civil servants within the scope of the act or do away with the act. I am told that there are over IS,000 civil servants who are not under the act. I am not sure of the exact percentage but I believe there are about one-third of the total number of employees who are not subject to the provisions of the Civil Service Act. I do submit that, having gone that length in the removal of civil servants
Supply-Customs and Excise

from the operation of the act, we should either abolish the whole thing and get back to patronage or reform the service and put all employees on the same footing with respect to the regulations. The present system is unsatisfactory; it is neither one thing nor the other.


Arthur Meighen: I feel I must say something in view of the remarks of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) whose aptitude for coming to conclusions is exceedingly swift, indeed precipitate, if not sure. The hon. gentleman undoubtedly can reach conclusions, but he has not so great an ability to steer a direct logical course towards his goal. One hon. member on this side of the House spoke in favour of a return to the old system and a minister of the crown gave encouragement to the idea: whereupon the hon. member for Bow River concludes we in this party have transfigured ourselves just as hon. gentlemen opposite have done.


Edward Joseph Garland: I always exempt my right hon. friend from that charge.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member while exempting me may exempt the party as well.


Georges Henri Boivin: I hope my right hon. friend does not meean to convey the impression that I have expressed the idea that there should be a return to patronage.


Arthur Meighen: I said that the minister lent encouragement to the view advanced by the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member asked me whether I was in favour of that system so far as the branch under discussion was concerned, and I said I was.


Arthur Meighen: That is considerable encouragement.	[DOT]


Georges Henri Boivin: The leader of the opposition countenanced the system while he was in power.


Arthur Meighen: I shall come to that in
a moment. The general opinion was voiced by the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington and it certainly met with no rebuke or modification at the hands of the minister. The minister has given encouragement not only to the continuance of the employees of the Income Tax branch outside the scope of the act, but to the bedevilment of the whole civil service and of the Civil Service Act ever since his party came into power. The whole history of this government in relation to the Civil Service Act has been one of stealthy invasion from the first clause to the last and

from the first month of power to the last day. I know that as respects the employees of the Income Tax branch they were, when taken on during the regime of the late government, maintained without the operation of the act, just as were the employees of the Civil Re-establishment department. These departments were established at a time when it was believed that their duration would be quite brief, and that consequently it would not be just to the service in general to bring them within the act and make them permanent civil servants, thereby giving them a claim upon permanent occupation within the civil service of Canada. If bon. gentlemen will project their minds back to the rather hectic days when the income fax was first introduced and, as well, to the time when the Civil Re-establishment department was put on its feet, they will recall that it was the general feeling then that these were merely emergency services which it was necessary to undertake for the time being. For that reason and for no other were these employees kept without the pale of the Civil Service Act. It was not intended that they should have any claim for permanent appointment within the service. But so far as the Income Tax branch is concerned, we know quite well by this time that we shall have an income tax in Canada for years to come. This government will have gone; its memory will have become nothing but an unpleasant historic recollection, and we shall still have the income tax in this country. So that whatever reason did exist before for maintaining these employees outside the scope of the act, that reason is now removed. The government have not been satisfied to maintain the income tax employees as patronage or temporary servants outside the pale of the act, but step by step, sometimes by stealth, sometimes openly, they have yanked one branch after another from the purview of the act, occasionally by order in council removing a thousand at a stretch and, indeed, as many as 12,000. The result is that to-day one-third of the whole service is outside the act. I want to pay hon. gentlemen to my left this compliment: there would not be one line of the act in force to-day if it were not for the influence of the Progressive party. With one or two exceptions they have been opposed to these encroachments upon the act and certainly they never doubted that we would stand by the act.


Georges Henri Boivin: What party was in power
when the Spinney bill was introduced?

Supply-Customs and Excise


Arthur Meighen: We were in power when that bill was introduced, and by the terms of the Spinney, bill we abide. But the Spinney bill provided only for such cases, of a character defined by the act, as were recommended by the Civil Service Commission. But hon. gentlemen opposite, who fought that bill tooth and nail when in opposition, when they got into power not only adopted it but extended it beyond its legal effect. That is what they did. If it were not for gentlemen of the Progressive party they would have set a match to the act, but they feared that they might lose the support of those hon. gentlemen-I am not so sure that they would have lost it-and so they were kept in restraint. The gun was held at the head of the government. I do not think it would have gone off so long as the trigger was under the finger of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke). The hon. member would not shoot a rat if it had a Liberal tag around its neck. Anyway there were certain of them who they thought would stand by the merit system in the civil service, and that is the only reason in the world why there is a line of the act left to-day.
Now, how long is the government going to take to collect these business profits taxes? The act imposing them 'has been repealed six or seven years. I would not suggest that any person employed in the collection of business profits taxes should be put under the Civil Service Act. Surely we will get to the end of it some day, but any little job at all seems to be a life job when it gets into the hands of this administration. They are collecting these business profits taxes yet, and I expect they will be collecting them until they pass from this earthly scene.
And there is something else they are after. I notice in the estimates an .item for the adjustment of war debts. This in our day was called demobilization. "Demobilization" was defined by the law as the "adjustment of war debts." But we were tilted at away back in 1919 and were asked to explain to parliament why it was we had not all these war debts adjusted, and we were told the reason was that we wanted to keep up the war spirit in Canada. Hon. gentlemen opposite are still adjusting those war debts. They have been adjusting them now for four and a half years. They have in the estimates an item of $275,000 for the purpose. When in the name of common sense do they expect ever to get rid of those war debts? Will they be keeping them going until the next election? Is it a handy thing to adjust these debts just before an election?
But on the subject of income tax I warn the government that this country is not going to tolerate the conduct of any administration that reverses the will of the people as expressed in the Civil Service Act. Hon. members say the employees are satisfied because they get a little more. In that very fact lies one of the main reasons of the act. Unless you have one common body having under its purview all the multiplied branches of the civil service, and able to make a study and estimate the relative difficulty of the variety of duties in the various departments of government, and the relative talent required for their discharge, you are never going to have anything that approaches equity in the distribution of the salary list; you will have all kinds of anomalies and inequalities. Anomaly exists to-day, inequality exists to-day in relation to the service outside. This will become more and more rampant as the government pursues its headlong course of abolishing letter by letter, line by line and page by page the Civil Service Act. I should like the hon. minister to get the opinion of the civil servants of this city and the country generally on the course the government has pursued in relation to the act. I warn the administration that so far as my influence goes I will resist to the uttermost any further invasion of its provisions whatsoever. And I hope I can depend upon hon. gentlemen to my left-


