1927-04-08

COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING

Mr. W. T. GOODISON (West Lambton):: presented the third and final report of the select standing committee on railways and shipping as follows:
The select standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, beg leave to present the following as their third and final report.
Tour committee to which was referred for consideration and for report to the House the estimates of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited, held five meetings, in the course of which it examined sundry witnesses, including;
Sir Henry Thornton, K.B.E., President and Chairman of the Boards, Canadian National Railways.	[DOT]
S.	J. Hungerford, Vice President, Operation and Construction Departments, C.N.R.
W. D. Robb, Vice President, Departments of Land, Colonization, Development, Insurance and General Matters, C.N.R.
K- A. C. Henry, Director, Bureau of Eeono-. mies, C.N.R.
T.	H. Cooper, General Auditor, C.N.R.
R. B. Teakle, General Manager, Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited.
J. P. Doherty, Traffic Manager, Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited.
F. Davidson, Auditor, Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited.
Canadian National Railways
Tour committee has had under consideration item 408 of the estimates, which provides for loans or guarantees of $22,500,000 of the Canadian National Railway Company for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1928, and has in the course of its deliberations, examined the operating statements of the company for the year ending December 31st, 1926.
(Mr. C. A. Stewart.]
Your committee notes that the results of the operations of the Canadian National Railway System, which includes for the first time the operations of the Central Vermont Railway, show a substantial improvement in the volume of business handled and a continued improvement in operating methods, resulting in an increase of $21,861,000 in operating revenue accompanied by an increase of only $7,079,000 in operating expenses.
While not providing for interest charges due the government on capital advances your committee notes with considerable satisfaction that for the first time, the net earnings of the railway for the year are more than sufficient to pay all fixed charges due to the public.
Your committee is lead to believe that the properties embraced in the system have been maintained to a standard commensurate with the traffic requirements.
Your committee agrees that the estimate of $22,500,000 (being a reduction of $8,500,000 from the amount asked for last year) is necessary for the purpose of the company during the coming year, and should be voted by the House.
Canadian Government Merchant Marine
Your committee has also had under consider-ition item 409 of the estimates, which provides tor a loan of $18,500 to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited, and has in the course of its deliberations examined the operating statements of the company for the year [DOT] ending December 31st, 1926. YTour committee notes with considerable satisfaction that the operating deficit has been reduced to $90,159, an improvement over the previous year of $858,893, and it is recalled that the improvement in 1925 in comparison with 1924 was $492,826.
From the evidence given, it appears that there has been an improvement in the earnings on the business handled in the ease of practically all the routes operated and that this improvement has been accomplished at a relatively small expense. The increase in operating revenue was $1,114,735, while the operating expenses only increased $256,841.
Your committee draws attention to the fact that the amount of the appropriation for last year on account of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited, was $600,000, whereas for the coming year, the sum of $18,500 is asked. Your committee is of the opinion that this amount is necessary for the purposes of the company during the coming year and should be voted by the House.
Your committee notes with satisfaction that the Canadian National Railways continues to hold the confidence and goodwill of the public through the excellence of the service rendered and the courtesy extended to patrons.
Your committee further desires to express its appreciation of the manner in which the President of the Canadian National Railways and the officers assisting him gave their evidence to the committee.
A copy is attached hereto of the minutes of the proceedings and evidence of the attending officers.

Harbour Commissioners' Acts
Your committee further recommends that its proceedings and the evidence adduced before the committee be printed as an appendix to the Journals of the House and that rule 74 in respect hereto be suspended.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. Goodison moved that the report be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Adding-ton):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to present further petitions asking for the transfer to the prairie provinces of their natural resources, without restricting their right to complete control of their educational and other local affairs.



PRIVATE BILLS THIRD READINGS

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that bills Nos. 240 to 252 inclusive, and bills Nos. 262 to 268 inclusive, being unopposed divorce bills which have been reported by the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, be now read a third time, and that rule 28 be suspended in relation thereto.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Leader of the Opposition):: Are these all divorce bills?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: Do I understand that none but divorce bills are in that list?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Unopposed divorce bills.
Motion agreed to on division, and bills read a third time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have been given a list of private bills which are also I understand, unopposed, and about which the whips of the three parties have conferred. I am prepared to make a motion that these unopposed private bills be now considered if it is agreeable to the House, but if there is any objection I will not present the motion.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: What are the bills and what are they about?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will read the numbers: 254, 144, 177, 116, 154, 175, 214, 237, 238, 261, 253.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think we can
hardly be asked to pass these bills in this way. Some of us have not been consulted in regard to the matter.


Hon. LUCIEN CANNON (Solicitor General):: If my hon. friend will allow me I will give the titles of the bills in a moment.


Mr. GEORGES PARENT (Quebec West):: Bill No. 177 will likely be opposed.


Leon Johnson Ladner: It is difficult to know just which bills might be subject to contention and which might not. There are other bills of importance on the list, and for my part I must oppose this motion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Under the circumstances I will not present the motion.



THREE RIVERS HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS' ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 302, to amend the Three Rivers Harbour Commissioners' Act, 1923.
Hugh Guthrie: Explain.


Mr. CARDIN:: This bill is not contentious; it is only designed to change the limits of the harbour of Three Rivers.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CHICOUTIMI HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS' ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 303, to amend the Chicoutimi Harbour Commissioners' Act, 1926.
He said: The object of this bill is also to change the limits of the harbour of Chicoutimi.
Motion agreed and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 304, to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
He said: The object of this bill is to enable the owners of ships to stop the practice, which has become prevalent in the short haul passenger business, of objectionable touts and runners for lodging houses and so on soliciting business for their houses, some of which are of questionable character, while the ship is
Civil Service-Salaries
[Stage Direction]
en route. We want to have the law amended so that no one can go on a ship and advertise or solicit business for any hotel or boarding house without having a permit from the company operating the boat.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister) moved:
That on Saturday, April 9th instant, and every Saturday thereafter until the end of the session, the House shall sit from 11 o'clock in the morning until 6 o'clock in the afternoon, and that there shall be an intermission from one to three o'clock, and the order of business and procedure shall be the same as on Fridays.
to the hon. member for St. Denis, I wish to state that representations have been made to the government in the nature of this letter.
It is the intention of the government to grant an increase to all civil servants, however we must equally take under consideration the amounts which have already been granted to certain classes since 1924 as I have already explained to the House.
At all events, this question is receiving our earnest consideration and may be discussed more fully when the supplementary estimates covering this increase is submitted to the House.


[Stage Direction]
He said: I may explain that there has been a conference between the whips of the parties and this resolution, I understand, is agreed to.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ARTHUR DENIS (St. Denis) (Translation):: 
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, in answer

On the Orders of the Day:


James Shaver Woodsworth: I desire to ask the Prime
Minister if the Canadian government has been consulted about the recently announced policy of Great Britain in China, and further, does the Canadian government endorse the policy of the present British administration?
Right Hon, W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister): With respect to the situation in China and the communications that have parsed* between the Canadian government and the British government on the subject, I would say that this government has been kept informed by the British government of the progress of events. The information which we have received has been very much that which has appeared in the public press. We have not been asked for our advice, and we have not tendered any.




[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: I desire to bring to the attention of the government two telegrams which have been placed in my hands, the subject matter of which is of sufficient importance to justify taking that course at the present stage of the proceedings of the House. One telegram is signed by the secretary of the Amalgamated Civil Servants of Canada, Vancouver Local Council. It is addressed to me and reads as follows:
Six hundred civil servants at mass meeting here passed following resolution without one dissenting vote:
"That we most strongly protest the offer of from forty-two to sixty dollars per annum in-

Imperial Conference
crease in most cases publicly advertised as hundred and twenty dollars flat rate increase for all civil servants after waiting patiently for five years for some measure of justice. We emphatically condemn the assumption that we received an increase in pay in nineteen hundred and twenty-four and protest against using such imaginary increase in order to deprive us of the full benefit of the recent revision. We reiterate our request for a flat increase of three hundred dollars per annum for all with a minimum of hundred dollars for all full time adult occupations and respectfully solicit your support on the floor of the House of Commons so that salaries in the Canadian civil service may be raised to the level of respectability. This for your Vancouver colleagues also."
I also have a wire from the railway mail clerks in which they declare that in some cases the change has actually resulted in a decrease. The point I wish to bring to the attention of the government is this:	It was officially
announced by the government, I think through the lips of the Secretary of State, that a flat increase of $120 a year was given to all civil servants. In the working out of the salary revision it appears that in some cases there has been a decrease; in other cases the increase is only from $42 to $60 a year and not $120. I would ask from the government that some statement should be made explaining the apparent discrepancy between the first announcement that there was a flat increase of $120 and what appears to be the actual result.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: This subject is becoming a matter of daily interrogation. I have stated many times, and it seemed to have been agreed upon by hon. gentlemen opposite, that the whole question might be explained when we reached the supplementary estimates dealing with this matter. I desire to state now that the announcement made to the House was very plain. It was to the effect that we were giving a flat increase to the whole service, but the statement was immediately qualified by reservations as to some classes who have received increases since 1924.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Which they deny.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Well, the whole point seems to rest on the fact that those civil servants who had received increases previously do not consider those increases any more, but are thinking of the amount it is possible to receive under the present revision. I am willing to give consideration to all these representations, to my department since my declaration, which have been very numerous, but it would be better, I think, if we were to discuss the whole matter when we come to consider the supplementary estimates.


Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City):: I have a question along the same line. I was going to ask the Secretary of State if he had received messages protesting against the character of the increase.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I believe every hon. member of the House has received such telegrams. It would be better, I think, if they were read in proper sequence.


Mr. H. E. LAVIGUEUR (Quebec-Mont-morency) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I received this morning a telegram from Branch No. 5 of the Federated Association of Letter Carriers of Quebec, in which they complain of the same discrimination as mentioned just now by the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis). The telegram reads as follows:
H. E. Laviguf.ur,
Ottawa, Ont.
At a mass meeting of members of Branch No. 5 Quebec of the Federated Association of Letter Carriers it was unanimously resolved to protest energetically against the miserable increase of seventy eight cents per week in salary for the letter carriers we sincerely hope that this matter will be reconsidered.
Jos. M. Cote,
President Branch No. 5
the F.A.L.C., Quebec.
I understand that the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) stated that another increase will be granted to these employees, over and above the 78 cents per week increase, and that this question is under consideration. In view of these facts I think that the employees of the Post Office Department at Quebec will 'be satisfied with the hon. minister's answer.


Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. Postmaster General state if he is ready to deal with the question I put to him yesterday, which he said he would read when Hansard oame before him and prepare an answer for to-day.


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):: That answer is being prepared on the basis of the memorandum that I have tabled. I will have it ready this afternoon or to-morrow.



IMPERIAL CONFERENCE DEBATE


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: I desire to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to a report with respect to the debate on the Imperial conference which appeared

2102	COMMONS
Employment of Disabled Veterans
in the Manitoba Free. Press of Wednesday, April 6th. In that report the following declaration occurs:
Imperial conference policy is endorsed by a majority of 44.
As that statement is so far from the fact, I thought it advisable to call it to the attention of the Prime Minister in order that he may have an opportunity of denying it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I think what my hon. friend has reference to is a newspaper heading. I am sure he will recognize that it is impossible for the government to control the press in the matter of the headings which it gives to its despatches. However, with reference to what the heading purports to assert, I would say to my hon. friend that I think the House understands that the motion the other day was a motion to go into supply, and the support given to it defeated the amendment- which was moved by my bon', friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie). The amendment had reference to Imperial conference matters, but its defeat did not in any way imply the approval by this House df the report.



EMPLOYMENT OF DISABLED VETERANS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Peter John Veniot: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I promised to give to the House a statement with respect to the employment of amputation cases in city post offices. The following is a memorandum of the conference held on Thursday, to which I then made reference:
Employment of Amputation Cases in City Post Offices
The above matter was discussed with representatives of the Civil Service Commission and a representative of the Great War Veterans' Association. The following were present:
P. T. Coolican, General Superintendent of Postal Service; E. J. Underwood, Chief Superintendent of Post Office Service; C. H. Bland, Assistant Secretary, Civil Service Commission; Mr. Bouchard, Examination Branch, Civil Service Commission; Mr. Herwig, Great War Veterans' Association.
The department's views were expressed as follows:
The department has no objection to the employment of amputation cases in those positions where their physical handicap does not prevent their giving the department satisfactory service.
The department at the present time has so many employees who are not 100 per cent physically fit in the operating branches of the service, including a large number of men of advanced years who have entered under the returned soldiers' preference, that to further load down these staffs with amputation cases
IMr. E. J. Garland.]
would simply mean that the department could not give an efficient service.
It was pointed out at the interview that the department had no objection to the employment of amputation cases in such positions as mechanical operators in the Money Order branch, telephone operators, stenographers and other similar clerical positions.
It was further stated that the department would assist in every way possible in obtaining properly qualified amputation cases for such positions. This attitude was satisfactory to both the commission and Mr. Herwig of the Great War Veterans' Association and it was agreed that the department would, as far as possible, when suitable vacancies occurred, to which amputation cases could be assigned, to specially draw such cases to the attention of the Civil Service Commission when asking for vacancies to be filled.
I beg to lay the memorandum on the table.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Customs and Excise) moved the second reading of Bill No. 281 to amend an act of the present session intituled:	"An act respecting the
Department of National Revenue."
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, April 7, the adjourned debate on the -motion of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Forke) for the second reading of Bill No. 269 to amend the Immigration Act.
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (West Calgary):: Mr. Speaker, when I adjourned the debate last evening I was endeavouring to point out that no harm can be done by permitting this statute to remain as part of the law of this country.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I cannot -hear the hon. gentleman.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let us look at the
statute and see if there is any reason why it should be repealed.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Louder, please.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Immigration Act-Mr. Bennett
it the policy of the people and government of Canada to place a premium on alien agitators being permitted to rave against the crown of Britain, against the crown of Canada, and against the government in Canada? Since when did we desire to place our imprimatur upon favouring agitators of that character? All we -are doing outside of the Criminal Code now is simply to say that we are not going to the trouble of having a long trial and all the accompanying agitation in the public press, magnifying these men into heroes. No, we are merely going to send them back to the country they came from; that is all.
Take the United States of America. They talk of liberty and freedom, and practise it, they say, more than any other people in the world. Would they permit the repeal of a section such as that? Look at the deportations from that country now. Look at the Canadians they have sent back. Look at England refusing to vise passports for certain persons wanting to enter the United States. Look at the action of the United States with respect to undesirables at Ellis Island and at other points.
Why repeal this section now when the 'effect of it is simply to enable us at a moment of great peril, when we are sure of our facts, to send these undesirable persons back to the country they came from? I do submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the time to repeal it. I can see no reason why the government having discharged its duty, as I understand it, to the hon. gentleman, having promised to do something and having done it, should any longer press this legislation in 1927 upon the attention of this House in the closing days of the session, for I know hon. gentlemen opposite are quite as desirous as I am of maintaining law and order in Canada, and are quite as desirous as I am of maintaining our institutions and our form of government, quite as desirous as anyone on this side of the House that there should be orderly and regulated conduct of the business of this country. Then why remove from the Immigration Act this provision.
My friend from Winnipeg, I suppose, would say that the Criminal Code gives us ample opportunity to deal, with these men, but that is the very thing we do not want to use. The United States has found that out by experience, and she simply deports them, instead of exalting these people into heroes, with all the talk about freedom of speech and deporting people without giving them the opportunity of a trial by a jury of their countrymen. That is not the principle of

the law at all. Deportation is not punishment. The criminal law is in operation for the punishment of the offender, and for deterring others; it is to punish those who violate our laws. But deiportation is to send out of our country undesirable citizens, and when this House votes to repeal a section such as that, indirectly it says that it is satisfied that thiaJt class of person is not an undesirable person. To retain the section cannot do harm: it may do good. It cannot interfere with liberty, because it does not deal with British subjects, and since when did an alien have any right to protection in this country other than to be protected in his life and property, and be sent out of the country if he proved undesirable? How many people are sent out of the United States as undersirable? How many are sent out of Russia and other countries? Why should Canada repeal this section which enables us to deal with these people? That is a question I leave with the minister, and I cannot think for a single moment that he is serious in asking us to repeal a section such as this which gives us this protection-a protection that can be put into operation without recourse to the courts of law, with all the costs that go with criminal trials, and all the effort that is made to magnify into heroes these people who would destroy our institutions, and all the talk about the poor stranger and the foreigner within our gates. It is not that. This is merely the exercise of the high right of sovereignty with respect to the citizenship of Canada. It is merely saying that we as a people will keep without our borders undesirable persons who are promulgating these doctrines; that is all, and I do submit that the bill Should not pass.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. member for West
Calgary (Mr. Bennett) has seen fit to make an appeal to me in this matter, although I cannot quite see why he should do so, seeing that this is a government bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because the letter was
addressed to you.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, a letter was
addressed to me last year with regard to this matter, but I would point out to the hon. member that legislation of this character was introduced by the government in preceding years. I have no doubt whatever that the government itself has received from every section of this country, protests against this legislation which was placed on the statute books in 1919. The hon. member for West Calgary has held up the United States as a model for us in this regard. Some of us

Immigration Act-Mr. Woodsworth


James Shaver Woodsworth: I will come to that
would prefer to take Great Britain rather than the United States as a model. In England they have maintained a very considerable degree of freedom of speech, and the liberty of the subject has been a good deal more carefully guarded than in the United States. In fact, usually it has been our boast that justice is better served in England than in ithe United States. I dlo not quite see why the hon. member should hold up the United States as our model in this regard.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Does this bill
apply to British subjects?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, and I am coming to that. I had not thought, after the debates of the three or four years past, that it would be necessary for us to say very much in regard to this measure, but I would point out to my hon. friend from West Calgary that, with regard to the legal aspects of this question, we could not do better than read the presentation which Senator Dandurand made last year in the Senate. I think that nowhere can a more carefully worded legal case be found than that which was presented last year. I desire to point out a few particulars incorporated into the bill with their bearings upon the right of freedom in this country. Here is one phrase that is used in the bill:
Anyone who assumes any powers of government in Canada-
That is a very broad phrase and has been interpreted in a very broad fashion. If, for example, a company should maintain its own police force it is thereby assuming what is in reality a governmental function. Of course as a matter of fact nobody would prosecute a huge corporation, even though its officials had assumed governmental functions. In the case however of an industrial dispute, when certain labour people attempt to exercise discipline over their membership, it may be interpreted as the assumption of powers of government. Another phrase in the act reads: Anyone who by common repute belongs to, or is suspected of belonging to-
I submit that is going altogether too far, even with the word " criminal There are many people who, by common repute, are desperate characters. I see the hon. member for Labelle smiling. I am quite sure that in certain sections of the country, by common repute, he is far from being a worthy citizen of Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He is a British subject.
later. That clause as drawn reads:
Any man who by common repute belongs to, or is suspected of belonging to, any secret organization.
When did suspicion on the part of the general public become a ground for condemnation?


An hon. MEMBER:: A subject for deportation.	'


James Shaver Woodsworth: I will come to that
later. When did suspicion become a ground for condemnation? Then further than that, such allegations or suspicions with regard to any citizen mean that he may be classed among the prohibited or undesirable class.
I have a good deal of sympathy with hon. members of this House who have given no particular attention to the act. It is very complicated and perhaps skilfully drawn. I am not quite sure-to give credit to those who are responsible for the drawing of the act-that those who drew the act quite recognized how far-reaching it was. In another part of the act there is a clause *which says that anyone who belongs to the prohibited classes cannot establish domicile in Canada. That means that it makes no difference whether a man has been here, one, five or twenty-five years; so long as he belongs to the prohibited class, it is impossible for him to establish what is technically known as domicile in Canada.


Mr. SMOKE:: Prima facie.


James Shaver Woodsworth: He cannot establish domicile in Canada. That is the serious part. He may be deported. Even although he has been a resident of Canada for a great number of years, he becomes liable to deportation. In the second section we read:
2. Proof that any person belonged to or was within the description of any of the prohibited or undesirable classes -within the meaning of this section at any time since the fourth day of May, one thousand nine hundred and ten, shall, for all the purposes of this act be deemed to establish prima facie that he still belongs to such prohibited or undesirable class or classes.
If in the past a man had belonged to an undesirable organization or secret society, or any other prohibited class, he may have migrated to this country and completely changed his whole manner of life, but if he is accused by anyone or even suspected of belonging to these classes, the very fact that he once belonged to such a class is considered prima facie evidence. I do not think that is a fair provision. The onus of proof ought
2100	COMMONS
Immigration Act-Mr. Woodsworth
not to be upon the accused man. The burden of proof ought to rest with the authorities or those who accuse him.
I come now to the important part which has been stressed by the hon. member for West Calgary. I believe he has made the objection because he has not carefully read the act. He claims that a British subject is not liable under this clause. I affirm-and again I would refer him to the presentation of Senator Dandurand-that a man born in England, a British subject is liable under this act.


Mr. BOUBASSA:: Born anywhere outside
of Canada?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes. The fact is however that this applies particularly to the British subject. A foreign-bom man may become naturalized in this country.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am certainly interested in the point. Will my hon. friend, when he makes that assertion, demonstrate how he harmonizes the statement with these two matters:
Provided, that this section shall not apply to any person who is a British subject, either by reason of birth in Canada, or by reason of naturalization in Canada.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The very question of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre I think reveals the fact that a great many of the hon. members of this House have been quite in the dark with regard to the meaning of the act, and perhaps that has led them to mistrust the motives of some of us who have tried to have the act repealed. The hon. member for West Calgary referred to the words in the section:
Provided, that this section shall not apply to any person who is a British subject, either by reason of birth in Canada or by reason of naturalization in Canada.
That refers to either one of two groups.
The first is:
By reason of birth in Canada.
That exempts native-born Canadians.
*-or by reason of naturalization in Canada.
That exempts foreign-bom Canadians. Foreigners may be naturalized in Canada. They are frequently naturalized in Canada, and in such case they come under the exemption in this clause.
It is quite true that in their case naturalization certificates may be cancelled. The provision is contained in another law that dovetails into this. But in the case of British bom citizens it is not necessary for them to become naturalized. I have never yet come

across a British born citizen who has been naturalized in Canada, nor do I see why it should be necessary for such naturalization to take place. Indeed, I do not know that a British born citizen can be naturalized in Canada. Be that as it may, the point that I want to emphasize is that the British born Canadian is not naturalized in this country and, not being naturalized in Canada, he does not come under the exemption provided in this act.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I appreciate the explanation. I see the point my hon. friend is making, and I have a suggestion to make presently.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I may suggest that my hon. friend himself would come under this act.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is right-if I committed all the offences enumerated in it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Or if the hon.
gentleman should be suspected or by common repute be regarded as having committed any of the offences named.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I leave that to my hon. friend.


James Shaver Woodsworth: This is a very
serious situation. My colleague from East Calgary (Mr. Adshead), bom in Manchester, comes under this act, as does also my other colleague born in Leeds.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They do not come under the act unless they commit these offences.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, but the point
is that they are not exempted. The hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) observed that British citizens did not come under the act, but he is misinformed on that point; the act does apply to British citizens. That is the question at issue. Why, the Minister of Immigration, Mr. Forke, who comes from Scotland, himself comes under this section and is liable to deportation vjjithout trial by his own department. Surely a re-ductio ad absurdum!


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has he been guilty of
any of these offences?


James Shaver Woodsworth: He need not commit any of the offences enumerated to come under the act; he need only be suspected of having committed any of them. Or, if by common repute he belongs to any organization of the kind defined in the act he comes under the section I am discussing. The hon. member for West Calgary made an impassioned speech to the House and was emphatic on

Immigration Act-Mr. Woodsworth
the point that the law did not apply to people of British birth. I say that it does apply to them and so his argument falls by the way. I go further and say that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan), who I understand was born in Ireland, is also subject to deportation under the act. I do not wonder that he wants to have this law abolished, because seeing that he came from Ireland he may be suspected at any time belonging to one of the groups mentioned.


Mr. McGIBBON:: If any of these gentlemen should be guilty of any of the offences mentioned why should they not come under the law?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I will come to that
point in a moment. I need not refer to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), another member of the cabinet. He was born in England and this law applies to him quite definitely. Not only in theory does this law apply to British born citizens but in actual fact it has been invoked against such people. It is therefore not a matter of mere academic interest, and that is why some of us feel so strongly about it. I dislike very much referring to the matter inasmuch as it has been discussed time and again; but I must allude, in passing, to the trouble we had in Winnipeg in 1919, when a number of Britishers, men born in England and Scotland, were arrested under this section and were liable to deportation.	It was definitely decided by the
department that they were to be deported within a few hours without trial, and it was only because of the protest made, not only by the labour people but by thoughtful citizens in all walks of life throughout the country, that this action was stayed. I repeat therefore that the matter is not one simply of academic interest. The law was actually invoked against this class of citizens and it may be used again.
I come now to another important consideration. Some of us in this House have been accused again and again of a desire to foster crime simply because we want to get rid of this act. We are charged with wanting to encourage offences of this description and to help people tear down the constitution. I am not advocating any of the things that are legislated against in this act. Not at all. I do say however, and say most emphatically, that the worst man in this country ought to have a fair trial by jury. Far from that being the case under this act, all that is necessary to make anyone liable to deportation is that he be suspected of any of these offences or that he should by common repute, belong to
any of the organizations mentioned. Any man suspected of any of these things may be reported to the immigration department and they, without anything further than a mere departmental investigation, can send him out of the country. That is too great a power to confer upon any department. If any one is suspected or is even guilty of any such offence the very least we can do is to give him a fair trial and not decide his fate by a departmental investigation. That is what we plead for. As a British citizen I claim for all British born citizens in Canada the right to fair trial by jury.	But I would extend that plea
in the case of those of foreign birth. I do not see why, simply because a man happens to have been born outside Canada, he should after coming to this country be shipped out again upon a report to the department that he belongs to some undesirable organization. I do not see why he should be deported without, at any rate, a fair trial. Is that the way we are going to teach our newer Canadians to respect British institutions?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely my hon. friend
does not suggest that there is any country in the world which enters into a criminal trial before deciding upon the deportation of undesirables? It is a matter purely of departmental investigation to decide who shall be permitted to stay in the country. In any event the right of habeas corpus is always available to the citizen under sentence of deportation.


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend reads
the immigration law he will find that the ight Of habeas corpus is taken away.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Any rights in that
regard are removed*.


Mr. FORKE:: I do not think my hon.
friend (Mr. Bennett) has studied the act.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Those who are
most strenuously objecting to this proposal have evidently neglected to look into the act as carefully as they should or they would not make the statements we have been hearing. The law as it stands virtually creates the Immigration department a judicial body. It seems that citizens are to be punished by deportation without any preliminary trial.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not punishment.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The ostensible purpose of the law is to enable the department to get rid of undesirables who come to our shores. The real effect, however, is, not to keep people from coming into the country, but, after they have been here one, five, ten,
2108	COMMONS
Immigration Act-Mr. Woodsworth
or even fifty years, to punish them by deportation, and that not for acts committed before they came to the country but for acts which they have committed or which they are alleged to have committed, or are even suspected of having committed in this country. I can understand the purpose of the Immigration Act to free this country from undesirables as they arrive here.


Hugh Guthrie: May I ask the hon. member a question? Would he be conent with the Immigration Act as it stood in 1910?


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is two years since I have read these acts, and I am afraid I cannot recall the wording of the act of 1910.


Hugh Guthrie: I understand it is the only power under which deportation can be carried cut. If you pass this bill you take away all powers of deportation.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The leader of the opposition is mistaken, and I would call to his attention the fact that it was the hon. member for West Calgary who last year suggested an amendment to the bill by which he thought to perfect it, which went further than the original draft act as presented by the minister. In the original bill there was some provision for deportation after trial for crimes of this character, but owing to the amendment introduced by the hon. member for West Calgary, that was modified and it was suggested that the whole clause should be eliminated; anyone who was present at the debate last year will recall the change.
My plea, Mr. Speaker, is that the Immigration Act quite rightly undertakes to stand guard at our gates and to say who may be admitted into Canada. If by any chance some get inside our gates who are undesirable I claim that the right still exists under the Immigration Act to deport them. It is perhaps quite in place that the department should have some act on the statute books to permit of such deportation. But so far as I have any influence, I refuse to allow an act to remain on the statute books which will use the departmental machinery for trying a man, and then deporting him without a fair jury trial; I think that is against all our best traditions. Personally I would not object to the country deporting a man who is undesirable; I will go that far with the hon. member for West Calgary. If a man is convicted of belonging to the undesirable classes; if he is convicted of acting against the best interests of Canada, I do not know that I would have any objection to deporting him.

It is not the deportation I object to, and I want to make that quite clear. What I do object to is the deportation without any other trial than that afforded by a departmental investigation.
Mr- HANSON:	Would the hon. member
permit a question? Does he know that under the law of fhe United States on this very point it is always a departmental matter, and that it is the same in England and in every other civilized country? Where does he get the trial by jury on this particular point?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not think
the American laws provide for the deportation of American citizens. Our law goes much beyond that; the United States will deport people who are not American citizens, but we undertake to deport Canadian citizens of other than Canadian birth, even those born in Great Britain. I happened to be born in Canada and am not liable under this act; the hon. member who asked the question (Mr. Hanson) is not liable under it, but there are some twenty or thirty men in this House who would come under it, and simply because I happened to be bom in Canada I would not insist upon the right of trial by jury for myself and refuse that right to my fellow Canadian citizens who were so unfortunate as to have been bom in the motherland. It seems to me that the least we can claim is the same rights for the British-born in this country as we claim for our own Canadian-born. We have heard much of equal status. This is equal status, if you like. It seems to me that the House has been labouring for several years under a misapprehension as to the real purposes for which the amendments have been sought. I confess that the bill is a very tricky one, and that it is only by carefully comparing the different sections that one can understand all its bearings. The outstanding feature before us, however, is whether or not British born and foreign born Canadian citizens will have the right to trial by the regular courts before they may be subject to deportation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I desire-
Mr. C-. H. CAHAN (St Lawrence-St. George):	Mr. Speaker, with regard to this
act there is a great deal to be said with respect to-


Hewitt Bostock: I saw the hon. member
for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) first.

