1927-04-13

MOTION RESPECTING PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to make a motion with respect to a private bill of which no notice is required under rule 40: but the motion itself is under rule 17A regarding routine motions for the management of the business of the House. The motion is: That in the opinion of this House it is expedient that private bills be considered and dealt with at three o'clock this afternoon.
I have shown the motion to the hon. Minister of Finance; I had not the opportunity to show it to the Prime Minister.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is understood that my hon. friend would be prepared to limit the time to not more than one hour at the most.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Oh yes. I have no desire to prolong the debate, and if it is the intention to attempt to talk these remaining bills out on the third reading, we will in the exercise of our discretion comply with the suggestion of the hon. Minister of Finance.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I would draw to your attention the fact that there are no private bills on the order paper. Private bills are done with, and I submit that this motion is out of order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: This is a matter for the
House to decide. If the House decides that private bills, even though they are not on the order paper, shall be taken this afternoon they will be taken. It has happened in the last two weeks that bills which were not yet down on the order paper were considered in the House and given a second and a third reading. The House can decide whether the time is opportune to take private bills this afternoon. I consider that in view of the present urgent circumstances the motion is in order under rule 115.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Can a motion of this kind,
Mr. Speaker, leading to a suspension or alteration of the rules be moved without notice of any kind?


Hewitt Bostock: The House can always
suspend its rules, and the motion is in order.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: Is it understood that if this motion passes, pri-
Motion Respecting Private Bills
vate bills will be taken up for one hour only? Is that the effect of the motion?


Hewitt Bostock: I understood from the
statement made by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), which was acquiesced in by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), that the discussion on private bills will not last for over one hour this afternoon.



PEACE RIVER RAILWAY OUTLET


William Irvine: That the eleventh report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines be now concurred in.


Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River):: I beg again to move the amendment which I moved the other day and which stood as a notice of motion:
That the said report be not now concurred in but that the same be referred back to the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines with instructions that they have power to amend it by striking out the three following paragraphs:
The weight of evidence before your committee indicates that, on economic grounds, much 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.

Hepburn,
Irvine,
Jelliff,
Kennedy,
Lovie,
MacLean
(Prince),
McLean
(Melfort),
Millar,
Motherwell,
Neill,
Spencer,
Ward,
Woodsworth.-24.
Your committee is further of opinion that potentialities of that area are such as to warrant a continuous study of its development."
And substituting the following three paragraphs therefor:
"The evidence shows that there are four possible outlets but that a complete survey has been made of two only.
"Your committee is of the opinion that a complete survey should be undertaken of the Peace pass, Pine pass, and Monkman pass and that on completion of this survey a definite policy of railway development for the Peace river country should be decided upon.
"Your committee further believes that the potentialities of the Peace river district justify the commencement of a permanent outlet as soon as the best route is definitely ascertained."


Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Does this mean, Mr. Speaker, that there are to be all kinds of speeches on the amendment?


Hewitt Bostock: I have seen the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie) and he is entitled to speak.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to sipeak at any length on this amendment. When I consider this vast area of country which was thrown open to settlement some time ago-an area rich in agriculture, rich in timber and rich in minerals-and that the shortest possible route to tidewater for the products of this great district is down to the Pacific coast, I feel it is unfair to the settlers to leave them there without any outlet to their market. I know the great handicaps of living in a pioneer country without having suitable outlets for our products. I had experience of farming under those conditions in the early days on the Pacific coast, and therefore I fully appreciate the duty of any government to relieve these conditions at the earliest possible opportunity.
When I contrast the opportunities presented to settlers in this great district and the practicability of connecting it with the seaeoast by rail with the present proposal to build a railroad to Hudson bay and take the chances of navigation through the strait, about which very little seems to be known, I say without hesitation that the two projects are not comparable at all. We have evidence of the rich quality of the land in this Peace river country, we have evidence that minerals are to be found there, we have evidence of its great timber resources, and we are assured as far as the outlet is concerned that it is a simple matter of connecting with ports that are open the whole year round. So the opening up of this particular area is not only practice