Edward Joseph Garland: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: I hope there are independent spirits enough among them, and I hope there are those who have learned enough of the character and conduct of this administration, that in this, if in nothing else, they will give me their best support.


Robert Forke: Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of seconding a good many of the remarks made by the right hon. leader of the opposition. I am unalterably opposed to the patronage system, and I believe in the merit system. But I want to say to him that some of his remarks are not worthy of the leader of a great party in this House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert Forke: Hon. members may laugh. They may wonder sometimes why the right hon. gentleman does not make a little more headway in the country. Let me tell them it is because he descends to the use of such language as he uttered a few minutes ago. I have been five years in this House now, and I defy any hon. member to point to one act of mine that is in any respect dishonour-
Supply-Customs and Excise

able. The right hon. gentleman can stand up there as the leadeT of a party and make accusations that seem to amuse his followers, but I have a political character that I think will last just as long as that of the right hon. leader of the opposition. I have stood up in this House time and agah) and proclaimed my independence. And I have never sacrificed my independence. I challenge hon. gentlemen to my right to tell me wherein I have said or done anything dishonourable or unworthy of a member of this House of Commons. I suppose had I turned around and supported hon. members to my right they would say I was the finest gentleman in the country. If they have any political acumen at all they would recognize that the course they have been following is certain to keep them for a long time in opposition. Let me repeat, Mr. Chairman, that I am heartily in accord with many of the remarks made by the right hon. leader of the opposition and by the member of my own party who spoke earlier in t'he discussion. I am unalterably opposed to the patronage system and want to have nothing whatever to do with it. Whenever the opportunity comes I shall be ready to stand behind my opinions.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Chairman, I am
rather surprised at the heat of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke). I did not attack his honour in any way, unless he considers it such to be declared a faithful, ironclad Liberal. It was his incurable Liberal propensity to which I referred. No one who has sat in this House for the last five sessions has any doubt about that-not even the hon. member for Brandon himself. Nor did I suggest he was not a fine gentleman. He says he would be so considered if he had voted for us; but I assure him that I would never need to wait for a day in the distant future, probably in the next world, when he votes for the Conservative party, to declare him to be a fine gentleman.


Robert Forke: While the right hon. gentleman leads the opposition.


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a word or two in regard to the Civil Service Commission. When the creation of such a commission first came before parliament I took a stand, not against it-I have not taken that stand at any time -but I contended that it was being loaded with a lot of work which could be better performed by the individual members of parliament. And I say that yet. I took the stand then, I take it to-day, that the appointment, for instance, of a country postmaster might

well be left in the hands of the member of parliament, no matter whether he sat on the government side or on this side of the House -that to leave such appointments with the Civil Service Commission was loading the commissioners with work that they were not as well qualified to perform as the members of this House, who are held responsible by their constituents for the capacity of the country postmaster who is appointed by the Civil Service Commission upon the advice of one or two persons living in the community where the postmaster resided. I have never taken a stand against the creation of the Civil Service Commission or against their doing efficient work as a 'Civil Service Commission, but I believe their work would be more efficient if a great deal of this more unimportant work were taken off their shoulders and performed by the members, who would be held responsible by their constituents for the appointments made. But my main objection to the Civil Service Commission, Mr. Chairman, is that during the last three or four years the commission hare made appointments so far as Conservative members of parliament were concerned, whereas a certain amount of patronage has been enjoyed by those who are on the other side of the House. This is not working out fairly, and as proof of that we have some 18,000 persons in the civil service to-day who were not appointed by the Civil Service Commission. I venture to say there are members sitting on the other side of this House whose recommendations were responsible for the appointment of several thousand of these people. That is where I say it is wrong; if you are going to have these appointments made by the Civil Service Commission let the commission rule all along the line; do not let the commission appoint a part of the service and allow others to be appointed under recommendations of certain favoured members who happen to support the government. That is the logical position to take, I believe. At present the situation is absolutely unreasonable, illogical, unjust and unfair, because unquestionably people are appointed to the civil service on the recommendation of some person or persons, but not on the recommendation of anyone on this side of the House. This has been going on during the past four or five years, Mr. Chairman, and it would be interesting if the Minister of Customs or some other minister or all the ministers would furnish this House with a list of appointments made to the civil service during the last four or five years other that those made by the Civil Service Commission. I would like to see that list, and