Immigration Act-Mr. Cahan


Mr. CAHAN:: He gave way to me for a
few moments, since I am leaving the city shortly. There is a great deal to be said against deportation merely on suspicion. As it now stands, the act might very well be reconsidered, but to repeal it would leave this country in a very precarious condition.
In 1918 I happened to be Director of Public Safety for Canada, and I saw the entire workings of the American, British and Canadian secret services. In that year there were hundreds and thousands of dollars, and I would say up to a million and more, of Russian money brought into this country for the purpose of carrying on an agitation advocating assassination and everything else against which this act purports to enact measures for the protection of the country. I personally sent for the Russians, the communistic emissaries, and had several personal conversations with them, in which I told them very pilainly that any remedial measures which could be adopted by means of order in council at that time would be enacted to prevent their efforts from being carried to the treasonable extent to which they proposed to go. In a measure, by such intimidation we prevented them from carrying out certain measures which they were endeavouring to accomplish by the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars in this country.
The act as it then stood did not go far enough to protect the interests of Canada at that time. I believe this act was drawn up the year after the close of the war; possibly it goes a little too far, but it should not be abrogated, because the same measures are being taken by soviet propaganda in this country to-day. We who know the inside of things are all aware of it; the Department of Justice of Canada must be well advised with regard to it. The efforts which were made in 1918 were successful to a certain extent, but following the close of the war similar efforts have been carried on and are being carried on throughout the length and breadth of this country. If I remember rightly in 1918 there were two secret printing presses in Montreal, one in Toronto, one in Hamilton, one in Port Arthur, one in Winnipeg and one in Vancouver.


Mr. HEAPS:: Secret printing presses?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Secret printing presses.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I can hardly credit that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am giving the facts as 1 knew them. When I left the Department of Justice I left there a pile of reports a yard high of the material they were printing, in
every known language in this country with the exception of French; I did not find any propaganda of that kind being printed in the French language.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is the hon. gentleman aware that one was arrested for having printed a cook book in Ukrainian?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I don't know why he was arrested. I may say that during the time I was in the Department of Justice very few were arrested except for proper cause. As a matter of fact very few were arrested, because I found that an effective measure was to send for these men and talk to them, threaten them with deportation immediately if they did not stop their efforts. This country must protect itself against the advocacy of assassination or violence to the officials of the government of Canada. There must be some law whereby those foreigners who come in here-even if they come from Great Britain because of having been born there-sent in by the Soviet for the purpose of advocating such measures-can be prevented from carrying out their designs. This country must be in a position to protect itself. There is no doubt about that in my mind. If the present enactment goes too far or if it is unjust let us consider some amendment or modification of it. There are criticisms made made by the hon. member who preceded me which have effective force with regard to " suspicion " and " general repute ", and that sort of thing, but there must be a measure on the statute book of this country for the protection of government in Canada.


Robert Forke: We have other safeguards
under the law.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Without that section, and
under the law as it stood before, you could not take effective measures to expel these people from the country. That was my experience. We tried every expedient possible and we were unable to take effective action under the law as it then stood. Why, Mr. Speaker, I had men come into my office in the Department of Justice and threaten-unless we carried out certain measures which they proposed-to put a sufficient number of men into the city of Ottawa to take possession of it within forty-eight hours, and they had behind them organizations which would have enabled them-in spite of the police force available here at that time-to take effective possession of this city and of the very seat of government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As they did in Winnipeg.

Immigration Act-Mr. Cahan


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the hon. gentleman really believe that?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do because I came into personal contact with them and I know whereof I am speaking. I say that we had not then on the statute book-apart from the orders in council which were passed under the War Measures Act-any effective measure for preventing the execution of their threats. Now in view of that-and I am stating what I know to be the truth-I say that we should have on the statute book a measure enacted by this parliament which would prevent the successful carrying out of any such scheme as that. Therefore I think this bill should be held over; that the government should, through its legal experts, inquire into the whole matter in the light of the information which they have in the Department of Justice and its branches. Then let them bring down a measure to modify this language in certain particulars so as to meet the complaint that injustice may be wrought to persons who may be merely the objects of suspicion. The whole matter must and should be gone into by the government and a proper measure formulated, modifying somewhat certain provisions of the existing act, the whole of which it is sought here to repeal.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Before the hon.
gentleman takes his seat I would ask him if he does not think that even men of the kind he has described ought to have a fair trial.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: So far as citizens of this
country are concerned, yes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: British bom citizens.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Possibly so far as British
born citizens are concerned I would make the same reply. But when men come in from Moscow, or certain other places that I might mention-


James Shaver Woodsworth: Italy.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: -come in under passports
granted by their own governments and vised by ours, or under a mere temporary permit, or when they come in under the guise of immigrants, they are assumed, so long as they remain here, to be subject to every law of this country and they must abide by the provisions of those laws. But as to those men who violate the understanding which exists between nations, under which the citizens of one nationality are allowed to make their way freely in the country of another nationality, those men who come for the purpose of assassination, for the purpose of committing crime, for the purpose of blowing up our bridges, for the purpose of destroying our arsenals, for the

purpose of carrying on propaganda,' which would induce others to commit crime, I would issue an edict expelling them from the country, and they ought to thank God that they were allowed to go. Because of my experience in this matter I feel strongly about it. Nevertheless, I would not do the injustice of which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre complained.


James Shaver Woodsworth: You would give
them a trial first.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would not give the foreigner a trial if it was clear to the Department of Justice that he had violated the understanding under which he had come into this country -either as an immigrant or on a passport fraudulently granted to him-and had come here with the intention of committing crime. I would give a trial to every British subject, whether he be of Canadian nationality or whether he be of Australian nationality, to every man who has come in and been naturalized and thereby become a Canadian citizen, but in the case of such aliens as I met personally-who admitted to me in my office the objects for which they had come into this country, who admitted they had come here for the purpose of committing crime themselves and instigating Canadian citizens to commit crime-I would deal with them in the most peremptory manner possible under the immigration laws.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Rising to a question of
privilege, I have to thank my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) for having drawn my attention to the fact that I used1 the words "British subject" erroneously. I was speaking very rapidly and should have employed the expression "Canadian citizen" instead of which I erroneously used the term "British citizen or subject" and did so quite frequently.


Robert Forke: You used the term "British subject" several times.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know I did, but I did so erroneously, and I now desire to make a correction.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I might take this immediate opportunity of replying to the interjection of the Minister of Immigration, and pointing out to him that the explanation my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) made a few moments ago is quite opportune, because the old act of 1910, which I now have under my hand, uses the term "Canadian citizen,"

Immigration Act-Mr. Stevens
and it was quite innocently that the hon. gentleman made the error referred to. Now if the minister would do me the honour of following me for a few minutes I think I can show to him and his colleagues, and to the House as well, some very strong reasons why we should pause before passing this bill. I also invite the attention of my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) who has taken a very deep interest in this matter. Before passing to that phase of the question I should like to say that I find some response in my own mind to a part of the appeal made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and that is in regard to the words in the act "reputed to belong" or "suspected to belong." I have no hesitation in saying that is open to abuse, although I doubt if any very definite cases of abuse can be shown. I know there is a dispute with respect to a certain period in the Winnipeg general strike where it is claimed that provision was taken advantage of. Outside of that I do not know of any case. But I would remind my hon. friend, while I go to meet him in that respect, that the act of 1910, which was passed in perhaps one of the most peaceful periods of our history by the government of the late Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, contains these words:
-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.
Precisely the same words as are in the act my hon. friend now complains of.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is the word "money" in
both acts?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will read again the exact words from the 1910 act:
-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.
So I want my hon. friend at least to concede that these objectionable words were not interjected into the act of 1919; they were already in the act of 1910. The right hon. Prime Minister of to-day was at that time Minister of Labour, and no one, I think, will accuse him of having at that period or since any prejudice against those who are fairly radical in their views on labour or sociological questions.
I wish the Prime Minister were in his seat. But let me appeal to the Solicitor General, who perhaps has charge of this bill from the
legal standpoint, as to what will happen if the bill passes. By section 1, it is provided:
Section 41 of the Immigration Act, chapter 27 of the statutes of 1910, as enacted by chapter 26 of the statutes of 1919, is repealed.
That means that you also repeal the original clause of the act of 1910, leaving the country without the protection that it had even at that time. I do not know whether that is the intent of the bill, but it will be the result of passing it.
In order that we may have before us the type that we deem to be undesirable citizens, I am going to read sections 40 and 41 of the act of 1910, dealing with the deportation of prohibited and undesirable classes. This is section 40:
Whenever any person, other than a Canadian citizen,-
I want my hon. friends to note those words, "other than a Canadian citizen".


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does not a British born citizen automatically become a Canadian citizen?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. If my hon. friend will follow me he will see that I am correct in my interpretation.
Whenever a person, other than a Canadian citizen, within three years after landing in Canada,-
I direct the attention of hon. members to those words 'within three years after landing in Canada."
-has been convicted of a criminal offence in Canada, or has become a prostitute or an inmate of a house of ill-fame, or by common repute has become a procurer or pimp or person living on the avails of prostitution, or has become a professional beggar or a public charge, or an inmate of a penitentiary, jail, reformatory, prison, hospital, insane asylum or public charitable institution, or enters or remains in Canada contrary to any provision of this act, it shall be the duty of any officer cognizant thereof, and the duty of the clerk, secretary or other official of any municipality in Canada wherein such person may be, to forthwith send a written complaint thereof to the Minister or Superintendent of Immigration, giving full particulars.
There you have the section describing certain classes of people that may be deported wthout trial after investigation by a board of inquiry, which I will come to in a moment. Their conviction of any of these criminal offences within three years after entry into Canada is considered sufficient to warrant their deportation, that is, to declare them undesirable for Canada and to send them back whence they came.

Immigration Act-Mr. Stevens


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend will allow me? He has just stated that a person would be subject to deportation if convicted of any of the offences referred to within three years of arrival in this country. If I read the Immigration Act correctly, such a person would be deported if convicted of any criminal offence within five years after landing in Canada. The three years has been changed to five and the section now applies accordingly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am reading section 40
of the 1910 act. The amendment my hon. friend refers to was made subsequently.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not wish to
interrupt the hon. member, but I think I am right in saying that under this act it becomes impossible for a person who belongs to the undesirable classes to secure Canadian domicile even after residing here for fifty years.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We will come to that in a moment. I am trying to show the House what was thought necessary to protect this country against undesirable persons even in times of peace and rest. Now I come to section 41 of the 1910 act, and if hon. gentlemen will follow the clause we are repealing they will see that it agrees pretty completely with this section:
Whenever any person other than a Canadian citizen-"*-
The House will note the phrase "other than a Canadian citizen."
-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 the assassination of any official of the government of Great Britain or Canada or other British dominion, colony, possession or dependency, or of any foreign government, 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 bus-pected 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; such person for the purposes of this act shall be considered and classed as an undersirable immigrant, and it shall be the duty of any officer becoming cognizant thereof, and the duty of the clerk, secretary or other official of any municipality in Canada wherein such person may be, to forthwith send a written complaint thereof to the Minister or Superintendent of Immigration, giving full particulars.


Mr. NEILL:: What happens then?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am building up the
background for this act and for my argu-

ment and the argument of my hon. friends from West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) and St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) in support of the maintenance of this act. In 1910, I repeat, when the world was at peace perhaps as it had not been for many years, Canada felt it necessary to protect herself against agitators of this character who were other than Canadian citizens-I want the House to get that point particularly, because it has been stressed

from finding a sojourning place in Canada.


Robert Forke: May I ask the hon. member
a question for information? He is building up his argument on Canadian citizenship. Is he keeping in mind that section 41 expressly exempts British subjects born in Britain from being described as Canadian citizens?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Precisely. Will my hon. friend let me point this out, and I will leave it to the judgment of the House; I am not going to labour the ipoint. In the two sections of the act of 1910 which I have quoted the words are "other than a Canadian citizen."


Robert Forke: My hon. friend has not
caught the point.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the minister will follow me, I will try and elucidate. There is no question, I think, in our minds that the intention of this act was that a person who was not a Canadian citizen-I was going to use an Irishism and say, who was not a Canadian citizen before he came here, but let me put it this way-a Canadian citizen by birth, because a person coming from another part of the empire would undoubtedly come under these two sections, but it was called in question whether that applied or not, and then it was made clear in the act of 1919.
Now I pass on, if the Minister of Immigration will permit me to this point, which has been very much stressed by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre:	What
are the conditions or terms under which these people are deported? My hon. friend says: Surely you would not deport a person, no matter who he is, or what his crime may be, without giving him a jury trial in the courts.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Any proper judicial trial.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, a trial in the courts
of the country. Now what does the act of 1910 say? It contains a provision for handling these cases to which I have referred, different classes of persons who within five years may have offended against the laws of Canada. Section 42 of the act of 1910 says:
Upon receiving a complaint-

Immigration Act-Mr. Stever.s
Let me interject that the act imposes upon the municipal authorities the necessity of reporting if being cognizant' of it:
Upon receiving a complaint from any officer, or from any clerk or secretary or other official of a. municipality, whether directly or through the Superintendent of Immigration, against any person alleged to belong to any prohibited or undesirable class, the minister may order such person to .be taken into custody and detained at an immigrant station for examination and an investigation of the facts alleged in the said complaint to be made by a board of inquiry or by an officer acting as such.
That is the provision made in the act, that the case shall be inquired into by a board of inquiry. That is the practice in connection with all these subjects Of deportation. It is the practice I believe in every civilized " country in the world.


Robert Forke: The hon. member did not
emphasize the fact that one officer acting alone could deport the man.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not complaining
about that.


Robert Forke: I am pointing it out.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not see the point.
I hope the minister does not think I am trying to trick the House.


Robert Forke: There does not necessarily
have to be a board. One officer can do it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let us try and get it
clear. Section 42 says that upon receiving
a complaint:
-the minister may order such person to be taken into custody and detained at an immigrant station for examination and an investigation of the facts alleged in the said complaint to be made by a board of inquiry or by an officer acting as such.


Robert Forke: One officer can do it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I want to be fair, and I want to be intelligible. Will the minister say-


Robert Forke: I simply want to point out the fact that the hon. member emphasized that it was a board, composed of three probably.


Hugh Guthrie: He did not say how many.


Robert Forke: I am only pointing out that where a board was not convenient, one officer could decide the case.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think that what is in the minister's mind is this, that one of the reasons why this bill is before the House now is that one officer may act as a board of inquiry. But I am reading the act of 1910.
I am trying to show the House that these drastic measures were in the act in 1910, in days of peace and quietude. How much more reason is there that we should have these provisions now, when there is agitation and disturbance? That is the point I am trying to make. Let me continue with section 42!:
Such board of inquiry-


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is there not a difference between a man who has been in gaol or has been a subject of charity and is held subject to deportation,-a situation clearly recognized by the whole community, and the case of a man who is accused of a political crime?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My answer is, first, that I am reading the old act which included both classes; and secondly-and I invite the House to consider this-a man who is living off the proceeds of prostitution, or a man who has been in the penitenltiary or gaol or reformatory or in an insane asylum or public charitable institution, is he guilty of a greater degree of moral turpitude and more offensive to a country than the man who advocates the assassination of a public official, or who suggests the unlawful destruction of property, or who without lawful authority assumes the powers of government in this country, or by force or by threat of bodily harm, or by blackmail, seeks to extort money and so forth?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Do not skip; read it all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am just citing these
classes, and I ask are these classes last described less objectionable than the others to whom I have referred coming under section 40.


Lucien Cannon: In order to have a fair discussion, which I know my hon. friend wishes, I would point out that section 40 does not confine itself simply to the classes mentioned by my hon. friend. If my hon. friend reads further he will find in clause 40 these words, " or any person who enters or remains in Canada contrary to any provision of this act.'' If my hon. friend will revert to section 3 of the act, he will see that every individual against whom we may have any reason whatever for deportation falls under section 40.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Quite so.


Lucien Cannon: It does not deal only with prostitutes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, certainly not. I will read some more. Under section 3 we have mentioned idiots, imbeciles, feeble-minded persons, epileptics, insane persons.

Immigration Act-Mr. Stevens
I had a 'letter the other day from three persons living in Vancouver, a man and his two daughters. The man's wife and another crippled daughter are now in Warsaw. The father and the two daughters have been in Canada for I believe eight years. They are all earning their own living here, and are all doing well. . One of the daughters is a stenographer in an office and is a very, very desirable citizen indeed. But for eight years the father and his two daughters in Canada have been separated from the mother and the crippled daughter in Russia. Why? Because under section 3 you will not allow into this country a person who is crippled. I am not seeking to hide anything in this act; not at all, but again I ask, is this daughter who is crippled and whom we keep out of this country as much guilty of an offence and as undesirable as the person who advocates the assassination of an official of this country or the overthrow of our government and institutions.
Mr. HEAPS':	Does my hon. friend say
that the act of 1910 covers all these cases?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not claim that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Then why is the act of 1919 necessary?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will tel my hon. friend why.


Alan Webster Neill: I understand my hon. friend's argument is that the act of 1910 is quite as drastic as the act of 1919?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Alan Webster Neill: Or nearly so?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Alan Webster Neill: Will my hon. friend explain
to what extent the provisions of the act of 1919 exceeded the provisions of the act of 1910?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The exact wordfe have
not been underlined in the bill before me. I only took the matter up since the debate opened, and I am not fully prepared to discuss it. I did invite the House to follow me while I was reading the old section so that they might note the exact difference, but I think the point arises in the latter portion of the act. I was led into a bit of a trap in asking a question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) The words of the section are:
-who is a British subject either by reason of birth in Canada, or by reason of naturalization in Canada.

I think the act of 1919 was designed to make it clear that the words "Canadian citizen" did not include a person coming from Great Britain.


Alan Webster Neill: Is that the only provision?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There are some words
added in the clause which they have not underlined, and it is difficult to pick them out. I think my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre will agree with me that the act of 1919 was designed to make clear that those who might come to Canada, even though they came from Great Britain, counselling the various offences enumerated there should be subject to deportation. My point is that the principle of that provision was in the act of 1910 and that was not by any means disturbed. Therefore we should keep it in the act at the present time. I would1 suggest that the House might consider modifying the hardiness of the act, but I certainly am opposed to the repeal of the section which repeals the original section with it.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 305 (from the Senate) to incorporate the Commerce Mutual Fire Insurance Company-Mr. Morin (St. Hyacinthe-Rou-ville).
At one o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at three o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Forke) for the second reading of Bill No. 269, to amend the Immigration Act.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I am glad1 that the Prime Minister is in his seat because I desire to appeal to him to restore the act of 1910. That act was passed when he, I think, was Minister of Labour in the government of that day, and its terms will I presume be satisfactory to him. In what I now say I am speaking for myself and not for all those who sit on this side of the House. I have not consulted with my colleagues, except a few, and my leader agrees with me that it is a reasonable request to ask for the restoration of the act of 1910. I want to acknowledge the Solicitor General's courtesy in calling my attention to

Immigration Act-Mr. Stevens
a matter which I overlooked this morning, and I want to give full weight to what he pointed out to me subsequently to the rising of the House at one o'clock. He pointed out that a part of this section is covered in section 3 of the act as it now stands. I will read these two parts so that the House may know the extent to which this general subject is now covered. I refer to paragraphs (n) and (o) of section 3 of the Immigration Act of 1919. I had considerable difficulty in getting this from the library but I have succeeded in securing a copy. The first one sent me was not up to date. These two paragraphs read:
(n)	Persons who believe in or advocate the overthrow by force or violence of the government of Canada or of constituted law and authority, or who disbelieve in or are opposed to organized government, or who advocate the assassination of public officials, or who advocate or teach the unlawful destruction of property;
(o)	Persons who are members of or affiliated with any organization entertaining or teaching in or opposition to organized government, or advocating or teaching the duty, necessity or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers, either of specific individuals or of officers generally, of the government of Canada, or of any other organized government, because of his or their official character, or advocating or teaching the unlawful destruction of property.
Those paragraphs appear in the act of 1919 and to that extent they offset my argument of this morning. They do not however go as far as we should like. I want to thank the Solicitor General for bringing the matter to my attention.
Now I wish to read the existing provisions which will be repealed should this bill go through, having made allowance for the two sections I have read which will remain in the act. This is what will be repealed:
Every person who by word or act in Canada seeks to overthrow by force or violence the government of or constituted law and authority in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland or	the government of any
other of His Majesty's dominions, colonies, possessions or dependencies .... or by word or act creates or attempts to create any riot or public disorder in Canada, or who without lawful authority assumes any powers of government in Canada or in any part thereof, or who by common repute belongs to or is 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 by threat of bodily harm or by blackmail	
The foregoing words will pass out of our legislation. I want to impress upon the Prime. Minister and the government the fact that in the act of 1910, which will cease to
operate if this bill is adopted, the following words appear:
Whenever any person other than a Canadian citizen 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 of any foreign government, 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.
These words are in the act of 1910, and they will be repealed if this bill goes through. I am personally willing to agree to the dropping of the amended section 41, now before the House for repeal, and to the restoration of section 41 which I have just read, only a very small part of which is now included in the act in section 3 paragraphs (n) and (o). It will be noted that certain words would seem to be merely repetition; for instance, the overthrow by force or violence of the government of Canada, and so on. The present act provides against that in Canada, but it does not provide against persons advocating the overthrow by violence of the government of Great Britain or other British possessions.


Lucien Cannon: Will the hon. member allow a question? Paragraph (n) reads as follows:
Persons who believe in or advocate the overthrow by force or violence of the government of Canada, or of constituted law and authority-
I call my hon. friend's attention to the following words:
-or who disbelieve in or are opposed to organized government-
If that does not cover every case I would like to know what words are necessary.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not want to split
hairs, but the fact is that the wordsi ersons who believe in or advocate the overthrow by force or violence of the government ot Canada, or of constituted law and authorityare one sentence in the act, and it is limited to Canada.


Lucien Cannon: I will admit that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is one sentence, and
it must mean that you have no recourse against a person advocating the overthrow of other governments.


Lucien Cannon: Unless the rest of the paragraph covers it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should think it does
not., and my point is this: Let us go back

Immigration Act-Mr. Stever.s
to the statute as it was in 1910. This morning, when the Prime Minister was not in his seat, I pointed out that the statute of 1910 was conceived, drafted and passed during a period of time when this country in common with the rest of the world' was enjoying perhaps the greatest era of peace and freedom from disorder which occurred during the last century, and of course my right hon. friend was minister at the time. I think if it was thought wise then, we should retain it in our statutes now, and1 I suggest to the government that instead of repealing this act now they either let it stand as it is until next session or between now and Monday repeal the present section 41 and reinstate the old sect,ion which was in the statute of 1910. I may point out to hon. gentlemen who have been advocating very strongly the repeal of this section on the ground that it refers to British subjects who are not Canadian-born, that the statute as it stands refers to British subjects who are not Canadian-born. For instance, paragraphs (n) and (o) refer to "persons who believe," which includes anyone from any part of the empire. It does not include Canadians, because a Canadian is subject to our own courts. Any person coming into Canada or who is here advocating these things which are now in the act is covered by these paragraphs, so that the argument that we are doing a grievous injury by not excluding British subjects generally is a mistake.
Let me give a practical illustration of that. A few years ago one of the officers of this very department, Mr. Hopkinson, was shot and killed in the court room of the court house in Vancouver by a British subject; that is, a British subject from India. Of course that man was apprehended and later suffered the extreme penalty, but I point out that it is absurd to say that a person who comes from some other part of the empire should be immune from the provisions of this act, advocating as they so often do these very things. This man who shot Hopkinson was one of a group of individuals who were anarchistic in their beliefs, and who were against all governments. My right hon. friend will remember some of them, I am sure; I have forgotten the names for the moment, but they were certain Hindus of the extreme type who advocated assassination and went so far as to practise it in Canada. My point is that we should certainly have a law with some power behind it and some definiteness to it whereby we could deport such people, and in so far as the present law meets that situation I am entirely in accord with it.

Let me close my remarks, because I do not wish to weary the House, with another appeal to the Prime Minister to restore section 41, which was placed in the act at a time when coolness and deliberation characterized our proceedings, and' when there was no reason whatever for agitation. Let him eliminate the amendment of 1919 which, with some measure of reason perhaps, is complained of because it was carried out at a time of great excitement and unusual stress.


Robert Forke: I desire to
say only a few words with reference to the subject now before the House. I believe the sting in section 41 is really at the end of the clause, where it says:
Provided, that this section shall not apply to any person who is a British subject, either by reason of birth in Canada, or by reason of naturalization in Canada.
It seems a very harmless sort of statement, but the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre does not seem to think it casts any reflection upon Canadian citizens who were born in Great Britain. I do not agree with him; I think it does cast such a reflection.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon.' friend is referring to me; fix the crime upon the right person.


Robert Forke: I do not count it a crime.
I think there is a reflection cast in one way. A man who came here from Great Britain forty or fifty years ago, who married a Canadian citizen and has reared a family of Canadians, occupies a position of inferiority to Canadian citizens during his whole lifetime because he has not the privileges they enjoy. I do not think there is any necessity for a law of this description and I do not think the people of this country want such a law.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The only privilege he has is to commit a crime.


Robert Forke: If he commits a crime the
law of the country will deal with him, and if there is any cause for deportation the court will deport him. A great deal has been said to the effect that these people would not be deported for these crimes. There i3 nothing in the act against that, but we want to give every Canadian citizen in this country a fair trial by our ordinary constituted courts, and I think if anyone studies the Immigration Act carefully he will realize that it is stringent enough.
I accept the explanation made by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett), when he said that he meant British citizens

Immigration Act-Mr. Forke
all the time he was saying Canadian citizens, yet if you look up Hansard I think you will find that his whole argument was built up on the fact that Canadian citizens in the wider sense of the word were exempted from section 41, and it seems strange to me that he should have repeated the words "Canadian citizens" when he meant "British citizens." A great deal of argument has arisen because of the understanding that Canadian citizens in the ordinary sense of the word would come under section 41 and would be liable to deportation without trial in the ordinary course of events. It has been pointed out also that one immigration officer can try a man on the suspicion that he is preaching sedition, which seems to be almost absurd on the face of it. Canadian immigration officers as a whole are not in a position, nor have they the education and training, to try any man in the case of such a serious thing as deportation, and deportation is a very serious thing. One argument I have heard made-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will my hon. friend permit me? Referring to section 3 of the act it will be seen that with respect to all deportation cases without exception power rests with the board of inquiry or one officer at the present time, and that the provision is applicable to British subjects other than Canadian citizens.


Robert Forke: It is if the person is guilty
of any of these crimes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, if he is found guilty
by one officer.


Robert Forke: After being admitted to the country.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes and within five years after being admitted in the case of all these offences, every one of them.


Robert Forke: Well, I will not argue the
point because I have not looked into it particularly, but if it is so'then I claim there should be an ordinary judicial trial.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Please do not advocate
that. You had better consult your colleagues first.


Robert Forke: One of the arguments advanced has been:	Why change this law?
Although it has never been found to be of any service, or any use, why change it? Well, if the provision is all right it should be left there, and if it is wrong it ought to be removed. I do not want to take up the time of the House unduly but I claim that there are ample 32649-134



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
provisions in the Immigration Act, and in the Criminal Code to take care of every conceivable case, without having section 41 in the Immigration Act. If the law of 1910 met all requirements why was this clause inserted in the act of 1919?
Henry Herbert Stevens: VI ask the minister-I have already asked him-to drop this offensive one and restore the act as it was in 1910.


Robert Forke: I shall have to leave that
to the Solicitor General to say because I do not know what was in the act of 1910.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will send a copy of the
act over to my hon. friend.


Robert Forke: The Solicitor General has
it at hand. If he has had time carefully to consider the act and thinks it covers the requirements, I may be inclined to agree to my hon. friend's suggestion.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Thank you.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is it not a fact that every order for deportation has to be signed by the minister?


Robert Forke: Not necessarily. Under
section 41 the man has the right of appeal to the minister, and I think I am correct in saying that the Hon. Mr. Calder, when he was the Minister of Immigration, said he would not assume the responsibility in such matters, but that was a matter of discretion on his own part. At any rate those to be deported would have the right of appeal to the Minister of Immigration.


Alan Webster Neill: I regret that the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) has precipitated the present discussion on this bill. I think it would have been much better to have avoided stirring up feelings and friction that ought to have been allowed to sink into oblivion. But seeing that he has raised the issue it becomes the duty of those of us who believe in the bill to support it. The hon. member for West Calgary charged the government with bringing this bill down in the closing days of the session, but in that he differs from the attitude taken, very properly I think, by his leader the other day, when he said that there was small need to debate these bills now coming before the House because they had already been debated last year, and no good object would be served by rehashing the arguments then presented. That is particularly true of the present bill which, if my memory is not wrong, has been passed by this House three times, certainly twice, and has been fully debated on previous occasions.