Peace River Railway
able but is certain to result in its rapid development, which will ensure ample traffic for the railway.
Now while I realize thait we must be careful before embarking on heavy expenditures for railway construction, and that nothing can be undertaken along this line until the finances of the Dominion are in a somewhat better condition, still I believe we should carry on the necessary surveys in the three other passes that have not yet been explored, and that this work should be commenced during the coming summer. Then when the time comes to consider the building of a railroad from the Peace river to the Pacific coast we will have before us sufficient data to make a careful study of the whole situation.
The view that before we do anything at all we should wait until there is more settlement in that country is in my opinion very narrow. The other day I was looking over the history of British Columbia when she entered confederation in 1871, and I had the pleasure and amusement of reading some of the comments by our public men of that day and also the editorials in the press. Some of the statements to-day strike one as absolutely ludicrous. It was said that not a single bushel of wheat could ever be exported from Saskatchewan to Great Britain because the cost of transportation would exceed the value of the commodity. It was also said that British Columbia was a sea of mountains, and that the traffic would not pay the cost of the axle grease used in the operation of the Canadian Pacific railway. Other so-called authorities * said that it was an insane idea to think of building a railroad at all, and that all the resources of the British Empire would not be sufficient to pay the cost of constructing the Canadian Pacific railway and its maintenance. Those opinions were expressed at a time when very little was known of our great western lands even by our leading men and newspaper writers. At that time they did not know that in British Columbia we have more than half the standing timber of Canada, 366 billion feet. It is interesting to know that last year we sold two billion feet of this timber at eighty-two million dollars; that the output of our mines was worth $67,000,000; that our agricultural production west of the mountains is $70,000,000, and that we were responsible for 46 per cent of all the fish produced in Canada. And we have many other advantages in that province, but I will content myself with merely pointing out the great resources of that portion of Canada so as to make it clear to hon. members that to wait for settlement under the present conditions in the Peace river country before a railroad is built will be perhaps to wait a hundred years. From my experience of pioneering days I am confident that that country will not be settled until a railroad is in operation there. I need not point out at any length the part played by our railways in the development of the prairies and the country west of the mountains. A man has to be sure of his market before he will go into those sections and develop the counTaking all these things into consideration, Mr. Speaker, I think a survey should be made of these passes as asked for in the amendment, and) that the jnecessary work should be commenced just as soon as practicable. I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment.


Robert Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind the House of some important factors connected with the Peace river situation. In the first instance, we must remember that the land in the prairie provinces is held by the crown. The even-numibered sections in most parts of the west, chiefly in Alberta, are left for homestead purposes. Some time about the year 1910 the Department of the Interior advertised the Peace river country as a splendid place for new settlers, and people went there on the understanding that within a reasonable time they would 'be provided with transportation facilities. We maintain that, a certain policy having been pursued over a number of years, it is now the duty of the federal government when they open these lands for settlement purposes to see that the transportation facilities required by the people are provided. In the Peace river area the federal government has not come to the assistance of the settlers in the matter of transportation facilities to the extent that it has done in other sections of the country. Alberta has been called upon to build these railways and to stand the expense of construction. The province 'has had to build colonization roads which, because of the policy of the present government, should by right Ibe a charge upon the Dominion. In the circumstances the provincial government now finds itself in the Peace river area with a railway construction costing something like $22,000,000. And that is not all. The provincial government at this moment has many applications for extensions of branch lines to serve people who have been settled since 1912 and who are expecting transportation facilities. We are spending something like $3,000,000 to bring immigrants to this
Peace River Railway