Supply-Customs and Excise
I would like to see on whose recommendation the appointments were made.
I placed a question on the order paper a few days ago to which I hope to receive an answer soon. A former membeij of! this House. Mr. E. J. Sexsmith, who was elected as a Progressive and who, like the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) supported the Liberal government most faithfully, was rewarded for his services as a party man by a government appointment not long ago. I would like to know if that was done through the Civil Service Commission and whether he passed a competitive examination and was appointed on his merits. It is very fine in theory to talk about promotion by merit; with that I fully agree, but who is to judge as to the merits of the individual? If the Civil Service is going to judge, and if those in the civil service are to be promoted according to merit let that be done all around, but I am absolutely opposed to this farce where a part of the service is appointed through the Civil Service Commission while hundreds and thousands of others are appointed on the recommendation of some minister or member who happens to have a pull.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is the hon.
gentleman able to tell us to what position Mr. Sexsmith was appointed and whether he was thirty-five years of age at the time of his -appointment?


John Wesley Edwards: I have only a newspaper report that he was appointed inspector of Indian reserves, or something like that. I do not know his age, but he is old enough to have more sense than he has so far exhibited, though he has shown some signs of the safety first spirit. He was defeated in the last election, but now we find the Liberal government appointing him, a Progressive, to office. I do not know whether the hon. member for Brandon, the Minister without portfolio in this government, had sufficient pull to get Mr. Sexsmith appointed, but perhaps we will find out when my question is answered. I venture to say, however, that the Civil Service Commission had nothing to do with it, and I would like to know who was responsible.


Mr. SPENCER:: The hon. member has
referred to Mr. Sexsmith and to the hon. member for Brandon, both of whom supported the Liberal government. I would like to ask the hon. member if he is aware of the fact that during the last four years the Conservatives voted with the government more often than did the Progressives.



H011-244

John Wesley Edwards: I have not
before me a record of the votes; it would be very hard to keep tab on my hon. friend and his friends as to how they vote. They know where we stand in regard to the government but according to their professions we do not know where hon. gentlemen to my left stand. When it comes to actual practice, however, we know that no matter what their label they are just as Gritty as any man who was ever in politics.


Mr. CLARK:: I would like to point out
to the minister that in certain provinces they have provincial income tax acts which are very similar to the federal act, and there is a great deal of duplication in staffs. I believe that if an effort were made the income taxes in the various provinces which have acts of their own could be collected by the same staff collecting the federal tax. I would like to ask the minister if that has been investigated and whether any steps have been taken to co-ordinate the collection of income tax in the various provinces.


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes. Representations have
been made to the government by the provincial treasurer of British Columbia that there might be co-operation in the work of collecting the taxes. It was never proposed to have the double tax collected in the same office, but representations have been made that some expense might be saved in the investigation of claims and in the auditing of books so far as the respective income taxes are concerned. The matter is now receiving consideration.


John Arthur Clark: Why could not the collections be made by the same staff?


Georges Henri Boivin: I did. not say that it was
impossible; I merely pointed out to my hon. friend that it 'had not been suggested. It is well worth consideration.


John Arthur Clark: I will suggest it now, if the minister wants a suggestion.


Georges Henri Boivin: I accept the suggestion with pleasure; it will certainly receive the consideration it deserves with the other matter under consideration.
!Mr. HANSON:	Gould we have some information as to the number of claims still to be adjusted under the business profits tax? I think we should have some information in that regard. How long is it expected to be before these will be wound up?


Georges Henri Boivin: There were adjusted about
140,000 claims under the Business Profits War Tax Act. There are 848 claims still out-
8EVISED EDITION

Supply-Customs and Excise
standing, most of whi-dh have been adjusted but which, owing to the liquidation of tfhe companies or for other reasons, have not been finally disposed of. In other words, only 848 remain out of 140,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs and Excise

salaries, 1609,940; contingencies, $40,000.
Georges Henri Boivin: The details of this item
will be found on page 73. This is the usual vote for salaries and contingencies in the inside service. There is ;an increase of $9,390 in salaries, but on the other 'hand there is a decrease of $8,000 in contingencies. The civil government salaries for the year 1925-26 were $598,550, and contingencies, $48,000, making a total of $846,550. The civil government salaries for the present fiscal year are $607,940, and -civil government contingencies,, $40,000, making a total of $647,940, or a net increase of $1,390. The estimates for 1926-27 provide for 333 clerks, as compared with 329 clerks last year, an increase of -only 4 clerks in the department. Statutory increases for 104 clerks, as provided for by the Civil Service Act, upon the recommendation of the deputy head of the department amount to $7,395. Four additional clerks who 'have been appointed to the accounts branch due to the fact that cheques fo'r the outside service are now issued twice each month instead of once monthly as heretofore, cost $4,800. There is a saving due to promotions and appointments to fill vacancies where the new employees are getting the minimum salaries, instead of the -maximum enjoyed by their predecessors, of $2,805.
The estimate for civil government contingencies is $8,000 less than last year. It is considered that the $40,000 will be sufficient to meet the expenditure for the ensuing year, as this is practically the amount which was expended for contingencies last year.


John Wesley Edwards: What is the $1,200 allowance to private secretaries for?


Georges Henri Boivin: There is only an allowance of $600. That is an allowance made to my private secretary.


John Wesley Edwards: What is that for?