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Immigration Act-Mr. Neill
Now I propose to vote for and support this bill to the utmost of my power, for two reasons. First of all I told my constituents during the election that I had supported the bill in the past, and promised to support it in the future. Apart from that-apart from any sense of loyalty to promises made at election time-I would be in hearty accord with the principle of the bill for my own sake because it affects me personally. I happen to be one of that not inconsiderable body of people in Canada who were somewhat sneeringly alluded to by an hon. gentleman opposite as an " imported Canadian I have spent thirty-six or thirty-seven years in Canada, and so far have avoided any particularly violent contact with the law, but I had to come to this house of parliament to be told that I occupy a position of inferiority to that of my own children or my grandchildren. I support this bill for two reasons. First, because I do not approve of deportation without trial. That is the crux of the whole thing. What is the use of wondering whether a person is a bolshevist, or encouraging this or the other kind of propaganda? I would certainly make the deportation of anybody, more particularly myself, impossible without trial. In the second place I object to the discrimination imposed upon those who were born in Britain, or in any part of the British Empire other than in Canada. It is possible at the mere whim of the Minister of Immigration to order my deportation to-morrow. It is impossible for him to deport by the same method a Russian who may have come to this country years ago, been naturalized in due course, and may be inoculating the community, for all we know', with bolshevistic ideas, or kindred doctrines. Notwithstanding that particular man may be pursuing such a course he cannot be interfered with, whereas I can be deported. That is a very substantial reason, to my mind, why I should support this bill. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) will pardon me if I am taking a wrong view of his argument, but I took that argument, to be this: We passed a similar act or a practically similar act in 1910, which is seventeen years ago. That is not a very strong argument as to any course we should pursue today, but in any -case the acts are not identically the same. There was a very substantial difference in connection with the definition of a British subject in the act of 1910. I could have wriggled out of the meshes of the law by saying that I was a Canadian citizen, because there is no very closely defined definition of what a Canadian citizen is. A British

born subject could have said " I am a Canadian citizen ", citizenship not being particularly defined under the act of 1910. But in the act of 1919 there was a distinct and specific line of demarcation, between a Canadian bom or naturalized man or woman and a man oi woman born in the British Isles.
Henry Herbert Stevens: If my hon. friend will permit me, I know he desires to be quite fair. The interpretation clause of the act of 1910 says:
"Canadian citizen" means a person born in Canada who has not become an alien.
That limits the definition to Canadian born citizens.


Alan Webster Neill: It is limited to Canadian born citizens?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: Then what reason was there for passing the act of 1919? The hon. gentleman himself says the difference is primarily that of definition.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend will admit that I have offered, as far as I am concerned, to agree to the repeal of the objectionable part of that act and to restore the act of 1910.


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend will
allow me. I am quite sure he did not want to mislead the House, but I have here the act of 1910.


Henry Herbert Stevens: So have I.


Lucien Cannon: In that act "Canadian citizen " is defined as meaning:
i.	A person born in Canada v'ho has not become an alien.
That is what my hon. friend read. I continue quoting:
ii.	A British subject *who has Canadian domicile.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is right.


Lucien Cannon: That knocks out all my
friend's argument.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I admit to my hon. friend that I noted only the first clause. I did not do so with any intent to deceive the House. The Solicitor General has scored in part, and I frankly admit it.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, when lawyers differ honest men come into their own, it is said.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, but I am not a lawyer


Alan Webster Neill: I apologize.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Thank you.

Immigration Act-Mr. Neill


Alan Webster Neill: Dealing for a moment with the argument of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), he made a rather specious appeal to our emotions by presenting the very serious conditions that obtained during the war, and that came, he said, under his personal knowledge. But this very obvious fact ran through his appeal, that what he alluded to were crimes, and therefore the persons guilty of them would be subject to conviction if found guilty. He said there were secret printing presses throughout Canada printing literature seditious, of course. Otherwise they would not need to be secret. But does the hon. member recall that a couple of years ago I introduced and succeeded in getting through this House a very simple bill that would have prevented or at least checked that condition of affairs? It made every printer responsible for placing on the document he printed his name and address; but his friends in another chamber defeated that measure. Let me again emphasize that all the actions the hon. gentleman alluded to in an attempt to excite our sympathy were crimes, and if a man commits a crime here he can upon conviction be deported. That is what we ask for. We do not want to encourage criminals to remain here. The hon. member said that he dealt with that condition by taking the man into his office and reasoning with him. That is not the method I advocate in dealing with people of that type.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If I may interrupt my hon. friend, I find that I am still right. Let me quote from the act:
Canadian domicile can be acquired for the purpose of this act by a person having his domicile for at least five years in Canada.
So I was not far wrong in my first statement.


Lucien Cannon: That is one way out, but very narrow.


Alan Webster Neill: Let me give another illustration which I think will come home to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, because it is connected with British Columbia, and I think it meets exactly the argument of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. We know there is a very sad and serious and disgraceful condition of affairs in British Columbia in the selling of what is known as dope, especially to children and young people, so much so that this House was moved, on the representations of hon. gentlemen like the hon. member for Vancouver Centre and others from that province, to pass an act 32649-134i
declaring that all those caught selling or dealing in dope would be not only punishable by heavy imprisonment but after conviction would be subject to deportation. I have never heard anyone say there was anything wrong with deportation under those circumstances, because it was preceded by a conviction for a serious offence. It is the very procedure that we seek to apply in these cases of sedition, or alleged sedition, or suspected sedition-try them, convict them if they have committed the crime they are charged with, and then by all means deport them. But give them a trial by a jury of their peers. Both the members for Vancouver Centre and the member for St. Lawrence-St. George, while they uphold the present act to a certain extent, I think suggest some modification. Even the latter admitted that he was willing to make some concession along the lines I have indicated.
The hon. member for West Calgary with that facility so characteristic of him, drew a word picture of an alien agitator:	What
should we do with him? Get rid of him without trial or trouble. What is the use of making a hero of him in the courts? But I would remind the hon. member that we do not make heroes of our criminals, although that may be done elsewhere. It does not put much of a halo around a man if he is committed to the penitentiary for two years and is then deported. You cannot right an injustice by another injustice. I recall the case of a ruler in Turkey who, discovering that one of his subjects, a baker, was selling bread underweight, had him put into his oven and baked with his bread. The potentate boasted that this drastic remedy sufficed to stop the practice! But that is not the way civilized nations enforce their laws. Let us be logical. Let us go back along the lines advocated on the floor of this House to-day, because once you start on a course, whether forward or backward, there is always an ultimate conclusion, if you can arrive at it. Let us go back towards this line of feudalism and medievalism, and where will we land? Before very long we will reach the situation that obtained in France before the revolution, when lettres de cachet were common-I was almost going to say, were saleable; at least they were easily obtained. A royal mistress or other court favourite would get the king or some high official to issue a lettre de cachet, which simply meant a blank warrant of commitment to the Bastile. Very often these blank warrants were issued at night under the influence of passion or liquor, and by the morning the official forgot that he had ever

Immigration Act-Mr. Neill
issued them. Being issued in blank it was open to the political favourite or mistress who had a grudge against some person to fill in that person's name, and the wretched victim was consigned to the Bastile without the formality of a trial. I emphasize that-without the formality of a trial. When the Bastile was taken by the revolutionists it was found that a large number of those immured there did not themselves know why they had been imprisoned. The parties who had obtained the lettres de cachet had died, their poor victims were forgotten, and remained entombed. That is only carrying the principle suggested to-day a little further backward.
It is a truism in political history that those who seek to forward the cause of progress and to uplift the status of the common people have to be ever on the watch against those who desire to turn the clock of progress back to the days which they fondly hope may yet return, and to revive the principles of reaction. This might be called perhaps an absurd comparison, but a few days ago this House lent itself to the restriction of free speech, and now we are being invited to restrict the liberty of free trial. It simply means going a few more steps backward. Why was not this question brought up last year and debated, why were not the arguments now advanced used then? Because, Mr. Speaker, an election was in sight, and those opposing this bill had to answer to the common people, so they did not think it advisable to take their present stand. But now an election is far away and it is hoped perhaps to make a few steps backward. It is natural for hon. members of a certain profession to take a retrograde step. They are proverbially the slaves of precedent; they are always looking behind them rather than forward.
I propose to vote for this bill, not because it encourages bolshevism. It does not. It is a bulwark against bolshevism, for you cannot right one wrong with another. I believe the best protection against bolshevism is to give freedom-certainly freedom of trial. I object to these clauses of the Immigration Act, not because of the deportation feature -deport everyone you like-but I do firmly and consistently object to the system of deportation without trial. That is the crux of my argument. Our forebears obtained the right of free trial by our peers on the field of Runnymede from King John. That is a long time ago. And it ill behooves us to take any steps, however slight, to deprive Canadian citizens of that right.


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be very
brief, but I think before the House is called upon to vote on this bill we should examine it in its true light. It is not my intention to answer the appeals, very eloquent, it is true, that have been made by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett), but I shall try and explain in a few sentences just what this bill means, and what its effect will be if it is adopted.
When an immigrant comes to Canada, according to our existing laws he is examined .when he is seeking entry. He is either passed as a desirable citizen, or else the officials of the department refuse him entry, and that ends his case. But if he enters Canada, the immigration authorities still maintain control over him after he has entered, and that control can be exercised in two ways. It may be exercised in exceptional cases by way of direct deportation after a board has given a decision on the case. I may say that that method should not be used unless the circumstances warrant it, and those circumstances must be of a most abnormal character. The second way of dealing with the immigrant who has already entered Canada, and who has become after his entry an undesirable citizen, is to convict him in court of a criminal offence, and after conviction deport him.


Mr. KAISER:: Was that always necessary?


Lucien Cannon: I am giving the general
lines of the law; I am not going into details. Last year this bill was introduced. It was fully discussed, and finally passed this House. This year it is again introduced, and we hear three main opponents of the bill-the hon. member for West Calgary, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), and the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). First of all I might call the attention of the House to the law as it exists, not a law that I might build up with a view to making a good argument, but the law as it is in our statutes to-day.
I would call the attention of hon. members to section 2 of the Immigration Act. My hon. friend the member for Vancouver Centre has spoken of the act of 1910. I now hold in my hand the law as it exists to-day, in 1927, and let us examine the law as it is to-day, and as it has been enacted by parliament. The law of the land to-day, in section 2, defines what an undesirable is, and if my hon, friend from Vancouver Centre will read the definition of an undesirable to be found in that section, he will find that the immigration authorities have complete authority to exclude from this

Immigration Act-Mr. Cannon
country any person who would not be a citizen that Canada would like to 'have within its boundaries. I say, first, that the department has full authority to-day to keep out of Canada whomsoever they wish to keep out.
Now take the case of a British subject born in England who comes to Canada. Under the section which we are now seeking to repeal, that British subject has been placed by the amendment of 1919 in a position of exception. A Doukhobor who has come to Canada and become a naturalized citizen cannot be deported under the law of 1919, but a British subject born in England, even though he had lived here for twenty-five or thirty years, is deportable under section 41. The hon. member for West Calgary appealed to the House this morning on behalf of British citizenship. Is it fair for the parliament of a British dominion to leave on the statute book a law which says that a British subject born outside of Canada shall be deported, while a foreigner born in Russia who has acquired Canadian citizenship through naturalization shall hot be touched under the same circumstances? That is the point, and that is the law we are asking the House to repeal.


Peter McGibbon: Why not amend it?


Lucien Cannon: We amend the law when
there is something good in it; we repeal it when it is all wrong. According to the law passed in 1919, this parliament gave to the immigration authorities an exceptional power, and that exceptional power was directed against British citizens bom outside of Canada. It has been asked, if British citizens come into Canada and commit offences against (he state, is that a reason why they should not be deported? In answer to that I am not asking that the British citizen born outside of Canada should not be treated as they ought to be treated when they commit offences, but I say that under our law they should be placed on a parity with the other citizens of Canadh, and in asking this House to repea1 this law we are simply asking that they be treated by the immigration authorities as any other person who has entered Canada would be treated under the like circumstances. Is that fair? Can there be any objection to it? When my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre and my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George appeal to this House against this bill by describing the attempts of the bolsheviks in Canada to overthrow this government, my answer to that is simply that we can deal with the bolsheviks now under the existing law. But the section we are repealing here is a section which is directed against British citizens, not against Russians, not against
bolsheviks. If you want to deal with bolsheviks or with people who come here from central Europe and have revolutionary ideas, you have power under section 40 to deal with them, but if you want to deal with British subjects and d'eport them at will in an arbitrary way, depriving them even of the right of appeal to a court to claim the liberty and freedom which they had as British subjects in England, so long as section 41 is on the statute book of Canada, an arbitrary Minister of Immigration can deport them ta England without giving them a hearing in. court or anywhere else.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I ask a question?
Paragraphs (n) and1 (o) of section 3 of the act deal with persons who believe in or advocate the overthrow by force or violence of the government of Canada, or persons who are members of or are affiliated with any organization entertaining or teaching disbelief or opposition to organized government. Now, is it not competent for the Minister of Immigration, without trial, without reference to any court, without conviction, to deport persons who come under these two paragraphs, whether they be British subjects or aliens other than persons with a Canadian domicile of at least five years?


Lucien Cannon: I was waiting for my hon. friend right there. If such be the case, section 41 is not necessary, so why oppose this bill?


Henry Herbert Stevens: For this reason, that section 41 contains other offences of a similar character that are not included' in these two paragraphs, and furthermore, I might add that we have repeatedly asked for the restoration of section 41 of the act of 1910 and the dropping of this present section.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend says: If
you put in the adt section 41 of the act of 1910, I have no objection. But this morning my hon. friend stated to the House that his objection to section 41 as it is to-day was that it would allow the deportation of people who were even suspected or reputed to be members of an illegal or unlawful association.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not say that, What I said was that if it would help the matter, then as far as I was concerned I would agree to the deletion of those words "who by common repute belongs to or is suspected of belonging" and so forth.


Lucien Cannon: The moment you delete
those words from section 41, there is no difference of any importance between, section 40 and section 41.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Oh, yes.

Immigration Act-Mr. Cannon


John Wesley Edwards: Is section
40 very long? If not, I would ask the Solicitor General to be good enough to read it.


Lucien Cannon: I wish hon. members to bear in mind that if we should pass this bili section 40 remains untouched. What does section 40 say? It reads:
Whenever any person, other than a Canadian citizen or person having Canadian domicile shall be found an inmate of or connected with the management of a house of prostitution, or practising prostitution or who shall receive, share in, or derive benefit from any part of the earnings of any prostitute or who manages or is employed by, in, or in connection with any house of prostitution or music or dance hall or other place of amusement or resort habitually frequented by prostitutes, or where prostitutes gather, or who in any way assists any prostitute or protects or promises to protect from arrest any prostitute or who shall import or attempt to import any person for the purpose of prostitution or for any other immoral purpose, or who has been convicted of a criminal offence in Canada-
Any of these things.
-or who admits the commission prior to landing or entry to Canada of a crime involving moral turpitude, or has become a professional beggar or a public charge or practices polygamy, or has become an inmate of a penitentiary, gaol, reformatory, prison, asylum or hospital for the insane or the mentally deficient, or an inmate of a public charitable institution, or enters or remains in Canada contrary to any provision of this act, it shall be the duty of any officer cognizant thereof, and the duty of the clerk, secretary, or other official of any municipality in Canada wherein such person may be, to forthwith send a written complaint thereof to the minister, giving full particulars.
I call the attention of the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) to the words:
-or enters or remains in Canada contrary to any provision of this act.
This means that, according to section 3, any persons who belong to the prohibited class enumerated in clause 3, even though they have entered Canada, even though they may be in Canada, fall under section 3 of the act, and they would be in Canada against the provisions of the act, and would therefore be liable to be dealt with under section 40. I think, Mr. Speaker, that section 40 gives the power to deal with all cases under normal conditions. Section 41, I understood, was brought into our law under exceptional conditions, with which I do not wish to deal.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, it was amended only. It was brought in in 1910.


Lucien Cannon: The section as it stands to-day is the section enacted in 1919.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Amended only.


Lucien Cannon: In 1919 section 41 was introduced in parliament. I do not wish to discuss the question whether the government of the time was justified in introducing it or not. These events are now past, and I do not wish to re-open the debate upon them.


John Wesley Edwards: I was seeking to find out whether, after the repeal of this section, there would be anything left in the act by which you could get after those who are referred to as undertaking to break down constituted authority, and that sort of thing.


Lucien Cannon: Has the hon. member the act before him?


John Wesley Edwards: No.


Lucien Cannon: I ask my hon. friend to
refer to clause 3 of the act, paragraphs (n) and (o), which read as follows:
(n)	Persons who believe in or advocate the overthrow by force or violence of the government of Canaua or of constituted law and authority, or who disbelieve in or are opposed to organized government, or who advocate the assassination of public officials, or who advocate or teach the unlawful destruction of property.
These people can be dealt with under section 40. Then paragraph (o) reads:
(o)	Persons who are members of or affiliated with any organization entertaining or teaching disbelief in or opposition to organized government, or advocating or teaching the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers, either of specific individuals or of officers generally, of the government of Canada or of any other organized government, because of his or their official character, or advocating or teaching the unlawful destruction of property.
I think I am justified in concluding that even though section 41 be repealed, we have provisions in the law which would enable the government to deal with all these cases in a very satisfactory way. My interpretation may be questioned, but in order to relieve the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite, I will quote the opinion of the hon. member for West Calgary. When this legislation was considered last year I took part in the debate, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) being present. I "would call the attention of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre particularly to this because I know he has great confidence in the hon. member for West Calgary as a lawyer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He is usually right.


Lucien Cannon: This is what took place:
Mr. Cannon: Section 40 covers the case.

Immigration Act-Mr. Ryckman
That is what I argued last year and it is whait I am arguing now.
Mr. Lapointe: I agree that section 40 would cover the case, and the only purpose of the bill would be to repeal section 41.
Mr. Bennett: The new section is of no value at all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is that a question?


Lucien Cannon: No, it is a statement from the hon. member for West Calgary who was heard in the House this morning denouncing this bill in such violent terms and asking hon. members to reject it on the ground that it would mean the overthrow of any form of decent government and of democracy in Canada. Last year, however, he declared that section 41 was of no value at all. I leave the bill in the hands of the House confident that, in view of the advice given by the 'hon. member that section 41 is of no value at all, hon. gentlemen will accept the amendment.


Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (East Toronto):: I am driven to my feet by the observations of the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) who has taken this opportunity of discussing the subject in the absence of the hon. member for West Calgary. I had not before heaid of this statement attributed to the hon. member for West Calgary when the bill was under consideration on a former occasion. Anyone who has listened to what has just been read by the Solicitor General must come to one of two conclusions-either that the statement that section 41 was of no value at all is an interrogation, or that it was made upon the understanding that the former section 41 was to remain in the act.


Lucien Cannon: To be fair to the hon.
member for West Calgary, I wish to add that after we had reached that conclusion we decided upon the section as now drafted and it met with the hon. gentleman's approval.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I cannot speak as to
that. It is plain that the act as drafted thi3 year is in different terms from the act of last year, and the assumption I had in mind when I first saw the bill was that section 41 of the Immigration Act of 1910 would be restored and become operative. It is however obvious that, if this amendment of 1919 is withdrawn, section 41 of the Immigration Act also disappears. I do not think there need be occasion for any difference of opinion with regard to what is stricken out of the law if this bill passes, but I want to call the attention of the House to the situation, which can be stated very tersely. Whether or not it is a corollary of what took place at the Imperial
conference I do not know, but it seems that the Prime Minister and the government are now satisfied that while the immigration authorities shall retain the power to exclude from Canada or to deport any one who advocates the overthrow of the government of this Dominion, if he advocates the overthrow of the government of Great Britain he shall not be subject to exclusion or deportation.
In other words, we can protect our own government but we are entitled to prevent any man from advocating the overthrow of the government of Great Britain or, say, of Australia. We are certainly enjoying our status to the full.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend has not read the law.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: If the Solicitor General will pardon me, I will come to the point he has in mind. By this legislation, I say, we can protect ourselves. We can take by the scruff of the neck, if I may use that expression, and throw out of the country any man who advocates or proposes to advocate the overthrow of the government of Canada, but he may advocate with impunity the overthrow of the government of Great Britain and enter the country. I know that the Solicitor General will refer me to the words "constituted authority"; the act provides that we may deal with any one who proposes . to attack constituted authority. But what does that mean? How is it interpreted? It is interpreted in the context in which it is found: it is not constituted authority in any other place than Canada. Would the Solicitor General say that the constituted authority of the Fiji islands was protected by this provision? Of course not. Nor can you say that the constituted authority of Great Britain is protected to any greater extent.


Lucien Cannon: I did not mention constituted authority alone; I read the law as it is.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Organized government.


Lucien Cannon: The law says, "any government of Canada or any other organized government ". That includes the government of Great Britain.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Read beyond that clause; that refers only to the assassination of officials.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I suggest that before the Solicitor General attempts to interpret the law in relation to this most important subject, he should read it.


Lucien Cannon: I have read it; I have read more of it than my hon. friend.
2124	COMMONS
Immigration Act-Mr. Ryckman


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I say now to the Solicitor General that the part of the section he has read does not refer to constituted government, other than the government of Canada, except in connection with the specific purpose mentioned. Now this is the legislation which the Prime Minister is asking us to pass. I am absolutely opposed to it. There is no country we admire anywhere on the face of the globe which has not the right to forbid the entry of undesirable immigrants who show anarchistic tendencies. What does Great Britain do? At the Channel ports there are two officers of Scotland Yard who inspect passengers as they land, and if there is anyone whom they suspect of harbouring such tendencies they ask him to justify himself; otherwise they put him back on the boat and deport him. And there is not an hon. member who will not approve of that course. The Solicitor General says that we control our immigrants. Of course we do. But unless we retain the provision which it is now' being sought to repeal we have no control over the man who comes with a passport and who we know is seeking to destroy the constituted authority of Great Britain. That I submit is a privilege we do not wish to forego. And I for one stand resolutely for it. The Solicitor General referred by way of contrast to a Doukhobor and to British citizens. And who was the Doukhobor to whom he referred? It was a Doukhobor who had been crowned with Canadian citizenship, and the hon. member compared him to a British subject who had no Canadian citizenship. I say that this parliament gives credit to the man who has Canadian citizenship, no matter where he was born or what his extraction. That is why there is this distinction.


Mr. DUNNING:: Does my hon. friend
mean that I am not a Canadian citizen? He draws that distinction between a British subject and a Canadian citizen, and says that a Canadian citizen has greater rights than a British subject.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I say that a Canadian
citizen has greater rights in Canada than some British subjects.


Charles Avery Dunning: We do not think so. I would like the opinion of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) on that point.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend is a lawyer. In order to complete his argument will he point out by what method a British subject bom in England would acquire Canadian citizenship?
[Mr. Cannon.)


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes; how can I become a Canadian?


Lucien Cannon: How can he do it? My
hon. friend is a lawyer.


John Wesley Edwards: Behave
yourself for a while.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is hard to do with this kind of talk.


Lucien Cannon: Answer my question.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Give me time, and you will very soon get an answer. I will tell the House what a Canadian citizen is, and I will tell the Solicitor General that when he was objecting to what the hon. member for Vancouver Centre had said he did not read everything. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) read one section; the Solicitor General read the next section, but he did not read the third section. Why did he not give the whole interpretation of "Canadian citizen" as set out by the act? Let us have the whole thing read.


Lucien Cannon: I will say one thing to
my hon. friend in order that we may not disagree, further. If he wants to argue fairly I will do so, but if my hon. friend does not want to be fair I will not discuss it at all. I have been fair all through with my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre, and I am not used to these methods.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I have no quarrel except with the argument of the Solicitor General. I certainly desire to be fair and I want to read everything that is included in the definition of a Canadian citizen, which has not yet, been given to the House. A Canadian citizen means a person born in Canada who has not become an alien; that was read by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. Or a Canadian citizen means a British subject who has Canadian domicile; that was read by the Solicitor General.


Charles Avery Dunning: Then I am all right.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: In that one particular
you are all right. The part which was not read says that a Canadian citizen is one naturalized under the laws of Canada who has not subsequently become an alien or lost Canadian domicile.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Now read the definition
of "domicile".


Edmond Baird Ryckman: That is the whole of
that definition.


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend will
allow me, these are very complicated matters.

Immigration Act-Mr. Ryckman


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that if this bill passes it will be possible for men to land on our shores for the purpose of attacking the British Empire and the overseas dominions, and to carry on their machinations here. Section 40, the prostitution clause as I call it, does not cover this case, and no man of repute on either side of the House will say that it does. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that an unfair tone has been given the discussion by the introduction of a slogan which has been uttered more than once; "Oh, deportation without trial is not right". We have the privilege, which I think the Solicitor General will not deny, of turning back an immigrant who desires to land or who may even have his feet on our shores, because he is not desirable. That is deportation without trial. No man values more than I do the necessity of giving a fair trial to any Canadian citizen within our shores who has offended against the law or who is supposed to have offended in that way. He is entitled to that, even though it puts the country to an expense which sometimes is very heavy; that is quite proper. It certainly is not proper, however, that the machinery of our courts should be called upon at such expense to try men whom we know come here determined to destroy the government, anarchists and such like, instead of building up constituted authority throughout the world.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the hon.
gentleman say which is the most serious, to attack the British Empire or to attack British rights?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I must frankly admit that I do not understand the question, because British rights are not available to the man who comes here seeking to destroy British authority; the House will admit that. There was a member of the British House of Commons, a man named Saklatvala, who admitted that he was against all constituted authority unless perhaps a soviet might be termed such. He sought to enter the United States; he was a man of ability and a member of the British House but his views were well known and he never got beyond Ellis Island. I do not think more than a dozen members of this House would say that he had a right to get any further. These problems will confront us, and we must be able to deal with them; we must deal with them as Great Britain does. When an anarchist is found seeking entry into Great Britain, Scotland Yard is there to send him right back; he has no chance and is not entitled to one. British
law everywhere gives a Britisher or any decent foreigner a chance to establish his rights, but when they know a man has denied himself the privileges of a British citizen, then he does not get anything but short shrift. That is the essence of British law.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask if Scotland Yard was on hand to send Saklatvala back, to India?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: If the hon. member had been listening he would have heard me put the locale as Ellis Island; the United States sent him back.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But did Scotland Yard immediately ship this man back to India?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: He was dealt with by the immigration authorities and got no further than Ellis Island. He had no chance to spread his propaganda in the United States, and we ought to put ourselves in the same position. Anyone who wants to indulge in propaganda against Great Britain and her people should not be allowed to come into the country, which is a part of the British Empire.


Lucien Cannon: Was that gentleman
allowed to enter England on his return? When he was sent back from Ellis Island did they permit him to enter England?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I presume he was as a
British subject. And I want to tell hon. gentlemen that a Canadian citizen, who was born in this country and has lived here, or a Canadian citizen by naturalization, is entitled, if he leaves Canada, to come back to it from any quarter of the globe, unless he has broken the laws of the land.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I suggest that Mr. Saklatvala was not born in England, he was born in India.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: * But he was a British subject.


Mr. POULIOT:: Is the hon. gentleman
suggesting that we should change our law and adopt that of the United States?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I prefer not to answer
questions put by the hon. member for Temis-couata always under great heat.
I shall not detain the House further. I think that at this time it would be improper to cut out this section in the wholesale way that is proposed. I think the majority of this House are of one mind. We want to give fair treatment to everyone but we do not want to discriminate at the present time-* especially so soon after the Imperial con-

Immigration Act-Mr. Guthrie
ferenoe of which we have heard so much- against other portions of the British Empire. That does not comport with our new status, it does not conduce to inter-imperial good will and inter-imperial relations. I ask the House to consider this question, and that each member put it to himself: is he prepared to allow our immigration authorities to say to the man who is plotting against the government of Canada "You cannot come in, but if you are plotting against the government of Great Britain you can?"


Hugh Guthrie: Before this motion is carried
there are one or two things I should like to point out. The Immigration Act which obtained in this country in 1910 was one which was passed by this parliament at a time of peace. We had no difficulties of any kind in Canada, and we had no difficulties in foreign countries. If I remember correctly, the bill of 1910 passed this House without arousing opposition and, I think, without division. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister was in the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier at that time, the government that passed the act. I think he occupied at that time the position of Minister of Labour. I too was a supporter of the bill of 1910 and I think it was generally supported in the House and in the country. Now that act had been in force-there may have been some amendments to it, but I do not think there were any-until the year 1919 when, on account of the circumstances in which we found ourselves at the end of the war, it became necessary to enact provisions more drastic than ever had been in the act of 1910. Sections 40 and 41 which appeared in the act of 1910 reappeared in the act of 1919 but in different form. They were amplified, they were made broader in their application in many ways. It was thought well by the parliament of that day to do this owing to the peculiar circumstances in which we found ourselves at the time of the great conflict and which were so well described to the House to-day by my hon. friend from St. Lawrenee-St. George (Mr. Cahan). However, several years have passed since the year 1919. I do not pretend to say that the situation in Canada to-day resembles in any respect the situation which existed when the act of 1919 was passed. But I do say that the situation which exists in Canada to-day very much resembles the situation which existed in 1910 when the Immigration Act was passed. Now that act worked well. It would work well to-day. Why not settle this dispute by reverting to the provisions of the act of 1910? In my
FMr. Ryckman.]
judgment it provided all the safeguards necessary then. It would provide all the safeguards necessary to-day. But I am going to point out this fact just here. My hon. friend the Solicitor General has entirely misapprehended the effect of the present act, that is the act of 1919, which the government seeks to repeal by this bill. He has misapprehended the meaning of the sections which he read to the House a few minutes ago. He only read part of those sections. I maintain that in section 41 of the act of 1919 there are provisions which will not appear in our immigration law if that section is repealed. There was a difference of opinion between my hon. friend and the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Ryckman) a moment ago, and it merely involved the single question as to whether subsections (n) and (o) made provision against persons who attempted crimes against the government of this country, and possibly of other countries. It will be remembered that section 41 does make such provision. Section 41 is a very broad and comprehensive section. It provides:
(1) Every person who by word or act in Canada seeks to overthrow by force or violence the government of or constituted law and authority in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or Canada, or any of the provinces of Canada, or the government of any other of His Majesty's dominions, colonies, possessions or dependencies, or advocates the assassination of any official of any of the said governments or of any foreign government, or who in Canada defends

And so on. I do not need to read the balance of the section. Now if that section is repealed we are left then to subsections (n) and (o) of section 3 of the act which deal with prohibited classes subject to deportation. Now what does subsection (o), which my hon. friend the Solicitor General read, say? It says:
Persons who are members of or affiliated with any organization entertaining or teaching disbelief in or opposition to organized government,-
It merely applies to the assassination of the officers of the government of Canada, or the officers of any other organized government. The section we propose to leave includes the government of this country and the governments of other countries.


Lucien Cannon: I also read subsection
(n). That is only subsection (o).


Hugh Guthrie: It was the other subsection which my hon. friend read. ,


Lucien Cannon: I read the two, subsections (n) and (o).

Immigration Act-Mr. Adshead


Hugh Guthrie: I am taking the clause
which my hon. friend did not read.


Lucien Cannon: I read the two.