country, and), after placing them in certain areas, if we fail to give them adequate transportation facilities we simply lose them: they either flock to the cities or they leave the country altogether. What is the use of having an immigration policy if we do not follow it up with a proper system of transportation to meet the requirements of the people whom we bring in? I suggest to the government this morning that in view of the demand of the Peace river people upon the provincial government for an extension of branch lines the federal administration should at the earliest convenient moment determine which of the routes should be selected as the ultimate line to the Pacific coast. There are, I believe, four proposals in contemplation at the present time: the Obed route, the Pine pass, Monk-man pass and the Peace river pass. These are the alternatives. If the provincial government go ahead and build branch lines they may build them in the wrong direction from the standpoint of the ultimate outlet to the Pacific, and it is only fair to the people of the Peace river district and to the provincial government that the route finally to be decided upon should be chosen as quickly as possible so that we may know how to build in the future, I appeal to the government, therefore to accept at least the proposal that an instrumental survey be made immediately and that the route be chosen. When that is done, when the route is determined upon, then if the provincial government is compelled to extend branch lines this government will know in which direction to construct its roads so that there .may be no duplication and no branch lines will be wasted in the future. Let me remind the House that we have a considerable railway problem on our hands, a problem which is costing us a good deal of money. But how did we come into that problem? We icame into it exactly as I have described, by throwing open large areas of land and letting people settle wherever they pleased, without recognizing the fact that they must be provided with transportation facilities before they can produce and market their crops. I appeal to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) in the hope that he will accept the suggestion I offer, which is the least the government can do in the circumstances.


Mr. DUNNING:: If my hon. friend will withdraw the amendment, which goes further,
I shall be pleased to accept the suggestion right now.


Robert Gardiner: I have nothing more to say on the question. I do not wish to take
[Mr. Gardiru>r.J
up the time of the House further but I make that proposal as a fair one under present conditions.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: As one who has been interested for almost twenty years in the Peace river country and who, I believe, recommended to the Alberta government the construction of the Edmonton-Dunvegan railway to serve the people of that territory, I can say with some assurance that I know something about the situation there. I travelled through that district before there was a railway in the country, my object being to advise the provincial government what should be done. Perhaps I may be allowed to recite briefly the situation as it existed in 1913.
The Canadian National Railways projected a bne into the Peace river country by White Court, crossing the Macleod river and heading for the Peace river pass. In my opinion no other road will serve the country as acceptably as the route by the Peace river pass, and I have never thought otherwise. I believe the reconnaissance surveys made at that time amply warrant that statement; it is the only outlet that will properly serve that whole country. Other routes have been discussed but they will all entail a longer mileage and a more expensive haulage than the road by the Peace river pass. In support of my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Tolmie), I may add that the Peace river route will open up a greater area of good agricultural country in British Columbia than any other road proposed. A road from Grande Prairie to Obed would not meet the requirements of any considerable proportion of the country, while the mileage would be longer and the cost greater. When I went into the Peace river country I found a great many people who had gone in during the winter and had passed a period of two years away from civilization. I therefore recommended the construction of the Edmonton-Dunvegan railway and that road has served the territory fairly well, apart from the fact that it necessitates a big haul for grain and live stock which would be avoided if there was an outlet to the coast. I am a strong advocate of the outlet to the coast and I support the suggestion that there be a survey made with a view to having the route definitely settled, this year if possible. I see no reason why that should not be done. I understand however that the committee went thoroughly into the matter and I am afraid that there is an impression abroad in the minds of a good many members that the Peace river route would involve not only the construction of

Peace River Railway
a connection between Fort George and the existing Edmonton-Dunvegan railway, but also the purchase of that railway and the Pacific Great Eastern railway, both of which have entailed considerable expenditure. So far as I am concerned, with the information before me, I am perfectly agreeable to the suggestion of an immediate survey in order to submit to the House at the next session all the evidence available, and to have parliament take action thereon at that time. As I said before, however, the committee gave the matter serious consideration, and now that it has reported to the House I propose to stand by its finding.