Georges Henri Boivin: That is an allowance given to the minister's private secretary in every department. As 1 understand 'it, it has existed for a great many years. It is an extra allowance which is paid to the private secretary for the vast amount of time which he puts in during the sessions of parliament

and on other occasions when his services are required. The difference 'between the private secretary and other employees of the departs ment is that the private secretary is always at the beck and call of the minister, while the other employees, of course, have their regular hours. For that reason, he is given the extra $600.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend gave some figures as to the reduction in salaries due to the new appointees being appointed at a lower remuneration, a reduction of some $2,800. My hon. friend, I am sure, would like to make his picture complete. In order that these new appointments can be made, a certain amount of cost has to be incurred in the way of pensions, superannuation, and the like. What was the amount of pensions and superannuation paid out in order to secure this saving of $2,800?


Georges Henri Boivin: I am sorry I do not happen
to have those figures with me at the present time. I did give them to my hon-. friend, and he will find them in Hansard of March 16th. I gave him those figures when we were discussing the salaries before, and told him at the time that they covered both the inside and the outside service.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was just
wondering what the comparison was. We here have the net figure of $2,800 given by my hon. friend, due to reductions in salaries by reason of new appointments. In order to make the picture complete, we ought to have also the exact amount paid out in pensions, superannuation or retiring allowances, or whatever it was, that gave rise to these vacancies.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am afraid' that I am not
able to give that information to my hon. friend just now.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does my hon.
friend see any chance of effecting any economies whatever in the service?


Georges Henri Boivin: Of course the service of the Department of Customs is growing all the time. The preventive service will necessarily cost more money in years to come, and I think that the report of the committee which is now investigating the Department of Customs may very likely recommend an increase. That increase, however, will not affect this inside service vote. While it may not be possible to make any decrease, I d'o think that it will be possible for several years to come to keep the expenditure of the Department of Customs, in so far as the civil government vote is concerned at about the same figure.

Supply-Customs and Excise


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend
will find that there has been a considerable increase in the expenditure of his department since 1921. Of course, my hon. friend at that time was occupying a highly judicial position and did not himself take a very active part in what was said having regard to the estimates at the lower figure, as it then was. After having the opportunity which my hon. friend has had of looking into the question, what does he say? Was there any merit in the charges of extravagance in connection with the administration of the department made by the Liberal opposition in 1921? If so, what were those extravagances, and which of them have been removed?


Georges Henri Boivin: There is always some merit
in the charges made by the Liberals even when in opposition. I hope my hon. friend does not want me to admit that my party made charges without having some justification. I think that any opposition can find fault with any government and make charges concerning the expenditure of money, which, if properly followed up, may result in a reduction of expenditure. I do not pretend that the service was overmanned at that time by any means. I take pleasure in pointing out to my hon. friend that there has been less increase in the inside service of the Department of Customs than there has been in many of the other departments of government.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will my hon.
friend say there has not been an increase since 1921?


Georges Henri Boivin: There has been a gradual
increase. There is an increase this year of $1,390.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There has been a pretty large increase year by year. I put this to my hon. friend:	The charges of
extravagance, overmanning, and the like, were made and reiterated and kept up hour after hour when the Liberals were in opposition. Now he has had an opportunity of looking into these charges, and he comes down with an estimate which is higher, considerably higher, than the estimate which was then under consideration. What does my hon. friend say? He is doing one of two things; he is either submitting a vote which is not called for, or else the previous criticism was entirely wrong; it is either one or the other.


Georges Henri Boivin: The Minister of Customs is really surprised to think that he has not been congratulated to-night by my hon. friend for not increasing the vote more than $1,390. I really expected congratulations.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder if my hon. friend is really serious? I wonder if he is going to say that his expenditure is moving downwards here? I will go back further for him because I find that my hon. friend slips a good deal in the matter of facts.


Georges Henri Boivin: Possibly.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Very much.


Georges Henri Boivin: He has not been in the government very long yet.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, but my
hon. friend has been studying these things from the side lines-


Georges Henri Boivin: Quite possibly.


Henry Lumley Drayton: -and he knows, or ought to know, how matters stand. These are my hon. friend's estimates. Will he say now that the salaries in 1923-24, for example, were not $577,000 while they are this year $607,000. and will he not also admit. that over and above those salaries during that period of time thousands of dollars have been paid in superannuation allowances and in pensions which are still charged upon the country?


Georges Henri Boivin: I suppose the same state of affairs exists in the Department of Customs and Excise as in every other department in so far as superannuation allowances and pensions are concerned. They cannot be controlled by the minister, they are provided, as I understand, by a separate statute.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does my hon. friend say they cannot be controlled by the minister?


Georges Henri Boivin: Superannuation allowances?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does my hon. friend say there is no necessity for an order in council to be passed?


Georges Henri Boivin: An order in council is passed to authorize the payment of money which is provided by law-


Henry Lumley Drayton: In the case of tetirements?


Georges Henri Boivin: The retirements also are
provided for by law-


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, once they are carried out.


Georges Henri Boivin: -over which the minister certainly could not exercise any control, and I am sure my hon. friend is too fair, even

Supply-Customs and Excise
if he does not want to congratulate me on the slow increase in expenditure, to blame me for something over which I have no control.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder what rate my hon. friend would think would be quick?


Georges Henri Boivin: Would be what?