Hugh Guthrie: Well now, you can follow me but you cannot interrupt me.


Lucien Cannon: Yes but my hon. friend
must be fair in his statement as to what I read.


Hugh Guthrie: Subsection (n) provides:
Persons who believe in or advocate the overthrow by force or violence of the government of Canada or of constituted law and authority, or who disbelieve in or are opposed to organized government, or who advocate the assassination of public officials, or who advocate or teach the unlawful destruction of property.
Now section 41, which this bill seeks to repeal, provides not only for the officials and for the government of Canada, but likewise for the government of Great Britain and of every British dominion and colony and constituted government in other countries of the world. It is a much broader section, anyone can see that at a glance, and if it be repealed all we have left then are subsections (n) and (o) of section 3 dealing with prohibited classes. I do not argue for a moment that at this time there is any necessity to maintain in its integrity section 41 as passed in 1919. But I do maintain-and I submit it with some confidence to my right hon. friend the leader of the government-that the section in the act of 1910 was an admirable section. If in its application to the citizen of Canada it is not definite enough, let us change it. But is it not sufficiently definite? It reads:
Whenever any person, other than a Canadian citizen, advocates in Canada-
And so on. A Canadian citizen is defined in that act by section 2, subsection (f) as follows:
"Canadian citizen" means a person born in Canada who has not become an alien, a British subject who has Canadian domicile, or a person naturalized under the laws of Canada and who has not subsequently become an alien or lost Canadian domicile.
Canadian domicile is not described in the act of 1910, it is in the act of 1919, and if the clause in the latter act is suitable to present conditions-and I submit it is-let us place it in the act of 1910. Then what does it mean?
"Canadian citizen" means a person born in Canada who has not become an alien; a British subject who has a Canadian domicile-
Now apply the domicile clause to the act of 1910, and after five years you have Canadian domicile. Let us revert to the 1910 act. Its
provisions are sound. They were in operation up to 1919. No difficulty arose under them: they protected the government of Canada. Up to the war we had peace and good order in this country. What the object is now of blotting out section 41 without substituting some similar section, I cannot understand. I am perfectly ready to accept the law of 1910 as set out in section 41, which was piobably drafted by my right hon. friend, because I know the Labour department at that time bad a great deal to do with the act. Let us adopt that, and if it is deemed proper, extend the meaning of "Canadian citizen" to a British subject who has had a Canadian domicile for five years. I submit that ought to settle this whole discussion. It would satisfy me. But I do not agree that the whole clause should be struck out and nothing put in its place.


Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take any part in this debate, but as I happen to be one of the "imported" kind, referred to by my hon. friend from Toronto, one of those individuals who would be liable to deportation under the act of 1919, if I happened to rebel against so-called constituted authority, I am going to make a few observations.
There seems to be a great fear in the minds of hon. members to my right that the British Empire is crumbling. They seem to be afraid that by a conspiracy of bolshevism or sovietism, something of that sort, the loyalty of this Dominion may be undermined. I think they have very little faith in the principles which underlie the British Empire. Those principles are not necessarily enshrined in stately buildings and coats of arms. The principles of the British Empire, to my mind, will last whatever happens. I think Lord Macaulay upon one occasion said: "The time may come when perhaps a single naked fisherman may wash his nets in the river of a thousand masts." No doubt he was referring to the time when, perhaps, even London would cease to be the capital of the British Empire, and the stately buildings of Westminster and the tower might crumble. But the principles of the British Empire will never perish, and I think my friends have very little faith in the British Empire when they seek to support it by such very little things as the maintenance of this legislation of 1919.
A good deal has been said about constituted authority. I am, I hope, a supporter of constituted authority. But I would refer my friends to my right, and especially my friend from Frontenac-Addington to the historic fact that the whole tenor of British constitutional

Immigration Act-Mr. Adshead
development lias been rebellion against constituted authority. What happened in King John's reign when the constituted authority was the king? Was it not a rebellion of the barons and others against constituted authority which won us Magna Charta?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, the king violated
constituted authority, and he was set right.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: But if I said anything
against the present king I should be liable to arrest. What happened to King Charles? Cromwell took up arms against constituted authority. As I said to my friend from Frontenac, what happened in the particular organization of which he is the head? The constituted authority of Great Britain at that time was King James the Second, and by organized force they put him off the throne and established the present constitution by rebellion against constituted authority. So we find the whole force of British liberty has been gained by opposition to constituted authority, I might go a step further. The grandfather of the Prime Minister rebelled against constituted authority, and a price was set upon his head. If he were living to-day I suppose he might have been deported, but he is one of the heroes of Canada, one of those who won for us constitutional government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me correct my hon. friend. He says there was a rebellion against constituted authority. It was a rebellion against authority that was not properly constituted.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: At the same time, he
was regarded by those who had authority in their hands as a rebel against constituted authority, and probably the Immigration department would have deported him under such legislation as that of 1919. I am not so sure that even in this House the members to my right would object to overturning constituted authority and putting themselves on the treasury benches.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not by force, violence murder, rape.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: My friends who are so
afraid that the British Empire is going to crumble into the dust are strongly opposed to any amendment of the 1919 act. Let me tell them that every time these so-called conspirators from Russia-that terrible country!-come to Canada or get in touch with the people of Canada, they at the same time get in touch with the principles underlying the British Empire, and they have gone back

to Russia convinced that those principles are sound, and express the fullest freedom that can be found under any constitutional government. Therefore I shall support this measure in order that we may have a little more of that freedom granted by the British Empire.


John Wesley Edwards: Like the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Adshead), I had no intention of speaking on this matter, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be verj' brief indeed. The finest advertisements we have ever had for the greatness of this Dominion and of the possibilities it offers to the right kind of men are to be found in the persons of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning), the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Forke), and other gentlemen who have come to this country and made their way to the top of the ladder. That is the kind of people we want. I am the son of an immigrant who came to Canada in 1837. There was no trouble about those gentlemen. They will not be deported so long as they behave themselves- even as well as they have to date I Their conduct along certain lines has been somewhat doubtful-at least, from the standpoint of this side of the House-but not against constituted authority.


Charles Avery Dunning: I was pretty hard on the Meighen government last summer.


John Wesley Edwards: Well, that
is a sin you will have to answer for some day, but it is only one of many.
I just want to refer now to one or two remarks that were made by the hon. member for East Calgary. He is one who has seen fit to leave the old country and come to Canada, to the old country's loss and Canada's gain, we will all agree. He says that if the law is not changed he might as one coming from the British Isles be deported if he happened to rebel. Well, Mr. Speaker, if he happens to rebel, if he has any such notion as that in his mind, I want to tell him that he ought to be kicked out of this country. We do not want him here if he has that idea, even though he is a British subject. There are classes of British subjects that we do not want in this country at all, that we are better off without, and people who imagine just because they were born under the British flag that they can come to Canada and have license to misbehave themselves, have to be taught that we do not want them here, and we should deport them just as quickly as we would if they came from continental

Immigration Act-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)
Europe. We do not want that class here at all.
I do not think the hon. gentleman was very happy in his reference to what he called so-called constituted authority in Canada. There is no such thing as so-called constituted authority here. Authority is well constituted in Canada, and there need not be any doubt at all about it. Nor was the hon. gentleman quite happy in his references to King John and King Charles. The people who were rebelling at that time were not rebelling against constituted authority. It was the kings who had utterly disregarded the laws of the land and had thrown them into the discard, and it was because the kings had over-ridden the law that the people rose in their might to put them in their place. Still less was the hon. gentleman happy in his reference to King James, for he utterly disregarded the rights of the people and the laws of the land, and it was because of that that he was deposed and that King William took his place. The people were behind him not merely because of the man but because of what he represented, just as they were behind Magna Charta which brought King John to his senses and forced him to have regard for the law which he had utterly disregarded.
Mr. W00D9W0RTH:	Is it not in the
Magna Charta that all Britishers should have the right to trial by jury?


John Wesley Edwards: That is all right, and Britishers as a rule do have the right to trial by jury, but Magna Charta was only one step in the development of freedom, and further acts were passed as the years went by. It is because there has been a disposition shown in this country, and no one should know it better than the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth), to disregard constituted authority that we have to pass such an act as we passed in 1919. I am perfectly satisfied with the act of 1910, but it was perhaps because of the riotous proceedings that took place in the city of Winnipeg that this section was passed. I do not wish to say what was the attitude of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre at that time, but there was a disposition on the part of certain people in the city of Winnipeg who had come from other countries of the world, and some of them from Great Britain, to undertake to break down constituted authority and set up a government of their own in the city of Winnipeg. They even went to the extent of depriving the people, the little children and babies, of the
milk that they required to keep soul and body together. They carried on their nefarious work to that extent, thereby giving us an inkling of what that kind of people would do if they were given a free rein. When it comes to dealing with people of that kind, it does not make a particle of difference whether they come from continental Europe or the British Isles, if they have that disposition of mind that they are going to come to this country and be a law unto themselves, and set up a government to suit themselves, I for one would be among those who would kick them out of this country and tell them to stay out, for we do not want them here whether they were bom under the British flag or any other flag.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would like to
think that the hon. gentleman wants to be fair in this matter. Might I ask whether he would not first definitely try to ascertain whether the charges against these men were true or not?


Mr. EDW  ARDS@Frontenac: Machinery
is provided in the act of 1910 sufficient for that purpose. I think a certain amount of latitude should be given in this matter of deportation. We do not want every Tom, Dick and Harry coming to this country and preaching sedition and being able to say " The worst that can happen me is to be hauled before the- court, and that will take weeks and months, and in the meantime I shall be a sort of hero in the land, and my brethren who want to see this sort of propaganda carried on will raise a purse to pay my fine, and arrange for someone else to take my place." If he goes on advocating that kind of thing long enough he might even be sent to parliament to propagate the same kind of idea. We do not want that class of people here at all. We do not want them in parliament or in this country. Let them stay out of here. They deport them by the thousand from the United States without trial They deport them from England without trial, and from all countries of the world. The liberty we enjoy under the British flag is a grand thing, a wonderful thing, but there are too many people in this country who want to substitute license for liberty, and who would carry their ideas of liberty so far that they would not allow any freedom to anyone else whose views did not coincide with theirs. They would even go to the extent that they did in the city of Winnipeg, taking possession of the city and putting up a government of their own.
2130	COMMONS
Immigration Act-Mr. Dunning
We want immigrants in this country, we want more population, but we are not so hard up for immigrants that we can afford to open our doors to people who have no regard whatever for law and order, and who will set up their own government and advocate laws to suit themselves regardless of constituted authority and the laws of the land. The people who come to this country, no matter whether they come from continental Europe or the British Isles, should be taught the lesson, and we cannot begin to teach it too soon, that they must leave on the othei side of the water these revolutionary and radical ideas which many of them bring with them to Canada. If people want to leave, their own country because they do not like conditions there, and want to make a new home for themselves in Canada, let them come to Canada, but not with the idea that they are going to transplant to our soil the very conditions which they found intolerable in the country they left.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): Mr. Speaker, I only want to say a word or two. This subject is naturally very close to the hearts of those of us who were bom in Great Britain. We are no more responsible for that than the hon. member for Fronteniac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) is responsible for having been bom in Canada. I appreciate very much the kindly references he made to myself and others of us who happened to foe Iborn overseas. The reason I support this measure is because it eliminates any possibility in future of discrimination as between the treatment of Canadian citizens who happen to foe bom here and Canadian citizens who happen to be born in other parts of the empire, more particularly the British isles. The difficulty was well illustrated by the remarks of my hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr. Rycbman) when he drew an important distinction between the position of a Canadian citizen, one bom in Canada, or naturalized in Canada, and one born in Great Britain. To my mind, at this time in our history particularly, when we are endeavouring to persuade people in the old land to come and take advantage of the opportunities which exist here, it is very unfortunate for anything to be said in this parliament which would indicate that a British citizen born in Great Britain, coming to Canada, would have any less rights than a Canadian born in Canada, or a man coming from another country and becoming naturalized here.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Would the
authorities in Great Britain not have the right to deport a Canadian citizen under similar conditions?


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot answer the
question, so far as my knowledge of British law is concerned. But if I were a Canadian citizen in England, knowing what I know of the English law-and it is not very much- I am pretty sure that machinery exists in England to enable me to get a fair trial there. I would be very much surprised indeed to find that a hand could be placed on my shoulder, and I, a British subject, could be hustled out of Britain without an opportunity for a trial. There must have been a great many changes in recent years if such a thing is now possible. In any case I do not see why, because I was born in England, I should be denied a trial in Canada if I am accused of some offence against constituted authority, while my hon. friend from East Toronto because he was bom in Canada has the right to a trial. That is the point which worries me-not that I am standing up for those who would take action by means of force or anything of that kind. But if I, born as I was in the old country, can be kicked out of this country without a trial as is suggested, I see no reason why Canadian-born citizens should not be kicked out of this country summarily in the same manner. But in such a case there is no place to send Canadian-born people. The reason such a thing was not proposed in the original bill of 1919 is that there was no other country to which to send them. But I submit to this House that it would be quite as justifiable to send Canadian-iborn citizens to gaol without a trial for such offences as it would be to throw me out of the country for a similar offence. It is just a question of the nature of the punishment. The nature of the punishment in one case is deportation, and in the other imprisonment. In the one case the man cannot be imprisoned without a trial, and in the other case the man can be deported without trial, both being British subjects, one happening to be Canadian-born and the other British-born.
Mr. RYCIvMAN: The Solicitor General referred to the case of a man born in Canada who had acquired Canadian citizenship and that of a man born in the British isles who wanted to be naturalized here. I merely wanted to emphasize what I value, namely Canadian citizenship. We have raised the Doukhobor to Canadian citizenship, and he is entitled to a superior status because he is a Canadian.

Immigration Act-Mr. Church


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend is
arguing that the Doukhobor, who is raised to Canadian citizenship by virtue of naturalization, is entitled to more rights and privileges in Canada than a British-born citizen, I dispute that proposition.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the impression
his Statement created in my mind.


Mr. ARTHURS:: How many years must
a foreigner be in Canada before he can be naturalized1? Under the act a British citizen is deportable only if he has been in the country less than five years.


Lucien Cannon: No, no time at alii.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not going to quarrel about what the law means, but if it means whait the public in Canada have been led to believe it means, and what the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) both agreed last session it did mean, as evidenced by the concluding remarks in Hansard, where they both agreed that it was desirable that the bill before the House should be passed to eliminate that condition, then I am desirous of having this bill passed in order to eliminate that species of discrimination, which 1 feel sure is distasteful to all Canadians whether British-born, native-born or naturalized. Surely we have, or we can devise, machinery in this country that would not mean discriminatory treatment as between British subjects born in Great Britain and those who happen to be born in Canada or naturalized here.


Henry Herbert Stevens: On that point, does the
minister not know that under subsections (n) and (o) of section 3 of the existing act, independent altogether of the 1919 act, these people who come from Great Britain may be deported within five years after their domicile in Canada without trial under the existing law which the government is now administering? I merely cite that to show my hon. friend's argument is not sound.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am very much astonished to find that there is some new law on this subject this year, as compared with last year.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Charles Avery Dunning: Last year there was
agreement finally as to the form which this bill should take to remedy what was admitted as discriminatory treatment.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Which we agree to, if the minister will agree to the restoration of the provisions of the act of 1910.


Charles Avery Dunning: With very great deference to my hon. friend, while I have not much use for lawyers generally, in cases of this sort I must take my legal advice from the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice. Last year the Minister of Justice, dealing with this very matter, at jiage 4120 of Hansard, said:
But we must keep the bill in order to repeal section 41. I am quite willing to agree with the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) to allow the bill to read:
Section 41 of the Immigration Act, chapter 27 of the statutes of 1910, as enacted by chapter 26 of the statutes of 1919, is repealed.
The rest is certainly covered by section 40.
That is the end of the quotation from Mr. Lapointe's remarks. Then I read the following from Hansard:
Mr. Bennett:	That is my view.
Mr. Lapointe:	I am quite agreeable if the
Minister of Immigration is willing to do that.
Mr. Stewart (Edmonton):	I am always
willing to take the word of the Minister of Justice.
Apparently the difficulty raised to-day was non-existent at the conclusion of the discussion las* year. For my part I do not want to change my legal adviser every year.
I want my position to be clear. I am satisfied with the biil, which is the same as last year. I am not at all sure where the legal complications suggested by my hon. friend would lead to, and for that reason I am supporting the bill.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):: I did not intend to take part in this debate, but I come from an industrial centre and would like to say a word or two.
I do not think this bill is in the public interest, but the government of the day must take the responsibility. It must be apparent to every thoughtful man in this country that we have had for a considerable period a certain amount of prosperity in the industries of the country, and I fail to see where there is any demand for an amendment such as is proposed.
Section 40 of the Immigration Act provided for the deportation from this country of certain classes of people. That provision was in force for a good many years. It was a good law; it was supported by judges and magistrates, and it was found to be efficient. Under section 40 there was no trial by jury and the minister had the power to deport anybody for offences under that section, without trial, on the recommendation of the

Immigration Act-Mr. Church
magistrate or judge. In 1919 there was a great deal of industrial unrest in Canada and, just as in Australia and the United States as well as in England, it was found necessary to pass such legislation as is contained in section 41. Up to that time there had been no suggestion of any trial by jury. Ninety-nine per cent of the cases of deportation occurred under section 40. In 1919 a new act was passed to deal with a large class of persons who might be described* as anarchists and red flaggers from the old country and from Europe. These people came over to Canada for the purpose of creating disturbance and indulging in agitation and strife. Under section 40, as I say, no trial by jury was provided because the minister could act of his own volition. Now if you repeal section 41 the minister will be deprived of the right to deport an undesirable except after trial, even though such deportation may be recommended by a police magistrate or by a judge.
There is absolutely no demand for this legislation; it is opposed by the chiefs of police in the large centres of population throughout the country. And let me say that the chiefs of police are responsible for the administration of law and order and not my hon. friend the Solicitor General. The authorities in England have taken a firm stand against the repeal of similar legislation in Great Britain, for they regard it as of a vital importance to the maintenance of peace and order. Do we -want Canada to become like continental Europe? Do we want to allow anarchists to come into this country and stir up strife? Instead of loosening up the regulations the government should tighten them, as they have done in the United States. No agitator can create strife in the United States, as is done in Winnipeg and in Nova Scotia, without being deported. The Harding administration, when they discovered that native born Americans were likely to be outnumbered by immigrants, adopted what is known as the quota law, under which many Canadian soldiers are being sent back to this country. Drastic measures are also being adopted in Australia. An effort has been made there to remove some of the restraining regulations in that country, but the movement is being strenuously opposed. The Australian government has declared Australia to be a white man's country and the intention is to keep it so. An election there over this verv question was decided in favour of the High' Hon. Stanley Bruce who is determined to put down agitation. If we repeal section 41 we are simply making Canada the happy hunting ground for anarchists and political agitators,

a haven of rest for the reds and for all disturbers of the peace who claim to be victims of political persecution.
Who is asking for this amendment? We have heard from the former Premier of Saskatchewan. But does he speak for the people of Ontario? The people of Ontario do not want the law changed; their desire is to have the regulations kept as drastic as possible. I repeat, there is absolutely no demand for this legislation. It is opposed throughout the country. Section 41, I may point out, applies only to those British born citizens who have not been in the country more than five years; if they have been resident here longer than that the section does not apply. I venture to say that ninety-nine and three-quarters per cent of the British bom in Canada are not affected by this law, and as to the other small minority of less than 1 per cent, are we going to open our doors to agitation and anarchy, a tendency towards which we have witnessed in Winnipeg and Nova Scotia? To-day there are in some of our large cities schools established especially for the purpose of teaching, on Sundays, communism and propaganda against the British Empire and British institutions. Why should we allow that element to come into the country? I cannot understand it. We were told last night that the government had no time to think of amending the Pensions Act or of introducing any legislation for the benefit of returned men, but apparently there is a good deal of time for the introduction of legislation, the object of which is to make easy the path of the agitator and the red flagger, the anarchist and the communist, and to give them privileges which this country would never before have ireamed for a moment of extending to them -privileges which certainly would not have been given in the days of Laurier or of Sir John A. Macdonald. I believe the time is coming when the people of Canada will protest in no uncertain terms against legislation of this character. The Canadian people will demand that Canada be preserved as a white man's country, and if there are any anarchists who do not like the country the best thing for us to do is to deport them as expeditiously as possible. The sort of people who would be protected by this legislation get no consideration at all in Germany, Austria, Prussia or ' any of those places, where there is no trial by jury. If they come to Canada they must be prepared to obey our laws; if not, they ought to be deported immediately. When this parliament" prorogues, if the bill now before us goes through, all the agitators in the country will rejoice in the extension of their privileges.

Immigration Act
The agitators in the large centres of population will take heart, and communism and anarchy will flourish. This legislation was not discussed at the last election and, as I have pointed out before, it is opposed by most of the provinces as well as by the police of the country. I fail to see any necessity whatever for it. It is fortunate that we have the Senate, which is the one bulwark against agitation and anarchy and all attempts against the peace and order of the country.


James Arthurs: Can the government give anj* information regarding the number of British citizens deported previous to the passing of the act in 1919?


Lucien Cannon: I cannot give the figures,
but it seems to be the feeling of the House, judging by the debate that has taken place, that what is wanted is the elimination of the discrimination which now exists in section 41.


James Arthurs: If there have been no
deportations under the act, why amend1 it?


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend had a
bottle of poison in the house, would he leave it there merely because it had not been used?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Deportation of undesirable classes.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I was somewhat worried and slightly upset when the Solicitor General quoted my colleague from West* Calgary (Mr. Bennett) as being wholly in favour of this bill, and I admit that in reading Hansard as it was quoted by my friend it would appear as though the hon. member for West Calgary had agreed to the bill. I sent for Hansard, and I find that the bill last year was before the House on several occasions, and I noticed that the discussion then arose over certain provisions of the Criminal Code. I am sorry the hon. member for West Calgary was not in his seat to defend himself and his position, but in his absence I wish to make the matter right, and I think the Solicitor General will at least do the hon. member the justice of acquitting him of any inconsistency.
Without going through all the intervening discussion, which covers a great many pages of Hansard, I will turn to the introduction of this act last year, and the position of the hon. member for West Calgary will be recognized when I tell the committee that last year in repealing this objectionable section 41 of the act, the government proposed to [DOT]substitute another clause which I will now 32849-135
read. I am referring to Hansard of 1926, volume 4, page 3818, when Hon. Charles Stewart, Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization at that time, moved the second reading of the bill. The House went immediately into committee, and the minister made a statement as follows:
The amendment that we are proposing is as follows:
1. Section 41 of the Immigration Act, chapter 27 of the statutes of 1910, as enacted by chapter 26 of the statutes of 1919, is repealed 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.


Charles Avery Dunning: Other than Canadian
citizens.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. I will deal with that in a moment. Then followed a long discussion about the Criminal Code and its efficacy in this matter, after which the hon. member for West Calgary, in the portion quoted, wholly agreed with the Minister of Justice regarding the applicability to the case of the new substituted clause.
I think in justice to the hon. member for West Calgary this should be stated, and now I wish to say a word in regard to the observations of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning). This I say in justice to myself, as one who was born outside of Canada but who has been in the country forty years, during which time I have enjoyed the full rights accorded any citizen of this country. I want to say to the minister that in our attitude there is nothing of a prejudicial character against Britishers; I have sufficient fighting blood in my veins to resent such an implication as much as anyone else.


Charles Avery Dunning: I. trust my hon. friend did not think I was implying that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It so appeared to me, but let us get this clear. The Immigration Act contains paragraphs (a) to (t) enumerating every conceivable reason for deportation, including sections (n) and (o) which deal with persons who advocate the overthrow of government by violence, and persons who advocate or teach the assassination of officials, and so on. There is no trial in those cases for anyone in Canada other than a Canadian citizen, and I desire to make the definition

Immigration Act

of a Canadian citizen plain, because the Solicitor General rather humiliated me a while ago by pointing out that I had misstated the case.
Mr. CANNON I did not say my hon. friend had misstated the case; I said he did not state it completely.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am going to complete
even my hon. friend's statement, in order that we may have it all. A Canadian citizen means a person born in Canada who has not become an alien, or a British subject who has Canadian domicile. Then according to the act Canadian domicile means:
Canadian domicile can only be acquired, for the purposes of this act, by a person having his domicile for at least five years in Canada after having been landed therein within the meaning of this act.
In other words, any British subject who offends against any of these sections is subject to deportation within five years after he comes to Canada; that is, if he offends against them in the way any foreigner might do.


Lucien Cannon: And after five years?


Henry Herbert Stevens: After five years he is
not subject to deportation, nor is anyone else.


Lucien Cannon: I would like to clear this up. I do not want to prolong this debate, but at the very end of the paragraph which provides that the time must be so and so, my hon. friend will find these words:
.... no person who belongs to the prohibited or undesirable classes within the meaning of section 41 of this act shall be capable of acquiring Canadian domicile.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is quite so. We can meet hon. gentlemen opposite and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) in full so far as the extravagant terms of the section inserted in 1919 are concerned. Repeal them. We do ask, however, for the restoration of the safeguards of the act of 1910, and I wish to place myself right with my friend the Minister of Railways in this matter. We are not defending these extreme views but rather the general principles of the act of 1910.


Lucien Cannon: In connection with what
I said concerning the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett), I stated he had agreed to the bill last year and that the bill as we have it now is the first paragraph of the bill introduced last year.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not the same bill.
	'	i ,rjf


Lucien Cannon: The first paragraph of
the first bill introduced last year is the bill this year. We agreed to strike out the second paragraph, which simply recited that when a person has been found guilty of an offence he can be deported. That is already the law, and we struck it out. Therefore I again say that the hon. member for West Calgary agreed to the very terms of the bill which we introduced this year, although he attacked and denounced it this morning.


Henry Herbert Stevens: His arguments last year
were very similar to those of this year.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I am not going to run
the risk of being misunderstood or misinterpreted by the Minister of Railways. I intended to say that I set a value upon Canadian citizenship either by birth or by naturalization, and that no matter what the extraction of the man who subsequently became a Canadian citizen, he is entitled to all the honours which go with that status. In contrast I would say that a Clydeside ship man, who probably does not act as he should and has been subject to the law in England, or a cockney from Limehouse, is not entitled upon his landing on these shores to the same standing that a Canadian citizen has who has been endowed with citizenship.


Charles Avery Dunning: All I can say is that I
absolutely disagree with my hon, friend. There are lots of decent people in Limehouse, in Glasgow and on the Clyde, and I do not know that any designation of that sort is creditable in a British House of Commons. We are. inviting people here from the mother country whether they come from Limehouse or Glasgow or any other part of it, and to refer to those districts as indicating undesirable citizens is, to my mind, very wrong.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I may say to the
minister that I have not used those districts as indicating undesirable citizens. I have said and I insist upon it, and I believe the people of this country will recognize that I am right -that once you have endowed a man with Canadian citizenship he is entitled to a preference in this country against the man who has not that citizenship.


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

Fruit Act Amendment

[Stage Direction]
Hon, W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 228, to amend the Fruit Act.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Regulations.
The CHAIRMAN:: Section 1 has been
amended in committee by striking out subsections (f) and (g). Shall the clause carry?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
John Frederick Johnston: A new clause 2 has
been added to the following effect:
Section 2 is amended by inserting as paragraph (j) the following:
"Packs" or "packed" means the placing of fruit in any package intended for sale.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: That is an interpretation of the word "packed".


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
John Frederick Johnston: The following new
clause, clause 3, has been added in committee:
Section 15 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"An inspection certificate signed by an official inspector, appointed under this act, shall be prima facie evidence of the truth of the statements contained therein.


Mr. TOLMIE:: Does that include all fruit
for export?


William Richard Motherwell: The particular kinds of fruit will be indicated by regulation.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Are apples included?


William Richard Motherwell: Regulations will
have to be framed indicating what fruit must be graded, but we have named apples to begin with.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: This act gives you power to make such regulations as will extend to all kinds of fruit?


William Richard Motherwell: All kinds of fruit.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Starting with apples?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 257, to regulate the sale and inspection of agricultural economic poisons.
32649-135J
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Simon Fraser Tolmie: Will the minister give a
brief outline of the purpose of the bill?


William Richard Motherwell: I gave an explanation when the resolution oni which the bill is based was being considered but my hon. friend could not have been here. The bill provides for the registration of all insecticides and fungicides that are used in connection with spraying, particularly of orchards and: of potatoes. It applies to poisons that are employed in the treatment of fungi or insects. In order to make sure that those who are buying the poisons are getting their money's worth, the brands will have to be registered with the component parts of the poison. In that way when a man buys this poison he will know he is getting something that is effective and not something that will rather fatten than kill, as has happened in the past. Sometimes the poison used in spraying is so strong that it destro.ys vegetation on the trees to which it is applied. Registration is required in order t'o safeguard the quality, particularly of the active ingredients.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Are you establishing
standards for the various poisons?


William Richard Motherwell: No. Each manufacturer usually has a formula of his own. He will register that formula with the active poisons which it contains, and if any doubt is thrown upon the preparation we will see that he lives up to requirements by having an analysis made from time to time.


Mr. BARBER:: Will this law permit arsenate of lead, par.is green and bluestone to be put in packages?


William Richard Motherwell: It will apply to all ingredients in agricultural poisons. The law will not apply to prescriptions put up by druggists for a medical man or for a veterinary surgeon, but will be enforced in the case of all agricultural economic poisons.


Harry James Barber: To-day paris green, a
standard poison is sold in bulk.


William Richard Motherwell: There is a provision covering it when sold in bulk.


Harry James Barber: I do not see it. Fruit men buy arsenate of lead in bulk as well as in packages.

Agricultural Economic Poisons


William Richard Motherwell: When it is sold by a retailer the component parts of the poison must be stated to the purchaser. We will come to that section.


Harry James Barber: Arsenate of lead, as I say, is .a standard preparation, the same as paris green or arsenate of copper. They are set forth in the British pharmacopoeia. If the retailer breaks a pound! package to sell half a pound to a fruit man, it sounds unreasonable that he mudt pay $25 a year on that particular line.


William Richard Motherwell: That is provided
for.


Peter McGibbon: Is the minister not going to set any standards of Strength? How does he propose to guarantee the purity of the commodity?


William Richard Motherwell: It will be found
in the regulations that we can determine the strength of the active ingredients.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Under section 12, I think.
Section 1 agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Registration of brand, etc.


John Frederick Johnston: There is a slight
amendment in this section-the registration fee of $25 in line 28 has been changed t.o $20.


Harry James Barber: What is the idea of charging $20 a year? Many preparations that will come under this bill have not nearly the large sale of certain patent medicines, the sales of which in the aggregate perhaps would amount to a million dollars a year. The proprietor of a patent medicine registers his preparation for an annual fee of $1; but the man who manufactures a spray, for which he has a sale during only a few weeks in the year amounting in the aggregate to only a few hundred dollars, is compelled to pay $20 annually. This is very unfair and will, I think, work against the best interests of those who use the preparations, because necessarily the fee will be added to the selling price. I do not think the object of this bill should be to raise revenue. The fee might very well be the same as under the Proprietary and Patent Medicines Act, and I do not think any manufacturer would object.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Chairman, the
general principle has been recognized and adopted in many other agricultural bills that
JMr. Barber.]
the particular trade affected should bear part, at least, of the cost of administration. This fee is estimated to represent about half the cost.


Harry James Barber: Under the Proprietary and Patent Medicines Act practically the same procedure applies, a preparation is purchased by an inspector and sent to Ottawa to be analysed, which is a considerably more expensive course than would be necessary in dealing with many of the poison preparations used in spraying. This $20 fee is an annual payment for a preparation that is in demand only in certain districts and only for a few weeks each year. I think the committee would do well to reduce the fee to $1, and thus not create any hardship on the manufacturer.


William Richard Motherwell: Inasmuch as the cost Of administration is continuous the revenue should be continuous. This was threshed out in committee. A larger initial fee with a smaller renewal fee was discussed, but it was generally accepted that the principle was sound-to require the trade to bear a part of the cost. This is practically on a fifty-fifty basis, and justifies the renewal being the same as the initial fee. One of the manufacturers did propose an initial fee of $50 and a smaller annual fee of $10. We dlid not work out how much revenue that would bring in; but this fee repre'ents approximately 50 per cent of the cost of administration.


Harry James Barber: The principle of the bill is to regulate, and once the preparation is established I agree with the minister that it might not be, a hardship to make the initial fee 'larger, but the renewal fee each year should certainly be reduced to a nominal amount.


Peter McGibbon: When the Patent Medicine Act went through I objected that the fee of $1 was not high enough, for I did not think the cost of administering the act should be placed entirely upon the government. But it does seem to me that in relation to that fee this fee is rather high. What proportion of the cost of administration does the country bear?	[DOT]


William Richard Motherwell: This is not a new principle; we have it in the Fertilizers Act. In fact in all our agricultural regulations we have endeavoured to make the trade bear part of the cost of administration.


Peter McGibbon: I agree that the principle is right. This fee, the minister says, will cover 50 per cent of the cost of administration. How does it compare with the fees charged in the other acts?

Agricultural Economic Poisons


William Richard Motherwell: It is the same.


Peter McGibbon: That is, the government pays 50 per cent of the cost of administration of all of them?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Registration authority to sell -renewal-fee for renewal.
John Frederick Johnston: The fee is changed to


William Richard Motherwell: That is to correspond with the change made in the preceding section.


Harry James Barber: I would suggest to the minister that he amend the section. The manufacturer of twenty preparations would have to pay $400 a year. I think this fee should be reduced to $5.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Chairman, the manufacturers are very apt to reduce the number of their preparations. This happened when the I'ertilizers Act went into force. Sometimes a large number of preparations are simply used for display purposes, or to make the public think there is competition between the alleged varieties; but whenever the manufacturers have to pay a reasonable fee they reduce the number to three or four standard formulas, and I think that will be found to be the case here. I think we might try this for a year; I do not think it will be found to be onerous at all. The manufacturers who were represented there did not object very much to it, but they proposed that the initial fee might be larger and this one smaller, and we have compromised by reducing them both from $25 to $20.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Contents of statement to accompany application.
William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Chairman, the
hon. member for Lisgar has drawn my attention to the fact that sections 4, 5 and 6 were renumbered in the committee. I think that is shown on the House copy of the bill.


John Frederick Johnston: I have the House copy, and the sections are not so marked here.
Mr. MOTE1ERWELL:	There has been
no change made in the sections, but it was
thought more convenient to arrange them in this new order, section 4 becoming section 6, section 5 becoming section 4, and section 6 becoming section 5.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 6 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On section 9-Certain information to be set forth.
Arthur Edward Ross: This is the clause that refers to sale in bulk. Has this been changed?


John Frederick Johnston: Paragraph (f) of this
clause has been struck out and the following substituted therefor:
The guaranteed analysis stating the percentage by weight of each active ingredient.
Then in the eighth line of page 4 of the bill the word "only" has been struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.
On section 11-Advisory board.
Peter McGibbon: Who is going to be on the advisory board?


William Richard Motherwell: We will try to have all the interests concerned represented on the board. The manufacturers will have a man, the fruit interests, and no doubt the vegetable interests as well.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 12 and 13 agreed to.
On section 14-Inspectors.
William Richard Motherwell: This section becomes section 15, Mr. Chairman, and 15 becomes 14.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 15 to 18 inclusive agreed to.
On section 19-Offences.
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: I think the
word "dealer" was changed to "vendor" in the committee, Mr. Chairman.


John Frederick Johnston: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: The word "thereto" in line 2 of page 8 was also amended to read "therewith."


John Frederick Johnston: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 20 to 23 inclusive agreed to.
213S
Peace River Railway
[Stage Direction]
On the preamble.
Simon Fraser Tolmie: Is the minister bringing
this act into force right away?


William Richard Motherwell: No, I think we
shall have to let the manufacturers use up their present stocks before we bring the act into force, probably in the course of three or four months.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	With the permission of the House, I move that the estimates for the year 1927^28, respecting loans to the Canadian National Railway Company and the Canadian Government Merchant . Marine, Limited, laid on the table on Tuesday, 15th February, 1927, together with the third and final report of the select standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, be referred to the committee of supply.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Twelfth report of the committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Brown.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. M. YOUNG (Saskatoon) presented the eleventh report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, as follows:
Friday, April 8, 1927.
The select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines beg leave to present the following as its eleventh report.
Your committee has considered the following resolutions referred to it:
That, ill the opinion of this House, the time has arrived for the commencement forthwith, and the completion in the near future of a direct railway outlet from the Peace River country to the Pacific coast.
Y our committee, having heard evidence on the subject matter of the resolution from the premiers of Alberta and British Columbia and 11'om engineers who have investigated this project, and others, is of opinion that building a western outlet from the Peace River area is feasible from an engineering standpoint.
[The Chairman.]
The weight of evidence before your committee indicates that, on economic grounds, such construction should not be commenced forthwith, as set forth in the resolution referred to your committee.
Your committee is of opinion that much greater traffic development is necessary in the area to make the building of such outlet economically sound.
Your committee is further of opinion that potentialities of that area are such as to warrant a continuous study of its development.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
A. M. Young,
Acting Chairman.
[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Railways.-Hudson Bay railway and terminals: construction and betterments, includino-E. B. Jost at $2,500, $5,130,000.
_ Mr. ROSS (Kingston):	Does the minister
intend to proceed? It is two or three minutes to six.
Charles Avery Dunning: I did not expect this
item would pass without discussion.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 107, respecting the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada-Mr. Cahan-Mr. Johnston in Jhe chair.
On section 1-Proportion of profits of participating business to shareholders to be reduced.
Mr. IRVINE:: At nine o'clock on Tuesday evening I had just completed my argument against this bill. I had pointed out that the capital increase provided for in section 2 of the bill was not required, that the profits made on such capital would be unjustly awarded, and that those profits could only come out of the pockets of the policyholders. I also pointed out that the tendency of the times was towards mutualization and that an increase in capital would retard mutualization so far as this particular company was concerned. Inasmuch as there are a number of private bills to be considered by the House, and in view of the fact that this is a very

Sun Lije Assurance Company
contentious measure, I desire to move, seconded by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer), that the debate be adj oumed.


Mr. HAY:: This bill was very fully considered by the banking and commerce committee-


William Irvine: Is this debate in order?


Leon Johnson Ladner: What is the motion?


John Frederick Johnston: I do not consider the motion in order; the House is in committee.


William Irvine: I move then that the committee rise.


Mr. JACOBS:: We have not started to sit yet.


William Irvine: The hon. member from Jerusalem has been sitting for a long time.
Motion (Mr. Irvine) negatived.


Francis Wellington Hay: I repeat that this bill had a very generous hearing before the banking and commerce committee; there was no attempt on behalf of the company unduly to hasten it, and the whole bill was considered fully and carefully. We have therefore had a full opportunity of hearing the case presented from the standpoint of the company.
I differ somewhat from my hon. friend who has just spoken in relation to life insurance. One must first of all popularize a company before doing business, and it must also be remembered that the selling of life insurance plays only a small part in the success of a company; many features enter into the operation of a successful life insurance company. I am not asking any special consideration for this bill or for this company, because I apprehend that hon. gentlemen who know something of the history of the company will let its actions, its statements and its officials speak for it, which makes it unnecessary for me to present any brief. The whole contention seems to have centred upon a determination of the capital of this company, in, which connection a brief has been submitted to the officials of the iSun Life Assurance Company by a very eminent counsel, assuring them that no action on the part of this government is necessary to make it certain that the capital is already $4,000,000, the amount asked. In all fairness to the committee and to the company, these contentious matters could have been better worked out, I think, in that small select committee than in this House.
I point out these facts because statistics are deceptive and figures are hard to remember when they are in such large amounts as is the case with this company. We gave a considerable time to this bill in the committee, and as I said before there was no haste shown in putting it through. Therefore I think I can fairly ask the cooperation and support of hon. members in putting this bill through the final stages.


William Irvine: May I ask a question?
There is a doubt at least as to the amount of capital in this company. Let us assume that the doubt is well' taken, and that the capital is only $2,000,000. Will my hon. friend justify this committee increasing it by another $2,000,000? *


Francis Wellington Hay: I am quite wiling to give this
company authorization for $4,000,000 or twice $4,000,000 if necessary, because I realize that this company as well as others must keep abreast of the time. If I were coming to Canada and had to select a bank or insurance company with which to do business, I would look at the assets and authorized capital of the company to ascertain whether I should deposit my money or take out a policy with a particular company. There has been nothing concealed or hidden on the part of the company; the whole bill has been open to consideration; it has been dealt with carefully, I submit, by a committee appointed for that purpose. The committee was not so large as it had been at earlier meetings, but there were good reasons for that, and I think we dealt with it generously; we devoted two full sittings to it and it does seem to me that it is hardly the proper thing to now attack the bill when the company have not an opportunity of presenting their side of the case.


Mr. SPENCER:: The hon. member who
has just taken his seat made the statement that this bill was very carefully considered. I think very few of the bills which have been passed in the last few weeks have been thoroughly considered; we have been trying to rush too much work through the committees. During this last week I was called to no less than three committees on each of four separate days, at either eleven or eleven-thirty in the morning, with the House sitting at the same time. It is quite impossible for [DOT] members to attend all the meetings to which they are called. I attended the committee before which this bill came, and at that time there was a distinct difference of opinion; the bill was very contentious. At the next meeting I know there was a much smaller attendance, as the hon. member has said; I was

Sun Life Assurance Company
unable to be there because I had two other committees meeting that morning. I had to make a choice as to the most important, and I suppose other members were in the same position. Since I was unable to be there to oppose the bill in the committee, I desire to take the opportunity now of saying a few words in opposition to it.
The main feature of this bill, I take it, is to give the company power to increase their capital by $2,000,000. The hon. member who just took his seat said it was the opinion of certain very eminent lawyers that the authorized capital of this company to-day is $4,000,000. If that is so, why do they come to this parliament to ask for that increase?


Samuel William Jacobs: To make it clear and definite.


William Irvine: We are going to put it beyond doubt, all right.


Samuel William Jacobs: We do not want fakirs to raise a question later.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, whether or not I have the floor.


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I have no doubt that
those hon. members who support this bill believe they are doing what is right, and we who oppose the bill believe the same thing. With regard to the assets of the company, I understand them to be made up largely in three ways. There is the shareholders' fund, amounting to a little less than one per cent of the total assets; the non-participating fund, amounting to about 15 per cent of the assets, and the participating fund, which amounts to about 84 per cent of the assets. When you consider that the interest of the policyholders in this company is a little over 99 per cent, it will be appreciated that those who control no more than one per cent of the assets are asking a lot when they request the right to double their capital, which would doubtless be done by the issuance of shares, commonly called watered stock. I have heard no member rise either in the committee or in this House to say that that is not the way in which the capital would be increased.
I understand that the amount paid in cash for each share of this company was not more than $30; those shares which were bought for that ' amount have to-day attained a value of $1,600. One wonders how this could take place. I understand also that the total amount paid in cash into this company was $305,000, but it is also true that there was a special dividend of $350,000, a stock bonus of $840,000, and a

premium of $120,000 was credited to the shareholders. And yet apparently the shareholders are not content with the interest they are getting. Apparently the company is so well off that it does not know what to do with its profits. It would noit look well to increase the amount of profits the company is getting to-day on each share. It therefore wishes to double the shares by this watered stock method; so that the dividends per share will not look so large.


Francis Wellington Hay: Where do the profits come
from ?	[DOT]


Henry Elvins Spencer: The profits came from 99 per cent of the assets paid in as premiums by policyholders.


Francis Wellington Hay: Nothing came from legitimate
investment?


Henry Elvins Spencer: I shall be very glad to
answer my hon. friend's question as to legitimate investment. I admit that those who have made an investment have a legitimate right to expect some return. I admit they also have a legitimate right to say that when they had risked a certain amount of capital they should be safeguarded in their investment. I will answer both suggestions of my hon. friend by this statement:	the shares
they paid $30 for have increased to the value of $1,600, and although they paid into this company only $305,000, they received a stock bonus alone of $845,000. It seems to me the company is amply recouped.


Francis Wellington Hay: I assume that you do not say
that comes from the policyholders?


Henry Elvins Spencer: The policyholders are
the people who have made this company by reason of the premiums they have paid in. I should like to know how it is possible for a company like this-which I understand to-day has total assets of $350,000,000, and claims also, as it did' before the committee, that it can double its assets every five years-to make these huge profits? Is it because so many policyholders pay one or two premiums and then find that they cannot carry on and have to sacrifice the premiums they have paid?
I wonder if that is the reason? There must be some reason. If a company can pay these stock bonuses to the amount that we have on record, and can double its assets every five years, why is it not possible for it to cut down the premiums to the policyholders?
I did not. answer my hon. friend's second suggestion regarding the risk that the shareholders run. That risk I think is well taken care of by the fact that the company has

Sun Life Assurance Company
$56,000,000 in reserve. At least so I understand. Therefore with the amount it has received in dividends and bonuses, and the $56,000,000 it has in reserve, it should be able surely to take care of the shareholders' interests. Now we have to admit that to-day life insurance has become a necessity. Everyone should appreciate the fact that he ought to invest in life insurance. But I think there is great reason to believe that the premiums on these policies could be cut down to such an extent that people, even those of small means, could afford to take out life insurance, which they cannot do at the present time. The tendency, however, and I am very glad to see it, is to mutualize our life insurance companies. Such large companies as the Prudential Life Insurance Company and the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company have been mutualized and are doing a tremendous business. If this particular company wants to have a good talking point, it could not do better than follow the example of the other two companies I have named.


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: Are they doing as big a business as the Sun Life, may I ask?


Henry Elvins Spencer: I do not happen to have the exact figures, but I have not the slightest doubt that if the Metropolitan Life carries on its business for many years in Canada, and such companies as this come to parliament to increase their shareholders' funds, the Metropolitan and other mutualized companies will certainly outstrip the company we are speaking about. The Sun Life can pay, I understand, 15 per cent, on its present capital of $1,500,000 without drawing anything from the .profits of the participating policyholders. If the capital is increased the participating policyholders' profits will have to be drawn upon, and section 1 of the bill fixes definitely the percentages to be drawn, namely, 4, 3i and 3 per cent. To the extent that these profits of the .participating fund are so drawn upon., the proposal is equivalent to a tax upon the participating policyholders.
I do not want to take up too much time, but I should like to quote some very interesting figures from the Canada Year Book of 1925 with regard to life insurance. First of all I will quote a few figures showing the profits earned by our life insurance companies to indicate what may be done by a contributory system built up by the government. For the year 1920, our Canadian life insurance companies showed an excess of income over expenditure of almost $40,000,000. For 1921 the figure was $47,000,000; for 1922. $50,000,010; for 1923, $60,000,000; and for 1921, $68,-
000,000 of an actual surplus. If you go over
these figures right back to confederation you will find a tremendous surplus every year. In fact during the whole period I think it will be found that only about fifty per cent of the money paid in premiums is returned to the policyholders or their dependents.
I may say, Mr. Chairman, that I have on the order paper a resolution which reads as follows:
Whereas over four billion dollars of life insurance is now carried in Canada by private companies;
And whereas, the multiplication of services involves an enormous unnecessary expense;
And whereas, under modern conditions, life insurance has become a necessity.
Therefore be it resolved, that, in the opinion of this House, life insurance (like the postal service) should be established as a government monopoly.
That resolution was placed on the order paper in my name, but owing to the pressure of business this session I was unable to move it; still it has been a means of testing public opinion in this country. I have 'had correspondence from many .people with regard to this resolution, which at least is very interesting to me, and I have not had a single criticism. I am going to quote extracts from two of these letters. One reads:
Having had eighteen years experience in the life insurance business I wish to congratulate you on your resolution re life insurance being taken over by the government. This would be a step in the right direction and help to reduce the taxation of the country as the millions now being made by private individuals out of the life insurance business would help the government, and also have a tendency to give the public a reduction of premiums.
The other one reads:
Kindly accept my thanks and I hope that thousands are writing relative to your noble suggestion of government ownership of all insurance companies of Canada.
I contend, Mr. Chairman, that these letters reflect public opinion. One hon. gentleman in this House, speaking to me privately the other night, thought that the criticism we were making against the Sun Life was because of the fact that the Sun Life head office happened to be in the city of Montreal. The suggestion .is absolutely absurd; we would criticize this bill even if the company had its head office in Winnipeg or Calgary. We have no enmity against the Sun Life because its head office happens to be in Montreal. I claim the time will come when the government will have to recognize the necessity of taking over all life insurance, and probably the first step towards that will be to mutualize our present insurance companies. I think this is going to be brought nearer to us by the

Sun Life Assurance Company
action of such companies as this in coming to parliament to increase their capital when there is no need, and when their first duty is to their policyholders. If we pass this bill it will be detrimental to the -best interests of such policyholders.


Samuel William Jacobs: Mr. Chairman, I have
listened for the last day or two that the committee has been sitting on this bill to the remarks of the gentlemen who have opposed it, and I have come to the conclusion that there is a misconception on their part as to its aims and objects. For instance, my friend who has just sat down (Mr. Spencer) seems to think there is some relation between the desire to raise the capital stock from two to four million dollars and the interests of the policyholders. He certainly could not have read the bill or he would not have come to that conclusion. The policyholders have their rights fixed by statute and by the bylaws of the company. They are entitled to 95 per cent of the profits of the company; that is fixed by by-law. Under the insurance law of 1910 the company has the right to take 10 per cent for dividends to stockholders, for management, and so on; but of its own free will it reduced that 10 per cent to 5 per cent, it is now taking 5 per cent, and there is nothing in the wide world to-day in the law which can prevent the company going back and taking from the policyholders the 10 per cent which by by-law it is entitled to take. I wonder what the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) has to say to that?


William Irvine: I will tell you in a minute.


Samuel William Jacobs: Tell me now.


William Irvine: Go on with your speech.


Samuel William Jacobs: I do not think you have
any answer, because you are glib enough when you have an answer. The hon. gentleman just referred to me as the member from Jerusalem. I recognize the jibe. But in the days when Jerusalem was a city and Palestine was a country we would have dealt with him in the way which was then customary-stoned him or driven him out of the country. He ought to be mighty glad that he did not live in Jerusalem those days.


William Irvine: Hear, hear.


Samuel William Jacobs: I pause for an answer to my question. The hon. gentleman cannot answer it. I ask him, is he aware that this company can charge 10 per cent to its participating policyholders and is charging only 5 per cent?


William Irvine: Yes.


Samuel William Jacobs: He got up Tuesday night and spoke for an hour in a most learned way about insurance and finance, and he gave some people-those who do not know him-the impression that he knew something about those matters. If he were talking on the shorter catechism perhaps I would give him credit for knowing something of it. I want to tell him that 'he should remember the old adage Ne sutor ultra crepidam-the shoemaker should not go beyond his last.


William Irvine: That is what you are doing now.


Samuel William Jacobs: What do directors of the
company propose to do? They say: We have been taking 5 per cent; we are entitled to take 10 per cent; but we are prepared to go further, we want to reduce this 5 per cent eventually down to 3 per cent, that is, to 4^, then to 4, and at the end of ten years we are willing to take 3 per cent instead of the 10 per cent to which we are entitled. But these gentlemen here who are looking after the interests of the policj'holders of the Sun Life say: we do not want that; we do not want you to fix by statute 3 per cent as the amount you are to take, we want to leave it open to you to say that at any time you can take 10 per cent.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Could the hon. gentleman assure the committee that this increased capital will not be made by stock bonuses?


Samuel William Jacobs: I will read a letter from the president and manager of the Sun Life Company, a gentleman of some prominence and consequence in this country I have his permission to read it. Under date of April 8, 1927, he says:
We have absolutely no intention of issuing even one share of new stock as a bonus to our stockholders. If our bill becomes law we propose gradually to increase the capital up to $4,000,000, but every additional share which we may issue will be subscribed for in the usual way, and will be paid for in hard cash at its full par value.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What does "part cash" mean?


Samuel William Jacobs: "Hard cash." As we say in French argent dur. The letter is signed "T. B. Macaulay, President."


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is there anything in the bill to indicate that that must be done?	[DOT]


Samuel William Jacobs: I would tell my friend from Winnipeg that the increased capital stock has no relation at all to the policyholders' interests -absolutely not. If this company were in-

Sun Life Assurance Company
corporated by letters patent at the office of the Secretary of State, we would go to his department, put our money down and ask him to increase the capital stock. And he could not refuse, to do it. What interest has any person here to oppose an increase of the capital stock of the Sun Life Company? Here is a company with a capital stock under two million dollars, 'but it has assets of $350,000,000. It is top-heavy. In its business throughout the world, and particularly in England where, as hon. members know, the company has large interests, it occasionally absorbs other companies-it reinsures the policyholders of other companies, and this cannot be done without the consent of the court. When the company appears before the court to get permission to reinsure, the court finds that so far as the capital is concerned it is a halfpenny company in relation to its assets, and will refuse the required penmisison 'because the capital stock is not large enough. The court feels that the larger the capital stock the greater the security there is for the stockholders, because if there is a subscription for ten or fifteen million dollars, and it is not all paid up, and something goes wrong with the company, every man who has underwritten that capital stock is obliged to pay up. Every lawyer knows that and every intelligent man knows that-I would say, every other intelligent man.
I can see where my friends from Alberta have gone wrong on this thing. They think if you increase the capital stock you are going to disguise the huge profits Which the company is making, and it is in some way going to detract from the interests and profits of the policyholders. But their profits are fixed. It makes no difference whether the company is a million dollar or a hundred million dollar company, the profits which it makes are divided between the policyholders and the stockholders as ninety-seven is to three. As hon. gentlemen can see $3 for managing the business of this company out of every $100 is nothing more nor less than a postage stamp. A few years ago if you made out a cheque for $1 you had to affix a two-cent stamp. Here the policyholders are asked only to contribute $3 for the investment of their money, for the management of the company, and so on. Surely that is not unreasonable and I think the question never should have been discussed before this committee and before parliament. The bill should have been allowed to go through as a matter of course.
I ask again, how would the defeat of this bill affect the policyholders? If I thought
for a moment that the company intended by the increase of its capital stock in any way to interfere with the profits of the policyholders, I would not be advocating its cause here. It is for the reason that I see the thing is just and right that I am asking for it. After all, large financial companies have some rights, even before parliament. It may be true that they are the poor little rich girl, but they have certain rights. My friends from Alberta have come to this House from time to time with bills affecting them, and which we found were just and right, and we voted for them, although sometimes-


Henry Elvins Spencer: Sometimes.


Samuel William Jacobs: My friend laughs at this. May I remind him of the bills we put through this year affecting the welfare of the people of the province of Alberta?


Henry Elvins Spencer: What bills?


Samuel William Jacobs: The old age pension bill and-[DOT]


Henry Elvins Spencer: That will benefit eastern Canada more than Alberta.


Samuel William Jacobs: We have also put through amendments to the Grain Act, and a rural credits bill. Surely those affect the people of Alberta.


Henry Elvins Spencer: They are paying for it.


Samuel William Jacobs: Exactly, but we could have stood up here night after night and blocked those bills if we felt so disposed, but we do not do that because we feel that perhaps the members from Alberta will some day see the light and join the members from Saskatchewan who are sitting on this side of the House. We feel that there is some potential good in these gentlemen.


Edward Joseph Garland: I notice the hon. gentleman's reputation as a humorist is not waning.


Samuel William Jacobs: I am glad my friend from Bow River recognizes that I am a humorist; it takes an Irishman to recognize that. I say, Mr. Chairman, that if our friends were really sincere in this matter, they would not talk the bill out, but would take it up clause by clause and discuss it intelligently, and with the responsibility which I think they ought to feel, instead of simply blocking the bill holus-bolus without giving any particular reason except the alleged reasons of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin. I say that such a procedure is beneath the dignity of this parliament to countenance.
Sun Life Assurance Company


Henry Elvins Spencer: The hon. gentleman, I suppose, thinks that his is the only good reason.


Samuel William Jacobs: I challenge my hon. friend who has just spoken or any member on the other side of the House to deny the statements I have made here. I challenge them and wait for an answer. I ask my hon. friend from Battle River if it is not in the interests of the policyholders that the shareholders' interests in the profits of this company should be reduced to three per cent, and that the policyholders should be allowed seven per cent to which by law they are not entitled. We are offering our policyholders 97 per cent of the profits. They are entitled to only 90 per cent, and these so-called friends of the policyholders say: No, we will not have it; there is something sinister in this; the company wants to increase its capital so that it can issue watered stock.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The hon. gentleman's
words were, "We are offering our policyholders." May I ask him if he is connected with this company?


Samuel William Jacobs: I am a policyholder in half a dozen different companies, but the Sun Life is not one of them.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Are you a shareholder or a director?


Samuel William Jacobs: I am not a shareholder, unfortunately, I am sorry to say, and in that respect I am in the same position as a good many members of this House, but even if I were, it would not affect my argument.
With regard to clause 2, declaring that the authorized capital stock of the company is $4,000,000, they have the opinion of five of the most eminent counsel in Canada, led by Mr. Eugene Lafieur, a jurist of international repute, who tells the company that their capital stock is $4,000,000, and not $2,000,000. When the company was first organized, they obtained permission to issue $4,000,000 of capital stock, $2,000,000 for the life insurance, and $2,000,000 for fire and accident insurance. Subsequently they declared by act of parliament that they were not going into the fire and accident business and that the company would be a life insurance company and nothing else, but nothing was declared with regard to the $2,000,000 capital stock with which they were going to carry on the fire and accident insurance business. Mr. Lafieur takes the ground that inasmuch as parliament did not take away the right to issue $4,000,000 of capital stock, and inasmuch as the other right was

taken away, they are still a company of $4,000,000 capital stock. But you can understand that a gigantic company like the Sun Life, one of the largest insurance companies in the world, wanted to put this question beyond all doubt and peradventure and so it is declared in section 2:
Notwithstanding any doubts which may have arisen by reason of the provisions of any of the amending acts, the authorized capital stock of the company is $4,000,000, as contemplated in section 2 of the said act of incorporation, and the unsubscribed portion thereof may be issued from time to time by the directors in such amounts as they may deem in the interests of the company, but every such issue shall be sanctioned by a meeting of the shareholders.
In face of the opinion of these eminent attorneys, led by Mr. Lafieur, if I were the president of the company I would not come here hat in hand and ask parliament or the hon. member for Wetaskiwin to increase the capital stock from two to four million dollars. I would be content to abide by Mr. La-fleur's opinion. But here the bill is, and we have to deal with it.
Another clause provides that the company may issue capital stock of the par value of $10 per share instead of $100 per share, and an hon. gentleman on the other side professes to smell a rat there. He says: This looks serious. But, as a matter of fact, that provision is simply so that the stock shall be spread out more, particularly among the company's employees. Surely there is nothing sinister about that. There is nothing sinister about this bill at all, except what has been read into it by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin who spoke for an hour the other night and said nothing.
I have taken the trouble to look up some of the references to the insurance report of 1907, and I want to say that no reference therein applies to this bill. There is one passage which I would like to read, but I have not the time; I feel I should be standing in my own light if I talked till nine o'clock, and consequently would be doing the devil's work, and so I have decided to sit down. But when we discuss the bill clause by clause I can explain that point to the satisfaction of the committee.


William Irvine: I suppose that hon. gentlemen of the committee will be at a loss to understand this spontaneous combustion of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. He has spoken with the wisdom of the oracle and as a wizard of finance from that country to which he is so proud to belong. I have no doubt that if he had made the speech

Sun Life Assurance Company
he has made here to-night at the time when Palestine was in her heyday, it would possibly have been all right, but I suppose hon. gentlemen who have read the bill and have tried to understand it are quite well aware that the hon. gentleman did not give a correct interpretation of these various clauses. He did not inform the committee, for instance, that the company made 73 per cent last year on the actual cash invested in the company. He did not tell the committee that all the $2,000,000 of capital stock, with the exception of $305,000, was issued by way of bonuses voted from the funds of the company, and which came from the policyholders.
Mr, HANSON: Did not the stock bonuses come from the profits of the stockholders?