Henry Lumley Drayton: What rate would be rapid?
|Mr. BOIVIN:	Oh, I would say fifteen,
twenty, or thirty thousand dollars a year, as these expenditures used to increase when my hon. friend was in power.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is making a statement there which he will find is incorrect, because I will just give him what the increases were then. It is so easy to say something that is not true. It is so easy to say something with an absolute disregard as to whether it is true or not. We will 'examine the figures and see what this twenty or thirty thousand dollar increase was. We will take Civil Government for the Department of Customs and Inland Revenue for the year 1919-20. The vote that year was 8463,387. The vote for the next year was S470,875. Does the minister now see what his illustrations really amount to, how much truth there really is in them? 10 p.m. There are the facts, and there are the figures. I ask my hon. friend what he would think was a rapid increase in a department which the Liberal party claims was so tremendously overmanned and so extravagantly run. Here we have in 1920-21 a total of $470,875.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let the minister put that in his pipe and smoke it.


Georges Henri Boivin: My hon. friend says the vote for 1920-21 was $470,875?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.


Georges Henri Boivin: In the year previous it was $463,387?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.


Georges Henri Boivin: An increase of about $7,488.


Henry Lumley Drayton: As against an increase of twenty or thirty thousand mentioned by my hon. friend.


Georges Henri Boivin: I had in mind certain years,
I was not referring to the year 1920-21. Furthermore, I was not referring precisely to that one department. I was referring to increases in different departments.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, no.


Georges Henri Boivin: I will say this to my hon.
friend. I thank him for the figures, I did not have them before me. He says there was an increase for the years he mentioned of $7,488. Well if $7,488 is not more than $1,390 I will have to withdraw what I have said.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend has again completely dodged the issue. I never for one minute raised any comparison of the increase this year as against any other year. But my hon. friend did. He said that there was a difference of twenty thousand or thirty thousand a year in previous years as compared with this year. And he was speaking of this department. If he was not I do not know what sense there could be to the rest of his remarks because it had reference to his excellent work in this department. My hon. friend knows that perfectly well. That is what I was referring to.


Charles A. Stewart: Look
pleasant.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Do you know,
Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Don't get mad.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think there is anything more prone to move a member of the King government to ridicule and laughter than a consideration of dollars and cents as they affect the ratepayers of this country. I do not know what the Minister of the Interior finds so humorous. Perhaps he would like to tell us.


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon. friend will permit me, I think he looks very much better when he is smiling than when he is serious.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Minister of Agriculture will be getting nervous. His position as clown of the government is being endangered. He has got a serious opponent now as prime joker. I would suggest to my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior though, with just as much seriousness as the occasion perhaps demands, that it would be a great deal better for the country, and certainly for him, if he would give some of the time he is now spending in laughing in trying to find out what his bills mean before he brings them down in the House, when the opposition have to look after them for him. My hon. friend should know something about his work.


Charles A. Stewart: I am sure
I am very grateful to the hon. gentleman for all the help he has given me. However, I

Supply-Customs and Excise
merely remark that I fail to see the reason for the vigor he puts into his statements on some occasions. Of course we are all pleased to get direction from him on any occasion.


Henry Lumley Drayton: One of the
things I am not going to attempt to do is to try to explain things to the minister, it would be beyond me. In the meantime, I might suggest that he should have just enough regard to the ordinary amenities of parliament in so far as a private member is concerned, let alone a minister.


Charles A. Stewart: I trust I
have been decent with every private member in the House. I hope I have and if I have not been I am ready to apologize. But I am certainly not going to apologize to the exMinister of Finance.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, what item are we on?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I (think the
point is very well taken. I certainly do not ask any apology from the Minister of the Interior. Sometimes an apology is a matter of indifference; it depends somewhat upon the source from which it comes. I am going to ask my hon. friend again if he can point out the items of extravagance in overmanning the staff in the year 1921, and where the reductions have been made.


Georges Henri Boivin: I did not complain of extravagance or overmanning of staff. What I said was that, in previous years the cost of administering the departments of customs had increased more rapidly than it did last year. That may not be all due to the merits of the present government. I am willing to claim credit only in part. It is due to the fact that we are able to carry on the business of the country with the same number of employees that we had last year, and that a few of the employees, as I pointed out a moment ago, have been given promotion and are now occupying their new positions at the new minimum salary, instead of the maximum salary paid to their predecessors. My hon. friend pointed out that it was necessary to pay certain allowances as superannuation or pension in connection with the employees who . have retired. I admit that. That happens every year. It happens, not only in the Department of Customs but in every other department. In so far as the increase is concerned, I jokingly remarked that the increase referred to by my hon. friend of $7,488 was more than the increase of $1,390 last year. I am willing to admit that the small increase this year is accounted for by the fact that
we have succeeded in reducing our vote for contingencies to the extent of $8,000. Otherwise our increase in salaries would be almost $2,000 more than in the year referred to by my hon. friend. But I think my hon. friend will admit that this gradual increase is provided for by the Civil Service Act, and that there is no extravagance on the part of the government. I am sure, if any charges of extravagance were made in days gone by, when I happened to occupy the semi-judicial position referred to by my hon. friend, that he will not hold me responsible, and that he does not want us to fight all over again the Battle of the Boyne.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not holding the hon. minister responsible. I am asking a plain question which he has not answered. The charges were made, as the minister knows, of overmanning and extravagance.