William Irvine: If the hon. gentleman will
take the trouble to look up the figures I placed on Hansard last Tuesday night-I did not create those figures; they are from the Insurance department-he will find the answer to bis question. He knows perfectly well, if he has looked them up, that I am not trying to misrepresent the situation at all. The hon. member who has championed the increasing of the capital stock of this company has failed to give us all the facts, and has taken the popular way of interpreting the clauses. For instance, he says that the company want to reduce the par value to $10 a share. What does that mean? Does that mean that they are going to cheapen the stock of the company accordingly? It means that they are going to be able to charge 179 per cent profit next year instead of 73 per cent.


Samuel William Jacobs: Not at all.


William Irvine: Provided we confirm this
$2,000,000 increase.


Samuel William Jacobs: It is not true.


William Irvine: It is true, and I again
challenge my hon. friend to show it is not true..


Samuel William Jacobs: I will tell you this-


William Irvine: You will not tell me anything. I have the floor.


Samuel William Jacobs: You challenged me to tell
you.


William Irvine: You can tell me on some
other occasion. I am not listening to the combustion of my hon. friend. 'It is all very well for the hon. member to challenge other people when he knows that he has the floor. I have the floor and I am challenging my hon. friend for the same reason he challenges me.


Samuel William Jacobs: And I am ready to answer, but you will not permit me to do so.


William Irvine: My hon. friend knows
perfectly well he was misrepresenting the situation.


Samuel William Jacobs: I rise to a point of order.
The hon. member says I have been misrepresenting the situation.


An hon. MEMBER:: Knowingly.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take it back.


John Frederick Johnston: I did not hear the
hon. member make such a charge. If he did, it is not according to rule, and he should withdraw it.


William Irvine: Let me put it this way-


An hon. MEMBER:: Take it back.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: The hon. member said
that my hon. friend behind me misrepresented the situation. No member in this House has the right to make such a statement and have it remain on Hansard, when the hon. gentleman says he did not misrepresent him.


William Irvine: That is the only reason
that I will withdraw it.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The statement is not
\v0rth3' of any member of this House.


William Irvine: The statement my hon.
friend made just nowl The hon. member tried to make it appear that this company was doing a magnanimous thing by fixing its rate of profit at 5 per cent, or at 3 per cent subsequently; he tries to suggest also that they were reducing the value of their stock from $100 to $10, and that possibly would make it very popular with those who wish to purchase it when the stock is at that figure. But will my hon. friend say that there are no implications in that clause of the bill fm'ther than he expressed to the House?


Samuel William Jacobs: I have read the letter of
the president, and that is sufficient for me.


William Irvine: Well, it is not sufficient
for me.


Samuel William Jacobs: But you do not know the
president. He knows you.


William Irvine: I am not interested in who the president is. I am not speaking against the president or the company itself. It is a Canadian company, an excellent company; it has performed splendid service to

Sun Life Assurance Company
Canada, and I -hope it will perform more service in the future. I believe the time will come when that company will thank me for talking out this bill, for they will discover, if they do not see it now, that it is in the highest interests of the company that this measure be not put through. I do not think that any company can for long enter into competition, in selling insurance and giving good service, with a company that is entirely mutual, which returns to its policyholders its entire profits and earnings. As long as any fraction of that profit goes to stockholders in a company where stockholders are not necessary and where capital is a hindrance, the company cannot possibly compete successfully with one that is entirely mutual. I believe this bill should be killed. I think the committee should have voted for my motion when I moved that the committee rise. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat jeered at the interpretation of the act which I presented to the House on Tuesday evening, but I notice that he did not make an attempt to answer one single argument. It is true that by suggestion be tried to undermine the force of the argument by making a personal attack.


Samuel William Jacobs: Excuse me, I made no
personal attack on the hon. member. The reason I did not answer the arguments is that' there were none to answer.


William Irvine: Am I to assume the hon.
gentleman can answer an argument when there is none? Why should he have taken half an hour to answer something that was not there? That seems rather a strange thing. Only a humorist like my hon. friend could do a thing like that. He did try to answer the argument which I presented by a sarcastic remark with regard to knowledge of finance which I pretended to possess. I am not laying claim to knowledge of any kind more than the average individual, and I think the remark came rather badly from my hon. friend. But he did not challenge one single point that I made. I argued that capital was not necessary in an insurance company. This company has got along very well, and has risen to a very successful point, having only a very small subscribed capital. It got through all its building years and through all the early stages of its development, on a very small capital, and built up a business so successful that they are making so much profit that they do not know what to do with it; and yet now they want to bring in more capital in order to make more profits. They

know the capital is not required. The hon. gentleman tried to prove that it was required, but he knows it is not required and he also knows that capital that is not required has no more business to be paid than labour has any business to be paid when it is not working.
The 'hour for private bills having expired, the Speaker resumed the Chair.



BANKING AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE


Francis Wellington Hay: With the consent of the House I ask leave to present the seventh report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce on Bill No. 305, to incorporate the Commerce Mutual Fire Insurance Company.


Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent
of the House.


Francis Wellington Hay: I .move that Bill No. 305, to incorporate the Commerce Mutual Fire Insurance Company, be placed on the order paper among private bills for third reading.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILLS Mr. J. T. THORSON (Winnipeg South Centre):	With the consent of the House, I
desire to move that we now proceed to the consideration of the private bills which are not contested-divorce bills and others-of which there is a large number on the order -paper.
Hewitt Bostock: What is the sentiment
of the House?


An hon. MEMBER:: No.
Motion negatived.

The House in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS

[Stage Direction]
Railways and Canals-Hudson Bay Railway and terminals: construction and betterments, including E. B. Jost at $2,500, $5,130,000.
Hugh Guthrie: This item for the construction of betterment will carry the road to a point on the Hudson bay. Is that impression correct?
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): I thought it would probably facilitate the discussion of the item if I made a brief general statement regarding the whole matter. As is well known, it is the policy of the government to complete

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
what is known as the Hudson bay route at as early a date as possible and to give to that route at the earliest opportunity a practical test. The plans which I am about to outline for the immediate future have that object in view. It is contemplated, in addition to the work on the railway and possible work on the port, to conduct an early investigation into the necessities for aids to navigation in the strait. That is not covered by the item at present under discussion by the committee, but no discussion of our policy in regard to the Hudson bay route would be complete without it. There will be found later an item m the estimates of the Department of Marine and Fisheries embracing the work which it is planned to do during this fiscal year in connection with the strait. In that connection I may say briefly that it is intended to send up a ship and a number of aeroplanes to establish in the strait three aeroplane bases and to arrange for a continuous early reconnaissance for a period of approximately one year in order to determine what aids to navigation are required and in order also to secure information looking to the lengthening of the known period of navigation through the strait. It is hoped, with the aid of modem equipment which will be used for that purpose, to make such a study of currents and ice conditions as will render available a mass of information for the guidance of mariners when the route is used, as we all hope it will be, in the not distant future. Further, it will be possible for the expedition to the strait to determine exactly the nature of the aids to navigation which will be required.
With regard to the work on the railway and at the port, I may observe that the development of the port facilities is by far the most extensive undertaking; the development of the port facilities will occupy the longest period of time. The construction of the railway is the simplest part of the work from the point of view of time. A large part of the study given to this subject by the officers of the government has been directed towards the most expeditious and economical method of port development. In connection with Port Nelson the feature which is the greatest time consumer is the necessity for dredging a portion of the channel. The natural channel extends up the estuary of the Nelson. The artificial island which is now partly constructed is some twenty-two miles from the bay itself and a navigable channel of sufficient depth extends to within approximately five miles of that island. For three and a half miles of that last five, the channel must
be dredged. That has been well known for a number of years. The amount of dredging required is approximately five and a half million cubic yards in a channel three hundred feet wide and approximately three and a half miles long, varying in depth. At any rate the work involves the removal of five and a half million cubic yards of material.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What kind of bottom?


Charles Avery Dunning: The nature of the material is boulder clay which can be disposed of with a dipper dredge. That is the great time consumer in connection with Nelson. There is no doubt at all that we can complete the railway and the necessary dock and terminal facilities very much sooner than it would be possible for ships to come up to the dock, the reason being, as I have stated, the fact that so much dredging requires to be done. The department has been at some considerable trouble to estimate the length of time which will be necessary in order to accomplish this dredging. Of necessity, estimates of this character must be only approximate, inasmuch as delay may occur through breakage of machinery and operating under water. Another factor to be considered is this: the material dredged must be transported by scows over the twenty-two miles to the open sea or bay. It cannot be dumped in the channel or in the shallow water because the tendency would be to block the channel lower down. It is necessary therefore to plan not only the dredging of the artificial channel to which I am referring but to carry the dredged material twenty-two miles out to the sea. On the basis of operating these dredges with the necessary auxiliary craft the period estimated by the department's engineers before the complete channel up to the dock will be fully available for use will be six years. That does not mean that the port cannot be used at all before the lapse of that time. It may be possible to use the channel before it is dredged to its ultimate width but there are of course necessary limitations to such use. When the government was made aware of the study which the engineers had given to this phase of the subject it was deemed desirable, having regard to the need of getting operations started as expeditiously as possible, to secure the very best advice on port development. It was recognized, in view of the controversial nature of the Hudson bay project, that if any Canadian engineer were invited to make a study of it in all probability there would be charges or statements that he was prejudiced one way or the other; therefore the government decided to endeavour to secure the services of
Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

an unquestioned authority on port development. Through the cooperation of the High Commissioner in London the services of Mr. Frederick Palmer were secured for that work. Who is Mr. Palmer? Mr. Frederick Palmer is an engineer of long and wide experience in port development in many parts of the world; he was for many years chief engineer for the government of India in connection with railways, ports and irrigation; more recently he has been the head of his own firm in London; at present he is consulting engineer to the ports of London and Glasgow and is consulting engineer to. the British government in connection with colonial port development. This year he also occupies what I believe is regarded as the blue ribbon position of the engineering world; he is president of the British Engineering Institute. I think there can be no question that in securing the advice of such a man in connection with an undertaking involving such large expenditures, the government has adopted a wise course. Mr. Palmer visited Ottawa and conducted here an examination of all the records and data in connection with the Hudson bay project; he will return in the summer to pay a personal visit to Hudson bay. Following consultation with him and after he had gone into the records very considerably, on behalf of the government I wrote him a letter of instruction which I propose to read to the committee, in order that the position of things from the point of view of the government's instructions to the engineer may be plain. The letter is dated January 5, 1927, and is as follows:
Dear Mr. Palmek,
In order that we may have record of the understandings reached as a result of our several conferences, I beg to advise you as follows:
In 1911, the Canadian government commenced the construction of a railway to Hudson bay. In 1912, in order that the road might be placed completely under contract, it became necessary for the government of the day to make immediate choice between the only two possible ports on the west coast, Nelson and Churchill. After a personal visit to both places by the then minister, and consideration of the information available at the time, the minister, on the advice of his engineering staff, recommended the establishment of the railway terminus at Nelson. and plans for harbour terminals were prepared by an engineer specially selected and sent to Nelson for that purpose. Upon consideration of the scheme of development then suggested differences of opinion arose, and the engineer resigned his appointment. A member of the departmental engineering staff was then assigned the task of preparing suitable plans, as a result of which the present scheme of development at Nelson was approved and actively prosecuted by the department during 1914 and the succeeding years, until the fall of 1917, when the work was discontinued owing to war con-
ditions. During the following winter the construction of the railway was also discontinued upon completion of the bridge at the Kettle rapids crossing of the Nelson river, about 92 miles from Port Nelson.
On the railway $15,245,889 had been expended to March 31, 1926, and on the Nelson terminals $6,242,114.
At the present time that portion of the railway previously constructed is being reconditioned and it is planned to continue the construction of the railway in 1927. This imposes upon the government early consideration of the question of harbour development in order that the Hudson bay route may be assured fair trial as an ocean outlet for western grain and cattle, and for such other traffic in agricultural, mineral, forest and manufactured products as may develop.
Controversy has always existed as to the relative merits of Nelson and Churchill as the bay terminus, and notwithstanding the selection of Nelson in 1912-13, controversy has persisted. In 1920, a special committee of the Senate was appointed to examine and report upon the Hudson bay project generally, and upon the character of the ports and their fitness for terminals. Upon the evidence then adduced the committee reached the following conclusion upon the harbour phase of the project:
"That in the opinion of this committee sufficient care was not taken in the selection of Nelson as the terminus of the railway, and that the government should not make further important expenditures upon this port without first making a new and thorough examination into the relative merits of Churchill and Nelson as a terminus for the railroad."
In view of the substantial expenditure already incurred at Nelson, and the shorter rail haul to that point, the government is naturally predisposed towards Nelson, but desires, above all things, that the port chosen, and its arrangements, should afford the best possible opportunity for the development of trade through the bay.
The problem of harbour development in the two places differs very widely and, as regards Churchill, the use of that port would involve the construction, maintenance and operation of about 90 additional miles of railway. As to the suitability of the terrain between the Nelson and the Churchill rivers to railway construction *we hope to have definite information in the course of the next few months. Should the survey now being made disclose conditions unfavourable to railway construction, this would, of course, dispose of any question as to Churchill, but if a railway is found practicable, we will require your advice concerning Churchill also. If that port should be found to be capable of such early and economic development as would afford better and safer facilities than Nelson, and more readily available, that would be a factor of great importance to the successful development of the Hudson bay route. For these reasons we think it unwise and not in the interests of Canada to restrict your investigation to the port of Nelson only, unless, meanwhile, Churchill should be eliminated for railway reasons.
In the event of Churchill becoming a possibility we should have, in addition to relative costs of construction and maintenance, a comparative estimate of the length of time neces-

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
sary to provide terminals at either port sufficient to enable a proper test of the route to be made. We consider this element of time a matter of prime importance.
We want, also your opinion of the design of the existing works at Nelson, and as to whether any change could be made there which would either reduce the cost or the length of time required for deve'opment, or improve conditions in any way at that point.
What we have in mind as an initial test development-and this is suggested more for your guidance than as a conclusive and limiting instruction-would be the provision of accommodation in either harbour for six cargo ships in port at one time, with working berth for three of the six, the estimated draft of vessels to be not less than 26 feet. The minimum development projected at each port should, of course, be capable of such progressive extension as future requirements might dictate.
If a railway to Churchill be found practicable, we desire that your report should cover a possible development at both Nelson and Churchill, with estimated cost, your recommendation as to the choice to be made and reasons therefor.
In outlining, in this general way, the matters upon which the government desires your advice, it is not intended to ask you to consider problems unconnected with port development. We appreciate that, owing to climatic conditions, it will not be possible for you to conduct your personal examination of Nelson and Churchill before next summer. We shall, however, do everything in our power to facilitate your work at both points and would be glad to have your conclusions as soon as possible thereafter, as we are anxious to avoid delay in the prosecution of this important undertaking.
Faithfully yours,
Charles A. Dunning.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the date of that
letter, please?


Charles Avery Dunning: January 5, 1927, when
Mr. Palmer was out here conducting his examination. It will be seen from the letter of instructions that the object of the government is greater expedition, together with certainty as to the right thing to be done from an engineering standpoint. We are anxious to proceed in the light of the fullest knowledge possible, and we are convinced that the course adopted will involve no delay in the completion of the project. We recognize, - as anyone examining the matter must recognize, that in connection with Nelson, the amount of dredging to be done to make a channel to the dock constitutes a material factor of time As to whether a change in the design of the works at Nelson might reduce that factor of time is a matter upon which we expect advice from Mr. Palmer.


Peter McGibbon: Could the minister give
us some estimate as to the cost of that dredging?


Charles Avery Dunning: I gave to the committee last year, when a similar vote was before it, the departmental estimate of the cost of completing the work at Nelson. It is understood, of course, that these figures are subject-to revision in case a change of design or a change in the character of the work should be resolved upon as a result of the investigation now being made. This is the formal departmental estimate of last June based upon provision for 10 seven-thousand ton ships all in port at the same time. And here I would call attention to the fact that the departmental estimate is for a larger port capacity than that which we have set in our instructions to Mr. Palmer as the maximum design. That of course will be a qualifying factor. These figures also include provision for a four million bushel elevator. I am inclined to think myself that for an initial development a four million bushel elevator is not required; a smaller capacity would do. Now the estimate of the cost is as follows:
Entrance channel end island to op posite Allette 20" below low water, earth and boulders 1,570,000 yds
at 1.60	 $2,512,000
Along dock face on island:
4.400	ft. to 30 ft. below L.W.O.S.T. earth and boulders 2,700,000 yds
at 1.20	 3,240,000
5.400	ft. to 15 ft. below L.W.O.S.T. earth and boulders 1,200,000 yds
at 1 20	 1,440,000

4.000	ft. dock walls at 77 yds.
308.000	at 12.00	$3,696,000
Sinking and preparing crib seats
308.000	at 4.00	 1,232,000
3.000	ft. rear crib at 25 yds. 75,000
at 12.00	  900,000
4.000	ft. anchorage crib 12 yds.
48.000	at 12.00	 576,000
Anchorage bolts 4,000 ft. at 200
lbs. 800,000 at 14c	 112,000
Filling of island above elev. 7
1.200.000	at 60c	 720,000
7,236,000
That figure, of course, would be subject to qualifications by reason of any alterations in the design or capacity of the work, especially the latter amount. Then provision for a four million bushel elevator is made. Again I would qualify that. My own view is that a one million bushel elevator would be the most desirable form of equipment to instal, with facilities for enlargement as the use of the port developed. Then there is $300,000 for a lighthouse crib at the entrance to the harbour. This is the departmental estimate



Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
of cost based upon the existing works at Nelson, and provision for ten ships in port at one time instead of six which we have now set as the maximum initial development.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the total?


Charles Avery Dunning: The total of these figures, including 10 per cent for engineering management, is $20,600,000, and that is identical with the figure I gave to the committee last year. And again I would emphasize that that figure will stand revision downward in proportion as the work may be modified in extent or changed in type as the result of the investigation now being conducted.
With regard to Churchill, there is one factor which I think I should bring to the attention ot the committee, and that is a letter from Mr. Palmer with reference to the decision made with regard to the port in the first place. I desire in this connection to make it perfectly clear that I am not putting this forward in any critical spirit in relation to lose who were in charge when the port was c.msen, but simply, as a matter of fact, illustrating rather the need for care and investigation at the present time. Mr. Palmer say?:
I think it is necessary to call attention to the fact that there was a complete absence of engineering data at the time when the decision was arrived at to locate the port at Nelson. It is very desirable that this mistake shall not be repeated when reconsidering that decision. During the progress of the works at Nelson a great deal of information has been obtained from time to time, but in regard to Churchill the position to-day is that there is absolutely no data upon which anything approaching a reliable estimate of costs can be formulated. I have therefore given Colonel Dubuc a memorandum of requirements in regard to borings, trial pits, etc., information regarding which must be in my hands before a scheme can be prepared. About Nelson no further data seems to be necessary, and when those for Churchill have been completed, and the estimated costs of the railway works are forthcoming it will be possible to place before you a very fair comparison of the merits of both these ports.
Then follows a list of his requirements. It is important for the committee to know that the only data obtainable in the Department of Railways to-day regarding Churchill is a hydrographic chart of the harbour giving the depth of the water. There is no engineering data available. When Mr. Palmer asked a question in the department as to what the bottom of Churchill harbour consisted of, no one in this department or in any other department of the government could give him exact or certain information. Everyone said, there are boulders there. The important thing, however, was what lies under the boulders. If it is rock, manifestly that has a great bearing upon the engineering aspects 
at Churchill. If in the other hand it is clay and boulders, the same character of material as exists at Nelson, that again has an important bearing upon Churchill as a port. The government naturally hopes that investigation will show that the work should be completed at Nelson, because of the shorter rail haul to that port and the investment which has already been made there. I have said sufficient with regard to the length of time necessary to develop Nelson to indicate, I think, sound reasons for the present investigation, which I again emphasize will not involve any delay in the completion of the road. The minds of many people are fixed upon the railway. They say: Get the railway to tidewater and then we can use the route. That is an unfortunate misconception. It is not possible to use this route in the manner in which the people of western Canada wish it to be used, until it is possible for a ship to tie up to the dock in order to take on her cargo. That is the determining factor, and because it is the determining factor we must ascertain the amount of dredging to be done. The measurements are as reasonably accurate as underwater measurements can be made, and are the result of observations taken during the years through which the work was prosecuted at that point.
With regard to the railroad, work has been continued throughout the whole of the last fiscal year according to plan. I think everything that was expected to be accomplished during that period has been. The amount voted last session will, I believe, be practically all expended when we get the final accounts in. The work has been done for the Department of Railways and Canals by the Canadian National Railways in the same manner as they would handle a piece of their own construction work. There still remains a considerable amount of work to be done on the existing line. When we started in 1926 the steel was at mile 332, but, as the committee knows, a considerable portion of the line west of that point had not been operated for some years previously because of its very bad condition. No engine terminal facilities and no regular water facilities existed and the whole line had been allowed to run down in condition since the date at which work stopped in 1917. The line has been reconditioned and temporary steel has been laid as far as mile 350, which is the crossing of the Limestone river, where a bridge is now under process of construction. The mileage between 332 and 350 is not in operating condition. The steel was laid on the bare grade just for the purpose of getting forward the material for

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
the big steel bridge across the Limestone river. There also remains considerable work to be done on the line west of mile 332. A lot has been done, but further reconditioning is required. Engine terminals at some of the divisional points are not yet completed, neither is the necessary increased plant at the Pas, which is the terminal of the line.
That is all, Mr. Chairman, that I can think of at the moment by way of a general statement. Doubtless other questions will arise. I think I have all the information here for the committee. I only want to emphasize in conclusion that there will be no holdup in the work as a result of the investigation now proceeding, and it is hoped that before the end of this fiscal year we shall be able to make a substantial start on the assembling of materials and machinery necessary for work at the port.


Hugh Guthrie: At what port, may I ask?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have indicated, Mr. Chairman, that we expect to be guided by the investigation in that regard. We hope that it will be Nelson. It will be Nelson unless it is demonstrated to our satisfaction, by the eminent engineer who is investigating it for us that Churchill can be more easily developed into a safer and better port, and that it will be economically advantageous to Canada to use that port instead of the other.


Peter McGibbon: When do you expect
Mr. Palmer's report?
Mr. DUNNING Not later than August.


Hugh Guthrie: Does the $5,130,000 which is asked for in the estimate carry the work to the port?


Charles Avery Dunning: If Nelson is the port,
yes. I should have made a statement with regard to a factor which undoubtedly the committee noted in the letter of instructions to Mr. Palmer, and that is the practicability of a railroad to Churchill. In previous discussions in this House members will recall it was frequently stated that the building of a railroad to Churchill was impracticable because of bottomless bogs and things of that sort. Of course if that were the case we would have to make the best of Nelson whatever the conditions were. So we determined to find out whether or not it was really practicable to build the railroad to Churchill. This winter the Canadian National sent out a survey party north from the Limestone river crossing to Churchill. They are within forty or fifty miles of Churchill now. The department 32649-136i
is in touch with them constantly by radio. Up to the present they have discovered no impossible conditions whatever. So far as gradient is concerned there will be no difficulty; so far as bog is concerned, the reports which we get over the radio indicate that the terrain does not differ materially from the terrain through which this railway and other railways in northern Canada have been constructed. There is apparently no doubt as to the practicability of a railway to Churchill. I should like, however, to qualify this by saying that we should await the final report of the chief of the survey party before making too definite statements in that regard, the only information we have received being over the radio in the form of short, scrappy messages.


Mr. BIRD:: When does the minister expect a complete report of the survey?


Charles Avery Dunning: Within a month-that is an instrumental survey.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Chairman, I have
only a few brief observations to make in regard to this vote and this project. I am one of those who has been a supporter of the project since it was first brought up in this parliament I think in 1910, or perhaps 1909. I have continued ever since to have faith in the project, to the extent at least of carrying the road on to the bay. At the present time we must realize the actual situation. We have gone so far with the project that to my -mind we cannot turn back.


Charles Avery Dunning: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: We are bound to go forward. If in the end it does not realize all our expectations, I believe that to a very large extent the expenditure will some day be justified. I think the government and the minister are acting wisely in making further examination and investigation in regard to what we understand is the Hudson bay route. But I do not suggest they are taking the best steps to secure satisfactory information. I have been told that aerial surveys will not prove satisfactory in regard to tides or currents or channels or ice, or the like, and that the only satisfactory manner in which this difficult water can be tested with respect to navigation is by actual navigation. I do not want to throw any doubt upon the proposal of the minister with regard to his aerial surveys, but-


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps my hon. friend
will permit me? Maybe I did not make it clear and what I am about to say will

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
facilitate his remarks. It is intended of course that the boat which is being sent up there specially equipped will also navigate during the whole open period in and through the strait. She is an ice-breaker.


Hugh Guthrie: I have heard it stated
that the only reliable information we will get in regard to navigation in the strait will be through actual experience of navigation in those waters. Now I think I have seen in these estimates a very large item, about three quarters of a million dollars, which I believe is to be appropriated for aerial investigation. My information is that if a third of that amount were used in actual navigation experiments, far more satisfactory results would be obtained. Has the minister ever taken into consideration the fact that we have a considerable marine fleet unused in this country at the present time? Could not these ships be used for the purpose of experimental navigation through this channel?


Charles Avery Dunning: Which ships?


Hugh Guthrie: The Canadian Government Merchant Marine ships.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is only one unused.


Hugh Guthrie: Could we not take for this purpose some of the ships that are in use, or secure by purchase or charter or otherwise ships for this purpose? We could with the expenditure of a much less sum than is proposed to be expended on aerial observation get, actual results in the navigation of these waters both this year and next year. That would save money, and the information we would get, I am informed by men who seem to know, wrould be far more satisfactory than any information we can get from aerial photographs or anything of that kind.
I think that the government and the minister are well advised to make full and careful examination before they go too far with this project. I hope that the project will be successful throughout. I have always supported it, but if some doubt has arisen in recent times as to the practicability, in fact, even as to the possibility, of successful commercial navigation of this water, no one knows of that doubt more definitely than the minister himself and the government. We have no satisfactory information yet as to the commercial practicability of this route. I agree that the road should be completed to a port; I think it would be idle to leave the road in its present incomplete condition. I agree too that the work should be ex-

pedited. I do not think that in any event (he road is going to be a dead loss to the country, but I would not like to commit myself to the expenditure of a greater amount than is required to construct the road up to a port. Until we have absolutely definite information as to the practicability of navigation of the Hudson bay and Hudson strait -and the minister has his doubts on that subject-


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh no.


Hugh Guthrie: I think the minister and (he government have their doubts, and until those doubts are resolved I think we should go slow, and not proceed further than the best port on the bay. I have always understood that there were possibilities in regard to both Port Nelson and Fort Churchill, and I suppose that it was in the light of the information we had in former days, with the engineering staff we were then able to command, that Port Nelson was selected as the better port. But, so far, we know very little about Fort Churchill, and it may turn out that Fort Churchill is the better port. I do not think that anyone can speak positively as to that at present, but whichever port is selected, let us go there, and let us have pretty definite information before we launch on the larger scheme.


Charles Avery Dunning: I appreciate very much the manner in which my hon. friend has received my observations on this subject. I would only point out to him that I evidently was not clear in the observations I made with reference to the work in the strait. The work in the strait, which is not comprised within this vote, of course, but which it is convenient to discuss as this stage, is not being done because the government has any doubt about the navigability of the strait. We certainly believe that the strait is navigable, and we have proof of that, of course, in the fact that navigators have been navigating the strait for the last three hundred years. We have also records of the voyages made by the ships belonging to the Department of Railways and Canals during the period when work was being done up there.


Hugh Guthrie: I meant commercially
feasible navigation.


Charles Avery Dunning: The point upon which
we are desirous of securing information is as to the extent to which the period of open navigation through the strait may be lengthened at its latter end by the provision of adequate scientific aids to navigation. I do

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
not object to the criticism of my hon. friend with respect to the value of aerial observation.
I only desire to point out this in connection with it, that we are combining the two. We are sending up a ship which will navigate between the three bases to be established in the strait as long as navigation is possible, and in addition, we are taking aerial observations. Why are we taking aerial observations? My study of the matter, involving as it did a study of the track charts of all our vessels which have ever sailed through the strait in the course of the work done up there, indicated that while there might very frequently be ice in the strait, and very considerable fields ol ice in which the ship would be temporarily stuck, if the captain of that ship had only possessed a wider vision than the instruments at his command permitted, he would have found that clear water was not very far away. That is the point. The testing of the strait will place ait our disposal more than the ordinary facilities which the mariner possesses, and whose observation is limited, as those familiar with ships know. But we hope by aerial observation to be able to demonstrate that that route can, with modern aids to navigation, be kept open for a much longer period than the minimum of two months. I think it is admitted by all that the route is commercially navigable for at least two months in the year, and estimates run all the way from two up to ten months. I do not propose to quarrel either with those who believe in the minimum or with those who believe in the maximum. I only say that accurate information is desirable, and we believe that by combining constant navigation by a ship with aerial observations by aeroplanes we shall be able to demonstrate the feasibility of navigating the strait for a much longer period than is commonly believed to be possible.


Mr. PETTIT:: Do I understand the minister to say that the strait can be kept open for a period of ten months in the year? All the data go to show that they are open only from two and a half to four and a half months.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend will find
that men of some prominence in western Canada who claim to know something about the matter state that the strait can be navigated during the whole year. I am not expressing any opinion on that point; I am merely saying that it is desirable that we should secure accurate information upon it.


Peter McGibbon: I remember very distinctly discussing this matter wilth a former
member of the House, the 'late Captain Reid, representing Queens, Prince Edward Island. He told me that he had been in and out of those straits for a great many years, and that one of the difficulties he found was that the channel was constantly shifting on account of the sand.


Charles Avery Dunning: In the strait?


Peter McGibbon: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend must
have misunderstood.


Peter McGibbon: No, I did not. I am
positive that is what he told me, and I just wanted to draw the minister's attention to that fact, because this was the opinion of a man who has been going in and out of the strait for a great many years. Has the minister any information on that point?


Charles Avery Dunning: With regard to the depth of water in the strait, navigators have been passing through the strait for hundreds of years, and we have also admiralty charts and hydrographic charts showing a hundred fathoms of water there. I do not think it is less than that anywhere in the strait. That question never has been raised in practical form.


Mr. KENNEDY:: Will the minister tell
me if it is estimated that this $5,130,000 will complete the route.


Charles Avery Dunning: The route?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Yes, complete the
Hudson Bay railway, and develop the port to such an extent that grain can be carried.


Charles Avery Dunning: No. I think if my hon. friend had listened to my previous statement he would understand that I was very clear on that. It would finish the railway if it were (built to Nelson, and provide it with terminal facilities, and would leave approximately $2,000,000 to start work on the port. I gave the figures a little while ago, which I obtained from the department, not from Mr. Palmer, based on a larger port development than we have asked Mr. Palmer to base his calculations on, and they intimated that $20,000,000 in all will be the required amount to be spent on Nelson, if that is the port decided on, and assuming that we provide for ten ships in port at one time and for a four million bushel elevator, neither of which I consider is necessary.


John Wesley Edwards: How many
miles is it from the end of steel to the bay?

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway


Charles Avery Dunning: The steel is at present
laid to mile 350, and Nelson is 424 miles.


John Wesley Edwards: And some of 'that is graded?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, but the grading is
in bad shape.


John Wesley Edwards: In the event of Fort Churchill being decided on, can the minister give any idea at what mile he would branch off to go to Nelson?


Charles Avery Dunning: It would be somewhere
in the neighbourhood of mile 360, but that is not yet determined.


John Wesley Edwards: I suppose
the minister has it ini contemplation in the event of Fort'Churchill being decided on that the railway will also be completed to Nelson?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is not determined, but it is a possibility of course, depending upon what the investigation reveals.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The minister gave us
certain opinions as to the period of navigation. He gave us the opinion of one gentleman who said he thought these waters might be navigable from ten to twelve months of the year. Is that the opinion of the captain of a prairie schooner?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is the opinion of a
very distinguished supporter of the party to which my hon. friend belongs, Colonel Ralph H. Webb, the mayor of Winnipeg.


Mr. TODMIE:: When you take the opinion of anyone west of the great lakes and east of the Rocky mountains it is very likely to be questioned. With those ships which the minister spoke of using up there, a draught of about thirty feet will be required at low water.


Charles Avery Dunning: Thirty feet at high tide.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What kind of river is the
Nelson? Is it a bad river for silting?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is a very important point. Our information with regards to the Nelson river is that the present natural channel scours itself. The engineering plans upon which the present scheme is based contemplate that the channel which requires to be dug will also scour itself by operation of the same agency as scours the natural channel.
I may say, without criticism of any former administration, that because of the lack of engineering knowledge a sandsucker dredge was sent up to Nelson and there is not any sand to suck. It has not done any work. The material is boulder clay and the natural IMr. J. W. Edwards.]
channel scours itself completely out to sea. It must be borne in mind that the natural channel is a narrow channel of deep water through an estuary of about from five to fifteen miles in width.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What are the possibilities of fisheries? Would there be salmon canneries established?


Charles Avery Dunning: The Department of the Interior has issued a publication dealing with the fisheries, timber and other resources of the region. There are fishery possibilities.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Do I understand the minister to say that the plans contemplated the construction of a four million bushel elevator at Nelson?


Charles Avery Dunning: What I said was that the estimates prepared by the department in connection with the present scheme, which were prepared years ago and carried forward into the figures to-day, were for a four-million bushel terminal elevator. But that in my opinion, for a test, the provision of a one million bushel elevator with quick handling capacity would be sufficient, provided it was designed to permit of extension.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The government has
spent about 840,000,000 on it already. Did I understand the minister to say that the one-million bushel elevator was to be built to test the feasibility of the route?


Charles Avery Dunning: I think my hon. friend understands perfectly that in opening a new trade route such as this, and under the conditions which prevail, we must provide just sufficient facilities and no more to provide an adequate test. I used the word "test" in that sense.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: It is an experiment?


Charles Avery Dunning: I will not admit it is an experiment. We expect this route to be utilized. The degree of utilization is the question to be decided-not whether or not it will be utilized. We have sufficient information now to know that it can and will be utilized. As to the extent of utilization, we require to make tests.
Mr. KENNEDY': Does the minister intend to convey to the committee that if a million bushel elevator will be sufficient to take care of the grain that is to be shipped through Nelson or Churchill, or whatever port is finally decided on, the construction of the Hudson Bay railway will be justified for that amount of business?

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not expect a million bushel terminal elevator will justify the expenditure. If justification for the expenditure is required at this late date, let me state the basis upon which I would put it. I would first state it in this way; that looked at at this date, upon the basis stated by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, we have already built a portion of the line, and we have graded the whole railway to Nelson. We have laid the steel to mile 350 and the whole line will be 424 miles. That is basis No. 1. Then I say that it is the closest seaport to the prairie regions of the middle west. The people of the west have been looking in the direction of the Hudson bay for the last forty years, and mineral developments have taken place along the Hudson Bay railway. It cuts through the mineral belt of northern Manitoba. There are pulpwood possibilities in northern Manitoba. Some of the largest water-powers we have in western Canada are situated on the Nelson and Churchill rivers. There are therefore local development possibilities. There are fisheries on the Hudson bay and in the Arctic generally, and then there is all the wealth of the Arctic products of one kind and another which would be available to a port which would be a Canadian Arctic base, and it would become a base for Canadian Arctic produce.


Hugh Guthrie: I think the minister is aware that Ontario, by a special arrangement, owns the right of way from the Ontario pro' vincial boundary line through the province of Manitoba to Port Nelson. If the terminal is changed to Churchill will the province of Ontario have the right of way to the other port? There was a special reservation of a right of way in connection with the Temis-kaming and Northern Ontario Railway. There was a strip five miles wide to Port Nelson.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not sure as to the
position to-day of what I may call the corridor arrangement referred to by my hon. friend. I remember in the original arrangement with Ontario there was a corridor, so to speak, through Manitoba.


Hugh Guthrie: It is a five mile right of way.


Charles Avery Dunning: That may be. However, the government would not be disposed to prejudice that arrangement in any way with respect to either Nelson or Churchill. It may have lapsed or for some other reason it may not now be in force, but the government sees no reason why the original understanding should not be carried out.


Hugh Guthrie: The land now belongs
to Manitoba.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, it belongs to this
government.


Hugh Guthrie: When the boundaries of
Manitoba were enlarged, and before the land was handed over to that province, a reservation was made by the Dominion government of a five mile strip, the rest of the territory being handed over to the province.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend's memory is at fault. The lands of Manitoba are still held by the federal government.


Mr. BANCROFT:: Held is a better word
than owned.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. The lands are held by the Dominion government. It is interesting to note in connection with this whole Hudson bay matter .that only a week ago the Premier of Ontario announced the intention of that government to extend the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway to James bay, and those of us who know anything about navigation conditions in Hudson bay realize that if a port can be built on James bay it surely can be constructed on Hudson bay, for the reason that, as is well known, James bay is a large body of shallow water twelve feet in depth. Another important point in connection with James bay-here I am speaking again of ice conditions-is the fact that the drift of ice in Hudson bay, according to our records, is down the west side of the bay and into the pocket formed by James bay. I believe I am correct in stating that ice exists in James bay and blocks the exit from James bay for a far longer period than the exit into the bay from Nelson or Churchill would be blocked. I appreciate that the object of the Ontario government may not be to create a port on James bay but rather to develop the resources between the end of the present Temiskaming and Northern Ontario line and James bay itself. What my hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) says is a commentary on the resources of the north country generally. However, the province of Ontario findis it desirable out of its own resources to extend its own railway to the foot of James bay.


Peter McGibbon: A year ago the minister
informed me several times that the ex-mayor of Boniface had said that he represented a company who had the necessary capital and who were prepared to build the road without

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
any expense to the country at all. Is that statement true, and if so what effect has it on the situation? I interviewed the minister several times in the matter.


Charles Avery Dunning: The government did not take the offer seriously.
Mr. MicGIBBON: But was it made?


Charles Avery Dunning: If you can call it an offer, yes. The complete details of it have gone from my mind, but certainly it was not an offer that could be seized by the government.


Mr. BROWN:: Did they want the water-powers on the Nelson river?


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Does the minister think that one year's investigation with an aeroplane will settle any of the points in dispute in regard to Hudson strait. I am informed it would take a number of years to dispose of many of the points touching the navigation of the strait and I would refer the minister to some of the writings of Mr. J. B. Tyrrell, an old and personal friend of mine with whom I had a conversation not many days ago. There is not a man living who has spent as much time studying the Hudson bay as he has and his writings convince me that in his opinion the straits would not be navigable for more than two or three months in the year. As a Canadian and the representative of a constituency in Ontario I am inclined to think that in regard to all these young dreams of the people of Canada-


Charles Avery Dunning: This is not a young
dream, it is an old one.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: It may be old with the
minister but it is by no means an old dream so far as the expending of millions of dollars of the people's money is concerned. One-half of the money that is to be spent in this undertaking will be raised by the people of Ontario.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: The people of Ontario do
not object to paying for anything that will make for the development of Canada as a whole but they are entitled to have some basis for their faith, and no effort has been made to inform either Ontario or Quebec regarding the merits of this proposition. It seems to me that we might investigate the question more in detail and, as the leader of the opposition suggests, ascertain by actual experiment whether or not the strait is navigable. If it is navigable we are willing to support the scheme. I go home every week and am constantly in touch with the people of my con-
stituency and I run across men everywhere who are opposed to this undertaking. They consider that the government has not furnished them with sufficient information. I confess in my own case also to a want of knowledge of the subject. All I know is that the minister came here heralded as the man who was to put this business through.


Charles Avery Dunning: Who me?


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: But his faith is not quite so strong to-day as it was a year ago. He was satisfied then that the proposition was sound.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am now.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Now he says he is willing to have but one million bushel elevator and to try it out. There is no doubt that you could build an elevator at Port Nelson and construct the railway but it is doubtful whether the expenditure would be justified in view of the fact that many points that should have been investigated have not been fully gone into. Last year I read in Hansard a speech delivered by the Minister of Agriculture in which there were certain statements in regard to Nelson harbour that amazed me. He pointed out many things I did not know before. Where is this big dredge of which he spoke? I am told it is stranded up there and that it is impossible to reach it. We think that sufficient time has not been taken in investigating some of these matters. In Ontario we would like to support anything which is to the benefit of Canada, but we think we might go a little slow for a year or two and be more sure of our ground.


Charles Avery Dunning: That sort of criticism
compels me to say that if the investigation which this government has prosecuted and is prosecuting had been made at the inception of the work, a great deal less money would have been spent and we would have known more about the project. The responsibility for that condition cannot be laid at our door.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: We are not laying it there.


Charles Avery Dunning: So far as the dredge is concerned, that sandsucker cannot be attributed to us, whatever our sins may be. With regard to the terminal elevator, I may say that in devising the instructions to be given Mr. Palmer I had in mind the attitude expressed from the opposite side of the House last year, which attitude then was, "Well, we are satisfied to let you go ahead with this thing provided you keep your initial expenditure to a minimum and increase your facilities

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
only as the need for them is demonstrated." In speaking of a one million bushel elevator instead of a four million bushel elevator I was endeavouring to meet the views of those who held that opinion, and to-day I am accused of weakening in my faith in the project because I am trying to meet the views of those who desire us to investigate and know where we are going before we start out.
In connection with that million bushel elevator may I give some information as to what is possible with a fast-handling elevator of small capacity? The Department of Railways and Canals are to-day administering the elevator at Port Colborne. This elevator was first built, I believe, as a million bushel unit, and has since been increased to three million bushels. Do you know how much we put through that elevator last fall? We put through 62,000,000 bushels, and that is what can be done under modern conditions with a relatively small plant with fast handling capacity. I think those members from the west at any rate will concede that while I may speak with deference of engineers and others on the subject of port development, I do know something of the operation of elevators, and when I say a one million bushel elevator is sufficient to give a fair trial to the Hudson bay port, I think hon. members may be prepared to take my word in that regard.
Mr. EVAN'S:	I was very much pleased,
Mr. Chairman-


Mr. CANTLEY:: I think the attitude developed by the minister within the last year is admirable.


Charles Avery Dunning: It was not developed in
the last year.


Thomas Cantley: There is quite a change in his attitude to-night as compared with his attitude of a year ago, and I congratulate him on it. He has been very frank in regard to a great deal of information which he has given us, for which I also thank him. May I now ask the amount spent on dredging at Port Nelson? I noted down the figures which he gave, but I think I was mistaken as to the amount.


Charles Avery Dunning: In actual dredging $89,-
000 exclusive of the cost of equipment.


Thomas Cantley: What does the minister
estimate as the cost per cubic yard of dredging still to be done at Nelson?


Charles Avery Dunning: The departmental estimate is $1.60 per yard. In that connection I may tell my hon. friend that all the work which has been done at Port Nelson up to
date has been done without a railway back of the port; it has been carried out subject to whatever disadvantages there may be in navigating the strait of which we have been speaking, and it has all been done from the sea end. The department is not inclined to be positive about that figure of $1.60 per yard; with regard to the island dredging the figure is $1.20 per yard. I think the first figure is higher than the cost of any other dredging in Canada; I do not know of any dredging which actually costs as much as the department has allowed in that estimate. I am not an engineer, but my opinion is that the unit cost is altogether too high.


Thomas Cantley: I think the minister is
quite correct; I think it is about four times as high as any dredging I am aware of.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes; conditions are
different.


Thomas Cantley: That depends upon conditions. The distance which the material has to be moved in view of the conditions prevailing, is simply enormous.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is it.


Thomas Cantley: Are these to be steam
operated dredges?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Thomas Cantley: How will the coal come
in?


Charles Avery Dunning: We are hoping to bring
it in from Nova Scotia by sea.


Thomas Cantley: That is interesting, and
I am glad to know it; I thought you were going to bring it down by rail from the northwest. I asked that question seriously because I really thought the coal would come down by rail.


Charles Avery Dunning: It may be done either
way, whichever is the most economical.


Thomas Cantley: The information which
the minister gave as to the effects of the spring break-up of the Nelson river is very different from my previous understanding.
Mr. DUNNING; I did not speak ot that.


Thomas Cantley: I understood the minister to speak of the effects of the spring break up, and to say that the channel cleaned itself.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the scouring.


Thomas Cantley: As to the break up of the Nelson river in the spring. I understood that when the Nelson broke up in the spring it went on a wild rampage, with the result that
215S
Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

the channel shifted year by year. I understood that the estuary of the Nelson river was something like that of the Nile, that it was wide and shallow, and that the channel shifted from year to year; that was my previous understanding, although I may be wrong. I would like to know if the minister has any definite information on that point.


Charles Avery Dunning: As Mr, Palmer intimated in his letter to me, the existing data at Nelson, due to the years of work and observation done there, is considered fairly authentic. I may say that the original hydrographic chart made prior to the time of the selection of the port has been proved to be wrong, or at least a better channel than the one indicated on the hydrographic chart has been discovered over part of the course. So far as the scouring is concerned, I would point out to my hon. friend that that goes on continually. That is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of scientific fact ascertained through years of observation.


Thomas Cantley: I am not finding fault
with it or challenging that in any way. I understand that a tremendous volume of water does come down the Nelson river during the spring break-up. I have not been there, but from what I have read-and I have read quite a deal about it-the river brings down enormous masses of ice and with them a considerable quantity of small boulders and stones. As I say, it goes on a wild rampage and very often entirely changes the channel from the course of the previous year.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is not correct.


Thomas Cantley: The minister may, be
right in that statement but I doubt it. In reference to the vessel he is sending up, I understand it to be the Stanley?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Thomas Cantley: The Stanley is the best ice-breaker we ever had in the maritime
provinces. That vessel is now thirty-eight years old, and I understand a considerable amount of money is being expended in reconditioning and strengthening the vessel. Is it the intention to keep the Stanley in the bay during the winter?


Charles Avery Dunning: Not in the bay, but at a base in the straits.


Thomas Cantley: The object being what, may I ask?


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will
permit me to answer, perhaps I did not state it clearly previously. The vessel will continue to cruise in the strait; we are not in-
[Mr. Cantlev.l
terested in the bay, because the strait represents whatever problem there is. The boat will cruise in the strait as long as possible and will then tie up at one of the three bases that are to be established, until it is possible for her to cruise again.


Thomas Cantley: I thank the minister; I
was not sure as to what was intended. May I ask the minister how many tugs and scows will be required to carry on this dredging work?


Charles Avery Dunning: I should state here, with respect to the estimated cost of dredging, that one of the factors which make it so high in the opinion of the engineers of the department is the necessity of carrying the dredging material over twenty miles by scows before it can be dumped. The estimates include provision for 12,500 yards dump scows, and four large flat dump scows. That is the equipment contemplated by the department. Again, that is all subject to revision of the plan of port development.


Thomas Cantley: And the tugs to handle the scows?


Charles Avery Dunning: There will be six tugs of the same size as the one we have there.


Thomas William Bird: What is the labour factor in the estimates?


Charles Avery Dunning: The $1.60 includes labour. There is no separate estimate for labour.


Mr. GOTT:: How many tugs and dredges are on the spot at the present time?


Charles Avery Dunning: I think we have three tugs there now. It is very difficult for me to give a positive answer to my hon. friend's question offhand, because we may be able to take up there equipment now being used elsewhere. We have a dredge at Halifax which can be taken up there.


Thomas William Bird: Is the labour factor estimated at the ordinary wages for that kind of labour?


Charles Avery Dunning: The experience before
was that we required to pay higher than the normal rates for similar labour. As to whether that condition will prevail when we have a rail haul behind us, it is not possible at this time to say.


Mr. EVANS:: I was pleased with the minister's statement when this item was called. While the plans do involve, perhaps, delay, and no doubt there will be some impatience on that account throughout western Canada,
I believe that the reasonableness of the whole thing will appeal to the people there, and

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
that they will see that the government is taking the best means possible to make the route what they have always expected it would be, one of permanent benefit to the, west. I think the government is taking the right means in getting all the necessary data now before large expenditures are incurred, and I am sure the rest of Canada will see before long that the project is worthy of being completed.


George Hamilton Pettit: I am not opposed to the project at all; I may state frankly that I am absolutely in accord with the completion of the railway to the bay, but I would ask how long this ship is to be employed in connection with the gathering of data in the straits.


Charles Avery Dunning: The provision we are
making is in the marine estimates and it is really out of order to discuss the matter at this point, although, of course, it is inseparable from the main project. The provision we are making is calculated on the basis of having the outfit up there in the strait for a year.


George Hamilton Pettit: Does the minister not think it would be very much wiser to have the investigation extend over a period of five years? The periods of navigation may vary from year to year so that in order to obtain a definite result the gathering of data, in my humble opinion, should extend over a period of at least five years.


Charles Avery Dunning: In that connection I
have in mind, of course, that this money is voted by parliament each year,-it is not under a statute. In connection with the bases being established we are keeping in mind the factor of possible permanent requirements. I am glad to have this much encouragement from my hon. friend, because it may be necessary to come back another year for a considerable sum of money. The vision of my hon. friend in regard to the matter is of a practical character. While the same type of investigation may not require to be carried on after the first year, the work of the first year will demonstrate what is necessary to be done in succeeding years, and on that basis we will come to parliament again.
I have now information as to the point raised by the leader of the opposition with regard to the Ontario corridor. The corridor was to the south side of the river opposite Nelson. That is it ran from the Ontario-Manifcoba boundary to a point on the south side of the Nelson river opposite Nelson. If Churchill were to be selected the understanding at the time was that running rights should be granted to an Ontario railway if the province so desired; but no corridor was provided beyond the point opposite Nelson on the south side of the river.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I should like to ask the minister if an economic study has been made of the effect of the operation of the Hudson Bay railway on the other railways hauling out the produce of western Canada to the Atlantic?


Charles Avery Dunning: We are endeavouring
conscientiously to make an economic study of that matter. We expect that the natural growth of development in western Canada will justify every outlet that can be provided.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Does the minister contend that this outlet is necessary because the other railways hauling out the wheat and grain of western Canada to the head of the lakes are overloaded, or will be overloaded in the future?


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, we are managing to keep them pretty busy, increasingly busy. They are paying their way. I have not, of course, the vision of a prophet, but I have seen the growth of western Canada during the last twenty-five years, and I expect fully that the development of this route will not prejudicially affect other routes any more than the remarkable development of western traffic to Vancouver and Prince Rupert has had a prejudicial effect on the eastbound movement.


Robert Forke: I should like to tell the hon. member for Peace River that at certain periods in the year a train of wheat cars leaves Winnipeg every twenty minutes. That will give him some idea of the extent of the traffic.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I am anxious, Mr. Chairman, to understand the basis upon which we are justifying this railway. I am doing so for the simple reason that I also am interested in railway construction and would like to see the same principle applied. Again I would ask if it is not a fact that the railways at the head of the lakes are capable of handling far more traffic than they are now handling at any season of the year?


Robert Forke: No, they are not.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will not enter into a dispute with my hon. friend with regard to that point. I think the construction of this route can be justified on grounds altogether outside of its possibilities for hauling grain.


Hugh Guthrie: Hear, hear.


Charles Avery Dunning: In fact I do justify it on other grounds. I hope it will prove a very

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
successful grain and cattle route. If it does not, I am still convinced it will be justified in its contribution towards the development of Canada's northland, and especially on the basis of Arctic trade.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I should like to remind my hon. friend from Oshawa that this railway has been more than paid for by the sale of western lands set apart years ago for that purpose.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let us carry it then.


Milton Neil Campbell: My hon. friend mentioned Mr. Tyrrell's report, which, he said, was his authority for stating that the strait was open only two months each year. Mr. Tyrrell points out in his report that he estimated there were only two months in the year when a vessel could not pass through the strait.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I have heard it stated on numerous occasions that lands were set aside in the three prairie provinces and that the money accruing from their sale has paid for the Hudson Bay railway. Is that a fact?


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, I do not desire to detain the committee by going into ancient history. Whatever may be the case in that regard does not in my opinion have any bearing upon the present occasion. There is, however, ground for the belief stated by the member for Mackenzie that certain legislation was enacted many years ago, it was understood, to set aside lands which would afterwards be sold instead of being given away, the proceeds to be applied to take care of the construction of the Hudson Bay railway. The proceeds of those lands have never been set apart in any trust fund for the purpose, but certain it is that the understanding at the time was that this change in Dominion land legislation was for the purpose of securing from western lands a sum of money which would reimburse the Dominion for its expenditure in connection with the Hudson Bay railway.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I should like to call the minister s attention to the fact that about one-third of those lands were in the province of Alberta. I think it has some bearing on some other questions that are likely to come before the House.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

To provide for the establishment of a patrol service to investigate the conditions of navigation in Hudson strait and Hudson bay, $850,000.
Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, seeing
that we have discussed item 221 on the previous vote, I think we may as well dispose of it while we have all the material before us. I think in fact the explanations in connection with it have all been given.


Arthur Edward Ross: I understand that tenders were called for the aerial work.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, it is being done by the air service. The procedure followed was to appoint an interdepartmental committee consisting of an engineering representative from the Department of Railways and Canals, a marine man from the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and a representative from the air service. The report from that committee was the basis for the plan of the aerial work. The work is to be done by the air force.


Arthur Edward Ross: My question has
nothing to do with the principle of the Hudson Bay railway. I understand estimates were called for from the air service of the Department of National Defence and the air service of the Marine and Fisheries department. Were such estimates asked for and given?


Charles Avery Dunning: The Marine department of course has no air service. The basis of this estimate is the estimate of the air service itself for the work so far as the air part is concerned.


Arthur Edward Ross: I think there is
an officer in connection with the air service of the Marine and Fisheries department and one in connection with the National Defence department.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, it is all under the
Department of National Defence. The Marine department use this service of course.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is that correct? Because I understand two very widely different estimates were given, and that there is a man in connection with the Marine and Fisheries department in charge of the air service.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think my hon. friend
must have misunderstood, and that he refers to the air service in the radio sense. That is, the radio service is under the Marine and Fisheries, but there is no aeroplane service under that department.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is it the intention to establish stations for radio service?


Charles Avery Dunning: Radio communication,,
yes.
APRIL 8, 1927	[DOT]
Supply-Railways and Canals


Arthur Edward Ross: That is where the estimates may have come in in connection with this service.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is to cover everything required.


Arthur Edward Ross: I understand that
the radio service of the National Defence department could be given to this work for about one-tenth of the estimate furnished.


Charles Avery Dunning: The estimates in toto
were worked out by the inter-departmental committee consisting of a representative of the air service, a representative of the Marine department and a representative of the Department of Railways and Canals. I shall be very glad to look into the point raised by my hon. friend, but I do not think he is correct. The material from these various departments was assembled by the interdepartmental committee to make up this estimate.


Arthur Edward Ross: Who is the officer
in charge of the radio service of the Marine
and Fisheries department?


Charles Avery Dunning: Commander Edwards.


Arthur Edward Ross: Will the minister
.assure me that estimates were not asked for from the radio service of the National Defence department and from the Marine and Fisheries department?


Charles Avery Dunning: I understand the two
matters do not clash. All I can say at the moment is that I will look into the point raised by my hon. friend.


Arthur Edward Ross: Under some other
item will the minister be able to give to the House the two estimates?


Charles Avery Dunning: If they exist, yes. We
are not clearly understanding each other, but I will endeavour to get the information my hon. friend desires.


George Hamilton Pettit: I understand that the
period to be covered by Mr. Palmer's investigations will be about five years?


Charles Avery Dunning: No. I do not expect Mr. Palmer wil cover more than a month or six weeks including the time already spent.


George Hamilton Pettit: Is it the intention of the
minister to follow up the present expedition in the strait with another next year, another the following year, and so on for five years in order that he may have sufficient data before undertaking the construction of any of the large terminals in the bay?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend misunderstood what I said. We intend to go ahead with the railway and port development as expeditiously as possible. With regard to the strait-and Mr. Palmer's investigation has nothing to do with the strait; we are not asking about that-we will be guided in our future proposals to parliament by what we discover .during the first year of the aerial and marine survey.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trent Canal-construction and betterments, $19,000.
Mr. McGlBBON:	Where is this money
being spent?
Charles Avery Dunning: On the Trent canal. The total amount of $19,000 is entirely a revote from last year. It is made up from the following items:	Erection of dockmasters'
houses, $9,000; payment for land damages, $10,000. The lock houses are to be built at lock No. 6 at Frankford, and at lock No. 12 at Campbellford. As the lockmasters are expected to be available at all hours of the day or night, it is necessary that they should reside close to the locks, and there are no houses available near these places. With regard to the payment for land damages, a number of claims for land damages on the Eastern and Severn divisions are still outstanding, and every year new claims are presented for various reasons, such as the loss of power, the flooding of land, expropriation of land, and so forth, some of which are allowed. The amount asked for is to pay such claims as may be settled during the next fiscal year.
Mr. McGlBBON:	I want to ask the minister a question, although I do not suppose it is much use. After all the years during which this canal has been in course of construction and the large amount of money that has been expended upon it, and considering the fact that there are only a couple of locks left to build in order to reach the Georgian bay, does he net think it is wise ito complete the canal, and will he not consider that in the near future? I really do not think the minister should be prejudiced in the matter, because the government have been spending money pretity lavishly this year on nearly everything that has come before parliament. I would also draw his attention to the fact that as a revenue producer the tourist business in Canada now stands third, and in the future it is likely to stand still higher. If this canal had to be started now, I do not think anybody would advocate its construction, but

Supply-Railways and Canals
considering the fact that it is nearly completed, cannot the minister hold out some hope at least, since he is spending millions on the Hudson Bay railway and everything else, that the small remaining portion will be completed?
_ Mr- DUNNING:	I was rather emphatic
in my reply to my hon. friend on a previous occasion that I could not see my way clear to recommending to the government the completion of the Trent canal, but I assure him that that attitude on my part was not based on any prejudice whatsoever. I am endeavouring to look conscientiously at the economic factors involved. Perhaps I should say to my hon. friend that the door is never closed; that is to say, if it can be demontsraited to me as sound and in the interests of Canada, I shall be very glad indeed to give such consideration to the representations as thev seem to warrant. I am informed by our chief engineer, who is speaking from memory, that' $3,000,000 would be required to complete the Trent canal.


Peter McGibbon: It might cost that, but what was the use of building it this far if you do. not complete it? This canal was started about 125 years ago, and every government has committed itself to it up to the present time. The important part of it, to my mind, excluding the power, has yet to be constructed, important that is from a revenue-producing standpoint, because once you get to the Georgian bay with the canal you would open up a large tourist traffic from the great lakes, and especially from the cities on the other side of the lakes. If these two remaining locks were completed I think that indirectly the country would gain considerably because of the tourist traffic, which is becoming one of our largest revenue producers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To pay claim of F. A. Robertson and Company, $14,029.96 and interest on same at rate of 5 per cent per annum from July, 1919, $19,641.94.
Hugh Guthrie: What is this for?


Charles Avery Dunning: This is to pay the claim of F. A. Robertson and Company, arising out of the contract for the construction of section No. 3 of the Ontario-Rice Lake division of the Trent canal. I have here a lengthy memorandum from the engineer as to the case, and if the committee will bear with me, I will read it.