Georges Henri Boivin: Not to-night.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, I am speaking of what was said about the estimates of 1921, and asking a very simple question, and he, as head of the department, should know whether those charges were justified or not. His own estimates obviously show that they were not. The estimates are a great deal more than they then were, but he is not frank enough to give me an answer.


Georges Henri Boivin: I certainly do not know *what the charges were. I do not remember them. I have not the Hansard before me, and I am certainly not going to admit a crime until I know what I am accused of. If my hon. friend wants me to give a certificate that in that particular year there was no grave reason for a charge of mismanagement and of padding the salary list in this particular department, I am willing to say that the increase that year proportionately was no more than the increase this year.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister referred to the very economical administration of the Liberal party and to the very slight increases during certain years. I wish to call his attention to the fact that in 1921-22 the amount of this vote was $548,000; in 1922-23 it was $559,000, and in the year 1923-24 it rose to $577,000. In the year 1924 the increase was almost $20,000; so that that comes within the category of the kind of year that was really extravagant. The number of employees remained about the same, but there has been a gradual and constant increase of expenditure in the department.
Supply-Agriculture


Georges Henri Boivin: My hon. friend knows that during the precise year he mentions there was a general increase of salaries, and it was made on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission, over which we had no control. The increase was proportionate in all the other departments of the government. Surely my hon. friend is not holding me or the government responsible for that.


James Dew Chaplin: No, but when you rise and make a carte blanche statement that the administration of this particular department under the Liberal regime has been so economical, I only point out the actual figures as they exist.


Georges Henri Boivin: I think my hon. friend is entirely right in his figures, and I think I am entirely right in my statements; I am sure we can both agree.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Agriculture-for experiments in dehydration of fruits and vegetables, $10,000.
James Dew Chaplin: I should like
to inquire from the Minister of Agriculture how it happens that on a Friday night, after ten o'clock, when a number of members want to go away, he always brings in his estimates.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Explain.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know whether I can
answer my hon. friend's question or not, except that somebody has to carry on in the House on Friday night. This is only the second time that I have been at the bat this session, if I remember well, and I do not think the last occasion was on Friday night.
With regard to the vote under consideration, this experimental work was undertaken some years ago by the department for the purpose of demonstrating what could be done in the way of dehydrating some of our fruits, particularly apples, apricots and plums, instead of adopting the ordinary evaporating system. During these two or three years we have, I think, demonstrated to the satisfaction, not of the fruit men because most of them were aware of it before, but of the consumer, the very much higher quality of dehydrated fruit, as compared with evaporated fruit. The systems are entirely different; so much so that the dehydrated fruit retains the flavour of the green fruit as compared with the almost entire lack of flavour in regular evaporated fruit. AVe have come to the time when we think we can accomplish it.


Peter McGibbon: AA'ould the minister explain the difference between the processes?


William Richard Motherwell: The ordinary
evaporating is done through heated air. It has the effect of hardening the tissue and breaking down the cellular construction of the fruit. On the other hand, the dehydrating is carried on through a more humid atmosphere, retaining the cellular construction of the fruit. We have now reached the point where we can contract somewhat in experimental work, having demonstrated beyond any question that an important industry may be developed. Our experiments have been followed up by the establishment of two plants, one in the Okanagan valley and one in the Annapolis valley, both of which are giving entire satisfaction. But the fruit men having had pretty hard sledding ever since the war, capital has not been so plentiful; otherwise I am sure many plants would now be in operation. Certainly a great quantity of fruit which is not quite up to grade one, but which at the same time is capable of preservation, could be dehydrated. In this way a large proportion of our excess fruit could be disposed of. It is not at all true that you can take culls and produce a sound dehydrated article; the better the raw material the better will the finished product be.


Henry Lumley Drayton: AArhere are these experiments carried on? Are they confined to our own buildings?


William Richard Motherwell: There is one plant at the experimental farm in Ottawa, one at Grimsby in the Niagara district, and one at Penticton. We intend to continue the one at Penticton, but the committee on dehydration in charge of the work at the experimental farm has not completed its plans with reference to the work at Grimsby. The Grimsby plant may be taken over by a cold storage establishment which has been in operation there for some ten or twelve years.


Henry Lumley Drayton: AVho are the
committee?
Mr. MOTHERAA'ELL:	The committee
consists of Mr. E. S. Archibald, director of the experimental farm; Mr. G. E. McIntosh, head of the Fruit branch; Dr. Frank Shutt, of the experimental farm; Professor W. T. Macoun, and Mr. C. S. McGillivray.


Henry Lumley Drayton: These are all
employees of the government?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. They have
made a special study of this work.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no
salary attached to this?


William Richard Motherwell: No.

Supply-A gricul ture


Henry Lumley Drayton: How is the
money spent?


William Richard Motherwell: In the case of
Penticton we have rented a cheap building, and the fruit after being dehydrated is put on exhibition. We also sell some of the product. As a matter of fact, samples of the dehydrated fruit are displayed at various exhibitions throughout the country.


Peter McGibbon: What does it cost to
dehydrate fruit?


William Richard Motherwell: The plant being
small, the cost will of course be out of proportion to the production. About $12 per ton is paid for fuel. The initial expenses take up the bulk of the money.


Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):: How
many experimental plants are likely to be operated during the present year; and how many privately owned plants have been established since this experimental work was undertaken?


William Richard Motherwell: Two or three
plants will be operated this year.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: By the
government?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. There are
two commercial plants, one at Kelowna operated by a Mr. Bulman and another in the Annapolis valley near Wolfville.