Hugh Guthrie: There is evidently a lot of interest taken in the matter, and perhaps the minister had better read it.
[Mr. McGibbon.J


Charles Avery Dunning: The contract was entered into with the Canadian General Development Company, Limited, away back in 1908, the compensation being schedule rates. The superintending engineer's estimate of the cost of the work was 3304,196, and the extended totals of all tenders received were as follows
David Conroy, Peterborough,
Ontario	 $410,715 10
Bro-wn and Aylmer, Toronto, Ontario	 404,580 00
Orillia Construction Company,
Orillia	 360,628 00
O'Leary Brothers, Ottawa, Ontario	 297,197 00
Canadian General Development Company, Limited, Montreal,
Quebec	 289,520 20
Witli the	consent	of	the	minister, the Canadian General Development Company, Limited, contract was assigned on February 9, 1914, to Fred A. Robertson and Company and the section was completed	in	July,	1919.	The total
amount of the final estimate was $292,552.92.
When Fred A. Robertson and Company took over the work, practically everything had been completed with the exception of the dredging shown on the plan exhibited at the time tenders were called. The extent of the dredging was, however, somewhat misleading, as, about one and a half years after the Robertson Company commenced work, sweeping operations revealed that there were many places in the channel requiring shallow' cutting which had not been shown on the plan. Besides these shallow cuttings, the dredging was further extended in the interests of navigation by widening some of the shallow cuts more particularly at curves in alignment.
In June, 1921, the contractors filed their claim which is still outstanding and includes;
1.	Payment for the dredging not shown on the exhibited plan at an hourly rate for plant.
2.	Payment for all hardpan material in the dredging shown on the exhibited plan at an hourly rate for plant.
The net amount of their claim was $44,251.82, and that is the reason why the claim has not been met up to the present time. T he difference between the amount of the claim and the amount of the final award by the chief engineer is the difference between $19,000 odd and $44,000 odd, and I should add that the $19,000 includes interest also.


Peter McGibbon: Was this amount agreed to by both parties?


Charles Avery Dunning: They finally agreed to accept this amount.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
1° pay claim of Dennon and Rodgers $8,386.64 and interest on same at rate of five per cent per annum from December 31, 1918, $11966.47.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is a similar claim made under somewhat different circumstances. In this case the original claim was for $98,000,

Supply-Railways and Canals
but in the years that have elapsed while negotiations were going on the amount has come down until now we are suggesting a settlement of $8,386.64 and interest.


Peter McGibbon: Am I to infer from the minister's remarks that this was a fake claim? The original claim was for $98,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, no, no.


Peter McGibbon: Why would they accept such an enormous reduction? It seems to me something must be wrong.


Charles Avery Dunning: In May, 1919, the
contractors filed claims for payment, which claims, with some alterations, were referred in September, 1924, to the Exchequer court. Subsequently an examination for discovery was held before the registrar of the court, but the case has not yet been set down for trial. The defence of the department rests on the terms of the contract and specifications.


Hugh Guthrie: Just as it is?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Welland ship canal-construction, $14,500,000.
Hugh Guthrie: Is this under'contract?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


John Wesley Edwards: Have Peter Lyall & Son completed their contract on sections 3 and 4 of the canal?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


John Wesley Edwards: It was a
part of the contract that they were to take over the plant and stores owned by the government and were to pay $450,000 for them.


Charles Avery Dunning: We will get the exact
amount, but it wias more than that. I think it was over $2,000,000.


John Wesley Edwards: It was to
be taken out of the progress estimates, some $45,000 each month, and if that arrangement had been carried out they would have paid for the plant long ago. But an order in council was passed-and I speak subject to correction-in January 1924, releasing them from making these payments or these deductions for a period of ten months. Has this contracting firpi paid back to the government the amount which the contract called for them to pay in monthly instalments? If they have not carried out their contract in that respect, how much is still owing to the government, in capital, in principal and in accumulated interest up to date? What
provision is being made, if any, by the government to see that the contracting firm of Peter Lyiall & Son meets its obligation in accordance with the terms of the contract entered into on the 27th of June 1922?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not the detailed
information before me, and I can only speak in a general way. It is true that, on several occasions since the contract was entered into involving the taking over of old machinery, large extensions of time for payment have been granted. Up to the present, speaking from memory, about one-half the amount has been paid, but the security held in the way of drawbacks on what is due the contractor, together with the value of the plant, is quite ample to protect the government. We have in addition the security of a deposit of over half a million dollars.


John Wesley Edwards: Is the
security which has been deposited the general deposit put up by any contractor when he enters into a contract?


Charles Avery Dunning: For the completion of
the contract, which includes this equipment.


John Wesley Edwards: My understanding was the amount put up by Lyall when he entered the contract, the usual ten per cent-


Charles Avery Dunning: Five per cent.


John Wesley Edwards: -was not
supposed to cover the equipment, the plant and stores which he was to take over. I should not think it would. Are the plant and stores that Lyall took over from the government still there? Or can the minister inform me whether or not this contracting firm, although they have not met their obligations in regard to the payment for this plant and stores, have disposed of a part of the plant and stores?
.Mr. DUNNING: Any plant disposed of has been replaced by a new plant on the work, and we have a mortgage on all the contractors' plant, including replaced plant. It is considered by the department, by the engineers and the deputy minister, that we have ample security, so ample indeed that if this particular contractor fell down on his contract now we could well afford to finish it ourselves, be amply secured and have something over.	.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: One question
arises properly out of this expenditure. The completion of the Welland canal will involve the construction of a lake terminal, and I
2164	COMMONS
Supply-Railways and Canals
understand a committee has been appointed consisting of three representatives, one from the Department of Railways, another from the Department of Public Works, and a third representing the railways, to consider the location of the terminal port. I am interested, of course, in the town of Brockville. There are other points that are interested in the same matter, namely, Kingston and Prescott. Will the location of this terminal be in any way affected by the size, the number, the personnel, or the political complexion of delegations who wait upon the department, or will it have regard to the respective advantages of these particular places? I would hope that it would be disposed of on the basis of the economic merits of the different places.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think my hon. friend is aware of the answers which as minister I have given to several of the delegations to which my hon. friend has referred. The answer is that we are not determining this question on the basis of representations made by those representing very worthily particular localities which are naturally looking after their interests to the best of their ability, but rather on the basis of an economic study. I think my hon. friend is familiar with the important questions involved,' as they relate to the trade of Canada, particularly in the transportation sense, and it is the endeavour of the department concerned to deal with it on that basis, and having regard to that factor only.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is quite
satisfactory.


Charles Avery Dunning: As to what may be done, it is a little early yet to indicate. But if as a result of what is determined upon, it is necessary for the Department of Railways and Canals to do anything this year, we can utilize a portion of the fund now voted for the Welland canal, because any work which is done is really a continuation of the Welland canal. We do not expect however, during the current fiscal year any expenditure under this head to amount to anything.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: When does the minister expect to have the information which will enable the government to decide the location of the terminal?


Charles Avery Dunning: It will be two or three months in any event.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is satisfactory.


Charles Avery Dunning: And it is not a matter we should jump at, because the Welland canal will not be completed until 1930 if we keep up our present schedule. But it was thought desirable to investigate thoroughly this other important factor before the completion of the Welland canal.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What is the estimated
total cost up to and including 1930?


Charles Avery Dunning: About $115,000,000.


Mr. GARDINER:: What has been spent
up to the present time?


Charles Avery Dunning: The amount I have given does not include terminals. The terminals to the foot of lake Ontario is a matter for consideration.


Robert Gardiner: What is the cost to
date?


Charles Avery Dunning: 


Robert Gardiner: Does the $115,000,000
include interest on the money spent all these years, or is it for bare expenditures?


Charles Avery Dunning: Just expenditures.


Robert Gardiner: What is the estimated amount of interest charges against that money?


Charles Avery Dunning: The money is paid by the Department of Finance from time to time. We have in our department no calculation of the interest.


Hugh Guthrie: The minister made a remark regarding which I wish to have an explanation. I understood him to say that out of this vote of $14,500,000 which we are now making for the Welland, ship canal construction there would be enough to provide for work in connection with lake terminals if necessary.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not mean to amply that. I meant rather that any necessary preparatory work, the taking of bearings for example, the determination of the nature of the works and any incidental expenses of that character would be taken care of out of this vote. We could not of course without coming to parliament spend the money on work in connection with the terminals.


Hugh Guthrie: I question very much
whether you could take any money for the purpose out of this vote. What would the Auditor General say if you did?


Charles Avery Dunning: If he decides that we
cannot, then that settles it.

Supply-Railways and Canals


Hugh Guthrie: If the money is voted for the Welland canal construction that is the only purpose for which it can be used. I have always been under the impression that money voted in that way could not be used for any other purpose.


Charles Avery Dunning: In mentioning the matter I had in mind preliminary work at the eastern end of the Welland canal.


Hugh Guthrie: What about work 'at
Kingston or Brockville, say?


Charles Avery Dunning: H the Auditor General objects we cannot spend the money. One of my objects in mentioning the matter was to make it clear to the committee that it was our intention to move forward and secure actual data upon which to base conclusions in the future.


Henry Herbert Stevens: You would have to take it out of miscellaneous.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps so.


Hugh Guthrie: Unless the rules in the Auditor General's department have been relaxed, I do not think you could spend the money in this way. In former days we were held strictly to account in matters of this kind.


Charles Avery Dunning: The Auditor General
holds me just as strictly to account and I do not expect to get past him. I thought however that reference to the matter in parliament might clarify the situation in that regard.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Is the new Welland canal being built on a scale which will enable it to fit in with the larger scheme of deepening the St. Lawrence?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, or rather it is the other way. Unfortunately the Welland canal is larger than the capacity of the other waterway. Our engineers insist that the Welland is taken as a model for the other scheme.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Will the Welland canal be required after the larger scheme is completed?


Charles Avery Dunning: There may be considerable argument as to the degree of requirement. It will move the present head of deep water navigation from Port Colbome to some other port. As to where that point will be is a matter for inquiry and decision later on. But our largest lake vessels will find it possible to go, instead of to Buffalo or to Port Colborne as at present, through the Welland and up to the eastern end of lake Ontario.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Would there be any
saving as between the fixed charges on the new Welland canal and the extra cost of handling through the present canal?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend forgets that we do not charge anything for canal operation. Canada operates the canal and gives the service free.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: It must cost something even if the service is given free. Will the fixed charges in connection with the new Welland canal be any greater than the cost involved in this free service of which the minister speaks?


Charles Avery Dunning: Obviously, of course, you cannot spend $115,000,000 without creating higher fixed charges than were paid before that money was spent.


Robert Gardiner: That is not the point. Will there be any saving as a result of the construction of the new canal? By virtue of the new canal being larger, will the saving be equal to the fixed charges?


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot agree with my hon. friend if he says that is the point. No one not gifted with prophecy could possibly answer^ this question. The present Welland canal is congested to the very last degree, and besides, it is too shallow.


Mr. SPENCE (Maple Creek):: What is
the depth of the new canal?


Charles Avery Dunning: Twenty-five feet. The locks are thirty.


Robert Gardiner: When the new Welland canal was first projected certain estimates were made of economies in freight rates on grain and other commodities. Nlo doubt the minister has those estimates on file in his office; he may possibly have them with him to-might. It would be interesting to find out what saving it is expected will be made in consequence of the deepening of the canal.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not the information here. I admit its bearing upon the project as at first introduced, but I suggest that once we have spent $75,000,000 in the undertaking we cannot leave it incomplete. The question is whether we shall finish it or abandon the work that has already been done. We cannot take advantage of that work unless we complete the project, and we cannot continue using the present canal indefinitely. The present canal is being maintained on an operating basis in anticipation of the completion of the new one.

Supply-Railways and Canals


George Spence: What differences will there be between the new canal and the present waterway in regard to locks?


Charles Avery Dunning: The difference will be eight locks as against twenty-six, and eight hours instead of fifteen in the passage of vessels through the canal.


Robert Gardiner: Has the minister any information to give in regard to facilities further down the lakes to take care of traffic? What will be the ultimate cost?


Charles Avery Dunning: What cost?


Robert Gardiner: The cost of the elevators at the points where the new headquarters will be.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is under consideration at the present moment.


Mr. JELLIFF:: What portion of the canal has already been constructed and how many more years will it be before the work is completed?


Charles Avery Dunning: The whole work is now
under contract, and we anticipate that it will last another three years.


Arthur Edward Ross: May I ask the
minister if the department has taken into consideration the length of time required in the- preparation of a terminal, whether temporary or permanent?


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course I appreciate
my hon. friend's interest; his question is very intelligent, emanating as it does from the hon. member for Kingston, one of the points which would be very materially affected by our decision. The factor to which he refers is being taken into account in the investigation now in progress.


Arthur Edward Ross: I feel sure that we can trust the minister, but the point I had in mind was that the canal is expected to be open in 1930. Supposing it takes longer than two years to prepare a terminal, what will happen to the traffic going through the canal in the interval between the completion of the canal and the completion of the terminal?


Charles Avery Dunning: Our engineering advice is that there will be no difficulty in providing the necessary new terminals in the time still available.


Thomas Langton Church: The minister says the
canal will not be completed until 1930. I would point out to him that over two billion dollars has been spent on railways in Canada

while only about one-tenth of that amount has been spent on canals. It is very important to the people of Canada that this canal be completed with all convenient speed, because this canal provides most of the revenue so far as the Department of Railways and Canals is concerned. The rapid completion of this canal is of the utmost importance not only to Ontario but to the transportation of the whole Dominion. Last year the old canal handled nearly six million tons, and there has been a yearly increase of twelve and one-half per cent. The work of building the canal has been proceeding since 1913, and we are told now that it will not be finished until 1930, or seventeen years in which to build a canal about twenty-seven miles long. The annual report of the minister is very encouraging with regard to the work accomplished, but I am sorry I have not before me the figures from the Bureau of Statistics. I may tell some of my hon. friends to my left that this is an economic canal and will be a very great help when finished. Therefore I would urge upon the minister the necessity of finishing the construction of this work as rapidly as possible, and to try and complete it before 1930.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lachine, improvements, $76,000.
Robert Gardiner: What improvements
are contemplated?


Charles Avery Dunning: This is one of the important St. Lawrence canals at Montreal. The present Lachine canal power house cannot continue in operation without extensive repairs, and even after such repairs the fire hazard in the oil-soaked timber portions of this old building would be unwarranted. It is therefore proposed to construct at Cote St. Paul a new power plant to replace the present Mill street plant. That is the major portion of the expenditure.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Peters Canal-to pay to the Atlantic Dredging Company further interest from July 16, 1926, at rate of 5 per cent per annum on claim of $12,151.96, $607.60.
Robert Gardiner: What is this?


Charles Avery Dunning: This is interest on theitem included in the estimates last year, which was not paid owing to the fact that the estimates were not passed.


Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond):: Might
I ask the minister what his claim is?

Supply-Railways and Canals


Charles Avery Dunning: I am afraid I have not
the data with me here, because it was dealt with very fully in the estimates of last year; I remember giving an explanation at that time. This is simply interest on the money not paid because last year's estimates were not voted. I have here the engineer's report; shall I read it all to my hon. friends?


Finlay MacDonald: No, not the whole thing.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is a lengthy history,
covering about three pages. The claim of the contractors was $46,820 and the amount of payment provided for in last year's estimates was $12,629.72. Each item of the claim is reviewed, according to the information I have, and either allowed or disallowed, or reduced, as the case may be. Perhaps my hon. friend would save the time of the committee by coming round to the office, and I should be glad to let him see all the documents connected with it.


Finlay MacDonald: Was this work tendered for, and if so, what was the amount of the lowest tender?


Charles Avery Dunning: The amount of the tender was $56,819.


Finlay MacDonald: Was
that amount supposed to cover the entire work?


Charles Avery Dunning: That depends upon
whether the quantities estimated by the engineers turn out as anticipated, which of course seldom happens in under-water work.


Finlay MacDonald: How was it that $12,000 was allowed this company after the government had entered into a contract with them for $56,000?


Charles Avery Dunning: In order to answer that
question I will have to read a memorandum I have here, which is as follows:
The discrepancy between the original estimate of cost and the final amount paid is explained as follows: When the survey was made on which the original estimate was based, every effort was made to secure accurate information concerning the rock surface, and from points on the work where solid rock could be definitely located and also from the depth of old crib-work where it could be definitely ascertained, a profile showing the probable rock surface was plotted for the information of intending bidders. After the contract was let, it developed that the probable rock surface, as exhibited, for a length of 250 feet, was a very hard cemented clay intermixed with stones. Consequently the contractors were required to excavate this material to the bottom of the canal for the crib seats, resulting in a large increase in the estimated quantities of excavation, crib-work, stone fulling in cribwork and earth filling behind cribwork.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the item carry?


Finlay MacDonald: Do not be in too much of a hurry.


Charles Avery Dunning: I should like to remind my hon. friend that the item he is now discussing was voted at the last session of parliament.


Finlay MacDonald: Had I been in the House at the time the item was passed I would have objected to it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not sure whether my hon. friend was in the House or not.


Finlay MacDonald: I was not in the House at the time.


Charles Avery Dunning: But that is not my fault-.


Finlay MacDonald: There are times when the estimates are rushed through and when it seems to be in the interests of certain people to have them go through in that way.


Charles Avery Dunning: I rise to a point of order-I sat here all the evening doing my work in. the manner in which it is my duty to do itr and I think such an insinuation is entirely uncalled for. If my hon. friend cannot take his seat in this House and watch for items in which he is interested I think he has no right to accuse me, or accuse any minister of trying to rush them through in his absence. It is his duty to be in his seat if he expects to look after his business.


Finlay MacDonald: Let me tell the hon. minister that there were nights last winter when the majority of us could not be in our seats. We remained here for a period of six months steadily, and this item slipped through one night when very few of us who were concerned were here.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my hon. friend still insist that this item was slipped through in his absence purposely, or does he withdraw that insinuation? Let us have a square deal.


Finlay MacDonald: I do
not say that it was slipped through for that purpose, but there are times when estimates are being put through and we ought to be made acquainted with what is coming up on that particular day. I was not aware until I came to the House that evening that these estimates were under consideration. I had asked another hon. member if he would not hold these estimates up for a time if they should come up, and I did not have an op-

Supply-Railways and Canals
po-rtunity to speak. Had I been in the House when the vote came up I would have objected to it. I cannot understand why this $12,000 is to be paid this contractor. I know the location; it is within a few feet of my own door, and I feel that this extra amount of $12,000 should never have been paid to the contractor.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trent canal-improvements (revote $83,000), $239,000.
Robert Gardiner: What are these amounts for?
Mr.DUNNING: The details are as follows:
Item	A.-Eastern Division
1.	Construction of lock gates.. $16,000
2.	Dredging	
25,0003.	Extension to lock aprons	
2,5004.	Dam, Elliotts Falls-Gull River..	4,0005.	New concrete dam at Hawk riverlogslide	
16,0006.	Dam at outlet of Big Bear Lake..	1,2007.	Rebuilding and repairs to reservoir dams (revote $9,000) ..	..	10,0008.	Reconstructing wharf at Gore'sLanding	
4,0009.	Miscellaneous (Revote)	
2,700
B.-Severn Division
10.	Staff on construction	
52,00011.	Young's Point section (Revote)..	5,00012.	Dam at Lock No. 23 (Revote)	..	10,00013.	Dam at Lock No. 24 (Revote $51,-900)	
65,00014.	Cement	
12,00015.	House for Operator, Marine Ry.Swift Rapids	
4,50016.	Removal of rock and other excavated material	
4,00017.	Miscellaneous and unforeseen (Revote $5,000)	
6,000

I can give the details of each of the foregoing items if my hon. friend desires further information. I should say that we get a revenue from the power developed on the Trent canal, as on all our other canals, when the head of water is developed as a result of works erected by the Dominion for navigation purposes.


Robert Gardiner: It will be interesting to know what the income is from power produced on the canal, if you have it handy.


Charles Avery Dunning: For one year it amounted to $95,31722.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What is the significance in the headings in the estimates, "chargeable to capital" and "chargeable to income"?


Charles Avery Dunning: That has relation to an old government accounting system. I wish my hon. friend would ask that question some

time of the Minister of Finance. I know what capital is, I think I know what income is. I am not entirely familiar with the distinction in the Dominion accounting as used in this sense. It has to do with a system of accounting in the Finance department which has no relationship to the business of our department.


Arthur Edward Ross: From whom do you receive the revenue for the power developed on the canal?


Charles Avery Dunning: Principally from Hydro Electric of Ontario. There is a little revenue also from rent for water lots, transmission, telephone lines, and so on. There are some private lessees, but the Hydro Electric Com-' mission of Ontario is the largest lessee.


Arthur Edward Ross: What is the agreement with the Hydro?


Charles Avery Dunning: They pay our standard
rental of $4 per home-power, or $2 in other cases, dfepending on the class.


Arthur Edward Ross: Has this department or the Hydro done the work?


Charles Avery Dunning: The Hydro, of course,
build their own plant for utilizing the head of water which our works create. We build the dam.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Welland canal, improvements (revote, $18,000), $95,500.
Robert Gardiner: Is this for improvements on the present Welland canal?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. It is just a question of maintaining the present canal to carry the tremendous traffic. We passed 5,500 ships through it Ihst year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, maintenance and operation of, including the salary of A. D. Cartwright, secretary of the board, at $6,000, $263,440.
Thomas Langton Church: 
Charles Avery Dunning: Would my hon. friend
permit me? I rise to suggest that as apparently he has extended remarks to make, and I know some other members desire to express (heir views on the railway commission, if iit will meet the convenience of the committee I am w'illing to let this one item, the railway commission vote, stand over for a more convenient time and in order that we may pass the remaining items-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Put it through.


Charles Avery Dunning: -if my hon. friend will agree.


Thomas Langton Church: I am not prepared to let the item stand, Mr. Chairman, because when I asked information from the minister some time ago he would not give it to me. He said it was not in the public interest. When I conclude my remarks I think it will be quite in order for the minister to ask me to let the item stand. The portfolio of Railways and Canals might as well be abolished altogether. Part of its work has been handed over to the railway commission. The minister might get busy and go into the offices of the commission. What does the commission do? Nothing but whitewash everybody that makes application for increase of rates. Has the railway commission any control over Sir Henry Thornton? No. The late Mr. Carvell doubted if the board could regulate the Canadian National Railways. The railway commission was appointed to prevent unfair and unjust discrimination. Three former chairmen of the board, Hon. Mr. Blair, Mr. Justice Mabee and Sir Henry Drayton, used the big stick on some of the corporations. They protected the public. But to-day this commission protects nothing; it simply grants holus-bolus the various applications made for increase of rates. I am going to move a reduction of this vote because I think that is the only way to get anything done. I do not think the minister has played fairly with me, and for that reason I should like the item to stand until he has brought down the information I have asked for. I asked for the production of papers early in the session, and the minister replied that it was not in the public interest to divulge this, that and the other thing.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not remember the occasion to which my hon. friend refers, but if he will tell me what papers he has asked for, I will look into the matter.


Thomas Langton Church: I asked for the production of papers with regard to the Bell Telephone Company, and whether the minister had made an agreement with that company by which the National Railways got cheap rates at the expense of the general telephone users of this country; and secondly, whether the government of Canada,- after this application had been launched by the Bell Telephone Company, had secured a contract with the company at cheaper rates. The Bell Telephone application was made on the grounds of discrimination, and yet this railway commission, at the instance of the Minister of Railways and his department, with the assistance of

Supply-Railways and Canals
Sir Henry Thornton, have granted rates to the company which will take from the people of this country several million more dollars, in order that the National Railways and the Department of Railways and the government may get cheaper rates.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is making so many wild statements that it is very difficult for me to follow him. I have some recollection of his asking for papers in connection with the Bell Telephone Company, and it is my impression that I have already tabled a return relating to that matter. Can he tell me whether he moved for a return, or give me the reference number, or any other information upon which I can act?


Mr. OHURCH:: I will move to reduce the item. The Minister is not fair. I can prove all I say if I can get the papers. There are three or four other matters on which I have not received any information. We have a railway commission which is supposed to exercise some control over public corporations, but can the minister name one case where the railway commission has gone out into the highways and byways, of its own volition, to check up these large corporations? I say no, and I say that in the public interest there should be some reorganization of this commission. If there is any dissension among the members of the commission, the public are entitled to know it. We should have a commission that will regulate the railways, the telephone companies, the express companies, and all other public service corporations.


Robert Gardiner: Has the government taken into consideration increasing or decreasing the membership of the board, so that there will be an odd number on the board? I think he will remember that there have been cases recently where there has been an equal division on the board, three and three, and that has prevented them from giving any decision on the matter that was under consideration. Is it the intention of the government to have an odd instead of an even number on the board?


Charles Avery Dunning: The situation referred to by my hon. friend is, of course, before the government, and is receiving consideration. Beyond that I cannot go at the moment.


Robert Gardiner: If the feovernment
enlarge the membership of the board, I suppose they will take into consideration that western Canada has only one representative upon it, and remember that we would like to have two instead of one.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend can rest
assured that all these matters and many others

will have to be taken into account in dealing with a situation such as this.
I should like to take the opportunity on this vote of correcting what appears to be a false impression regarding some remarks I made the other evening with respect to Crows-nest rates. Apparently there was an impression in the minds of some members, which is borne out by some of the press reports-I am not now imputing any sinister motive to anyone-that I had the belief, and expressed it, that the Crowsnest rates on grain were not profitable rates. I did not so intend, and: I think the language attributed to me in Hansard will bear out the lack of any such intention. , Two extremely opposing views were being expressed, one that the rates lost a very considerable sum of money for the railways, and the other, to use the expression of one of my hon. friends in that corner, I think, that the railways made very, very handsome, or very, very large profits out of carrying gram. I deem it my duty as Minister of Railways to endeavour to keep discussion along the line of fact, where I have opinions sufficiently based upon fact to express them, and to neither of those extreme views do I subscribe. I do not believe that the railways lose money hauling grain, as would be found if it were possible to separate the grain figures from the other figures. On the other hand, neither do I agree with the other extreme view that the railways are making handsome profits on hauling grain- at present rates. I know that neither of these extreme views is correct. That is the attitude I take on the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canada Highways Commission-to provide for payment of staff of Canada Highways Commission, including A. W. Campbell, C. E., Chief Commissioner of Highways at $5,000 per annum, $25,000.
Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I understand that the
federal grant for highways expires some time in the near future. Has the government made any provision for renewing the grant, or making an additional grant?


Charles Avery Dunning: We are endeavouring to conclude the distribution of the grants provided for under the present extension which expires on September 1, 1927. By then we hope to have the whole thing cleaned up.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Is the question of renewing under consideration.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Railways and Canals
Miscellaneous services, including salaries and expenses of experts employed temporarily, $10,000.
Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):: Is it the intention of the government to provide for any further expenditure in connection with the standardization of the gauge of the Prince Edward Island railway? A considerable portion of the mileage is not yet standardized, and everyone knows what a serious handicap it is to people living on that line. I desire to ask also in regard to the car ferry. The Duncan commission recommended that something should be done in connection with the claim that the car ferry boat there was not giving satisfactory service. The report of the commission reads:
Altogether the ferry boat service is unsatisfactory. The railway administration admitted that there was need for supplemental provision being made in the form either of a second ferry boat or a special freight boat. We recommend that the matter be gone into from the point of view of placing at the disposal of the island such satisfactory means of communication as will ensure as regular and complete a service as can reasonably be made.
Another matter I refer to is the fact that this boat is running in the fall to full capacity and cannot maintain this operation very long. There is a danger of disconnecting the province altogether from the mainland. Another item in the Duncan report reads:
We further recommend that, so far as the ferry boat service is concerned, it should not be run as part of the railway operations, but should be run by the railway administration under separate account for the department. We feel that, by reason of its association with railway accounts, this service does not get the attention it should receive.
If the minister could give us any information about these different items we would appreciate it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot answer offhand
the question addresed to me by my hon. friend from Kings. I can only say to him what I think he already knows, that all these matters are at present under investigation. I think there is a question on the order paper relating to one of these items. They are all now under investigation, following the Duncan report.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: The standardization of the Murray Harbour line should not require any particular investigation; it would simply be a continuation of work carried on in years past. That is now the only branch of the railway that is not standardized. No investigation should be necessary; the work should be continued. It
is a matter of great interest to the people of Kings county and southern Queens that assurance be given that that work will be continued this year.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend presses me for a more definite answer than the statement I made regarding investigations generally, I must say that the railway management hold the view, with respect to standardization on the Prince Edward Island railway, that the next important step is to complete the standardization of the terminal works at Charlottetown. That is more important than the rest of the standarization, in the opinion of the management. Then there is the bridge question as well, as my deputy informs me. The bridge will not carry a very heavy train.


Mr. BRADY:: Will the minister tell me if there is any amount in this estimate for an inquiry into the feasibility of the construction of a railway into the Red lake district?


Charles Avery Dunning: The matter of investigation of the economic feasibility of a new line of railway is one for the Canadian National Railways to deal with and does not come under this vote. I feel quite sure that the Canadian National Railways are watching very closely the development in the Red lake district.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the payment of salaries and expenses in connection with the St. Lawrence ship canal surveys and investigations, including the Canadian National Advisory Committee, and its employees and G-. W. Yates, $1,200 as secretary, $70,000.
Mr. HANSON:: Will the minister inform me if the government intends to carry out that part of the Duncan report which relates to the appointment of an ad hoc commission to investigate the claims of the province of New Brunswick with respect to taking over the St. John and Quebec Railway?


Charles Avery Dunning: The government regards the whole question of lines in this category which are not part of the Canadian National system as one which requires some form of investigation. We have not in mind the idea of setting up a tribunal in connection with a particular line, but the desirability of working out some sort of arrangement which would involve investigation of the different situations obtaining with respect to rates in the area referred to in the maritime rates act as "select territory," on lines which are not now part of the Canadian National system but which connect therewith. I would not like to promise my
2172	COMMONS
Privilege-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)
hon. friend to set up a separate forum for this road. We have not really thoroughly settled the matter of how we will proceed with the whole question of railway development.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This investigation will be held covering the larger field?


Charles Avery Dunning: While not absolutely determined by the government, I think my hon. friend may take it that it will be proceeded with.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Loan to Canadian National Railway Company, $22,500,000.
Charles Avery Dunning: These estimates with respect to the railways and merchant marine are back from the committee and have been approved. Perhaps we could put them through now. If anyone wishes to discuss the one with respect to the Canadian National Railways I should be glad to let these items stand, but they have been examined by the special committee and recommended to the House.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Dunning the House adjourned at 12 midnight.
Saturday, April 9, 1927.