John Livingstone Brown: Is it the intention of the
government to carry on experiments after private plants are established?


William Richard Motherwell: No; that is why
we are reducing the vote. We do not intend to continue experimental work once the public is thoroughly satisfied that fruits can be dehydrated more economically than they can be evaporated.


James Dew Chaplin: How can you
tell whether or not the experiment is economical, if you do not know what it costs? Can the minister tell us what it costs to produce a given quantity of dried apples?


William Richard Motherwell: You cannot tell,
from experiments conducted in a small plant, what production would cost on a large scale. We are simply demonstrating what can be done in the way of converting surplus fruit into an edible product to take the place of millions of pounds of dehydrated fruit imported from the United States, and which we might very well produce in this country.


Peter McGibbon: The minister realizes,
no doubt, that the feasibility of production commercially depends upon the cost.


William Richard Motherwell: We do not run a
commercial plant. But from the experiments we have carried on and the data we have secured we have come to the conclusion that this process is cheaper than the ordinary system of evaporation.


Peter McGibbon: When you are conducting experiments surely the cost of production is an essential consideration.


William Richard Motherwell: You cannot tell
what it would cost to operate a commercial plant if you judge by the results of experiments on such a small scale as this.


Peter McGibbon: What is the estimated
cost of production?


William Richard Motherwell: I can only say that it is estimated to be a little cheaper than the process of evaporation, while it is believed that the quality of the product is better.


Edward Joseph Garland: What vegetables and fruits have so far been successfully dehydrated?


William Richard Motherwell: Apples, apricots,
peaches, plums, pears and small fruits and vegetables, including potatoes.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is
the total spent to date?


William Richard Motherwell: Thirty	thousand
dollars.


Edward Joseph Garland: And we
have learned how to dehydrate five or six varieties of fruit?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. It is believed that once we can convince the investing public that a sound business can be built up, we can produce millions of pounds of dehydrated fruit which we are now importing.


Edward Joseph Garland: I think the department would be better occupied trying to dehydrate some of our commercial corporations.


William Richard Motherwell: Taking	the water
out of them?


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: That is not in my line.


John Wesley Edwards: The minister says that some $30,000 has already been expended and he is asking us to vote another $10,000, making $40,000 in all; and the purpose of this expenditure is to encourage fruit
Supply-Agriculture

growers so that we may be able to convince investors that a profitable business may be developed in Canada in this direction. I think he said that millions of pounds of fruit which we are now importing could be dehydrated in this country. The minister advances that as a reason in support of this vote. I say at once I am in hearty accord with him so far as that is concerned. But it does seem to me to be very stranige that a different attitude is taken by this government in regard to other similar matters. The minister says:	Assist me to expend another
110,000 to encourage the dehydration of fruit so we can produce an article here that is now being imported. And yet the same minister, a member of the same government, was a party to the Australian and New Zealand arrangement by which fruit pulp is allowed to come into this country free of duty. In one breath the minister encourages the fruit industry, and in the other he is doing all he possibly can to knock that industry on the head. He is reasonable in asking for something to encourage home industry. But I know this attitude will not last very long with him. It seems to me that on his part it is only a fleeting evidence of good, sound common sense, but it makes me wonder how he could find it possible to support the other measure which certainly does not, and will not, encourage the producers of fruit in this country, but, on the contrary, will drive them out of business. I could not resist, Mr. Chairman, the temptation to point out what in my judgment is a glaring inconsistency in the attitude of the government on this item and on the Australian treaty.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: Do I
understand the minister has expended $30,000 in experimenting along these lines and that up to the present there is only one small plant?


William Richard Motherwell: There are two; one in the Okanagan and one in the Annapolis valley.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: How
large are those plants?


William Richard Motherwell: The	Okanagan
plant, which is operated- by Mr. Bulman, has dehydrated thirty-five or thirty-six carloads of fruit, mostly apples. All fruit men know that every medium possible should be used to take care of the peak load rather than allow any of the fruit to go to waste, especially during the harvest time when the crop is rushed on the market. We have also established pre-cooling for the same fruit growers. They dry some of their fruit, they pre-cool some of it, and they dehydrate some of it to

prevent waste. It is a good plan to take care of the fruit by all legitimate means available. I quite expected the criticism made by the hon. member for Frontenac. He would be less than human if he had not 'taken advantage of the opportunity to criticize what he considers to be an inconsistency on our part with regard to hurting the fruit industry by the Australian treaty, as he alleges, and coming to its rescue by this vote. Suppose, for the sake of argument, our fruit growers have cause to be alarmed by the effects of the Australian treaty, is that not all the more reason why something should be done to offset those effects?


Henry Lumley Drayton: A sort of "off
again, on again."


William Richard Motherwell: I am assuming that his argument is sound.


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as the minister says he expected this criticism from me, I am very glad to take it as evidence that he has got a conscience which does work sometimes.


William Richard Motherwell: I hope so.
Mr. TOLMilE:	Mir. Chairman, ,1 congratulate the minister on his change of attitude as evinced towards the Australian treaty,- so far as the dairy end of it is concerned,- and as now indicated in this matter of dehydrated fruits. It is of great importance to carry on such experiments as will enable our growers after a wlr'le to prepare their surplus for the market under certain conditions, and this provides one of the- methods for doing so. At what price can you buy this fruit for dehydration in comparison with its ordinary market value?


William Richard Motherwell: We have no figures with regard to small fruits, but they could, pay a dollar a hundred weight for apples.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: How many pounds of dry friut would you get per hundred pounds of green fruit by this method as compared with the old sun-drying method?


William Richard Motherwell: Dehydrated fruit
will carry more moisture and still be in condition to .warehouse. Consequently you will make more dehydrated fruit out of 100 pounds of raw fruit than you will by the sun drying method.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What is the comparison as to palatability say in the form of an apple
pie?


William Richard Motherwell: The dehydrated fruit is very much superior; to a large extent it retains the flavour of the green fruit.

Supply-A gricullure


Simon Fraser Tolmie: And is a decidedly better product?


William Richard Motherwell: Assuredly; there is no comparison.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: In California they have what is known as sun-made fruit, that is, fruit dried in trays in the open. Have you any figures as to the comparative cost of that method and dehydration?


William Richard Motherwell: Sun-drying is an
obsolete method and cannot be recommended at all to-day, any more than you could recommend the system of stringing together apples and hanging them up near the stove pipe as we used to do a good many years ago, thus making a convenient roost for the flies. The principle is the same-evaporation. There is no comparison whatever between the quality of dehydrated and evaporated fruit.


John Livingstone Brown: With regard to quality, I have tasted some of this dehydrated fruit at home and it is almost impossible to tell it from the green fruit, the quality is so fine.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And what is
the gain in percentage of weight?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think we have that data. Does my hon. friend mean when it is brought back?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister
explained that there were two advantages to this system, firstly the flavour and secondly that more moisture is retained and therefore the weight is greater. What is the gain in weight?


William Richard Motherwell: About 10 per cent, I understand. I believe also that it has a greater absorptive capacity.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It goes better
with cream?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
William Richard Motherwell: We might let item 45 stand and go on with item 46.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: With respect to items 45
and 46, these are very important, usually entailing a discussion lasting some time. Our benches are rather bare now; it is getting late; this is Friday night; we have had a very hard week and I would suggest that having passed one item safely and pleasantly it would be a favour to this -House to defer the remainder until next week.


William Richard Motherwell: I quite appreciate
the suggestion of my hon. friend, but the
Prime Minister requested me to keep going-to a reasonable hour; he knows Iny disposition to yield to the representations of my hon. friend when he puts them in that enticing way. I would be glad to skip these" large items and start at the bottom.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Then let us go on td
item 48.


William Richard Motherwell: Very well; that
has to do with entomology, commonly called the study of bugs. This may give some amusement to hon. members opposite.
Agriculture-entomology, $20,000.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Would the minister tell
us something of the effect of the operations of the department on the cattle ranges of British Columbia in dealing with the grasshopper plague?


William Richard Motherwell: I am informed that should come under, the next vote, but we can dispose of it now. That invasion of grasshoppers came from the south, through the southwest comer of Manitoba and into the southeast corner of Saskatchewan about five or six years ago. It has worked westward until now it is almost to the Pacific. The federal government, in co-operation with the various provincial governments, and they in turn with the municipalities, all working in harmony and unison, have suppressed this pest by the distribution of poison bait. I have forgotten the formula, but it is something which seems to work very effectively in dealing with the plague. The advice and leadership in general control of grasshoppers in British Columbia have been undertaken during 1925 in connection with the Department of Agriculture and the range commission of British Columbia. This co-operation, extension and control work will be continued in that province to the limit of the resources available in 1926. This is the same policy pursued by my hon. friend when he had charge of the work, at which time I imagine the plague was probably in the western part of Alberta.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What variety of grass
hopper is it?


William Richard Motherwell: It is one that seems to get away with a lot of grub. I understand it is sometimes spoken of as an army grasshopper; it goes in great waves; it is very industrious until it is ready to leave and then it moves off quickly, generally leaving destruction in its wake. I believe there is more than one variety. I had reports from my officers when we had the invasion in Sas-
Business of the House

katchewan, but I do not recall the scientific names of these destructive insects.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Have any complaints been received as to the poisoning of stock from the use of this treatment?


William Richard Motherwell: There have been
rumours, but nothing authentic. If animals took a full meal of it they would be poisoned, but not by just picking it up in the pasture.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What is the poisonous
material used in the destruction of grasshoppers?


William Richard Motherwell: Arsenic.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: In what way are animals
poisoned? The minister says they cannot pick up enough from the grass to notice the effect, so in what way do they secure enough of this poison to injure them?


William Richard Motherwell: When it is distributed evenly in the usual way an animal cannot possibly pick up enough to produce any bad effects, but if the material drifts with the wind or accumulates in any other way, animals having access to it may be poisoned. The ordinary distribution methods, under normal conditions, have quite demonstrated that it can have no poisonous effect because the animals cannot get enough of it.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Have complaints been
received of animals being poisoned by chewing sacks which held the poison?


William Richard Motherwell: There was one
such case.


John Millar: I know of one case in my district where that occurred.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I understood there were
complaints made in Alberta and other provinces because of animals having access to the empty sacks.


William Richard Motherwell: There was one such case in Alberta.


Mr. GARDINER:: Does the department
contribute to the cost of destroying these pests?


William Richard Motherwell: No; the cost of
the. poison is paid on a fifty-fifty basis by the provincial government and the municipality. We supply the staff and assist in an advisory way.	*


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Robb the House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Monday, May 31, 1926.