Mr. J. A. FRASER (Cariboo):: I am
pleased to hear what the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton) has had to say. Because with his extensive knowledge of the country his remarks carry great weight. A vast body of opinion has grown up from information available before the railway committee and I am sure that if hon. members will study that report carefully they will come to the conclusion that the Peace river country is not asking for anything unreasonable. Let us consider for a moment what we are aiming at. In the first place, we are trying to bring into economical use an area of great potentialities. Canada requires just such areas to afford its population the employment they need, and that particular district contains very large tracts of agricultural land of proven value. Those lands are without adequate transportation facilities. There are very substantial areas of timber in the same region, as well as adjacent water powers which in my opinion would be sufficient to electrify a railway from the Peace river country to the coast, which should appeal to the House after the discussion we had during this session in regard to electrical energy. In addition to that, there are many mineral developments which would be opened up by a properly located railway; there is no doubt about the minerals located in the Omineca area, and very large recoveries may be expected not only of gold and silver but of zinc, lead and copper as well. That will give an idea of the possibilities of this route.
Why do the people in that area look to the Pacific for an outlet instead of to the east? Just consider for one moment that a railway 800 miles in length will provide them with an outlet to the Pacific coast which is open the year round, while if they come east they must ship their products three times that distance in order to get them to Montreal, which is only open six or seven months of the year. The report which I have under my hand
seems to indicate that if a road were built to the Pacific it would not be possible to lessen the cost of transportation. Can you imagine the people of the Peace river country subscribing to an idea of that kind when they have only 800 miles to travel to the Pacific, where they will have a port open the year round, while they are 3,000 miles from the Atlantic? You cannot make the people of that country believe that their proper outlet is not to the Pacific coast.
Now let me take up for a few moments the report presented by the engineers, in which they eliminate the possibility of all traffic except that resulting from agriculture. After what I have said in regard to the other potentialities of that district, I am sure that no member of this House will agree with that opinion. I am sure the engineers have surveyed this matter in a general way, but in my opinion they have not given it the careful consideration which the problem requires. Sio far as the engineers are concerned I believe they presented their report in good faith but in any case, as pointed out by the Minister of the Interior, there is no doubt that the question of the Obed route will not in any way Telieve the necessities of the Peace river country. That is a temporary expedient, of the worst kind, and should not be considered for one moment. The Premiers of Alberta and British Columbia appeared before that committee and condemned this route, and I should think that would be sufficient evidence to make this House forget all about it.
Now let me draw a picture, if I can, of the situation connected with the Peace river outlet, and in my opinion the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) was absolutely right when he said there is no route to consider except that via the Peace river itself, which has been the natural route into that country from time immemorial. British Columbia was first opened up by the Peace river route, which has continued in use up to the present time. On this route is the lowest continental divide on the North American continent, 2,350 feet; all other proposed routes must climb to an elevation of at least 3,750 feet, and when grades are such a compelling factor in the construction of a railway, I submit that this question must be given very serious consideration. Let me point out again that taking into consideration the topography of that country, everything indicates that the controlling factors from a transportation point of view all converge at Prince George; all these routes come to that point.
Peace River Railway


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend will not object to making it clear that that statement was made by the Deputy Minister of Railways for Alberta, not our deputy minister.


John Anderson Fraser: I thought' I had said so;
that is quite true. Prince George is the centre of that whole country, and if you bring this railway through the Peace river pass you not only have the opportunity of shipping grain to Prince Rupert, but' you have the alternative route to Vancouver, and if you are not satisfied with either of those you have the third alternative of providing a new route down the Fraser river from Prince George to Vancouver, a distance of 480 miles with a grade of four-tent'hs. I submit that the solution of the whole proposition is to connect Prince George with the Peace river country, and I submit that the solution is not difficult; it will be necessary to build only 400 miles of road, and there is no necessity for a preliminary survey at' present. Put your engineers to work, make your location surveys and go ahead and build the road.
What will be the expenditure entailed? I have the estimate of the Deputy Minister of Railways for Alberta, given before the committee, in which he gave an expenditure of $12,160,000 as necessary to connect the Peace river country with Prince George via Pine pass. It is from 50 to 75 miles longer via the Peace river pass, but if you add a proportionate amount for the extra mileage, construction of the road by way of Peace river pass will entail an expenditure not exceeding $15,000,000. That is all that is required from

the government at present. It is not a question of the immediate investment of another $100,000,000, or $80,000,000, or even $60,000,000; what is involved at the present time is simply the investment of another $15,000,000.
Now I am going to take up an angle of this question which has never been presented, so far as I know, either before the committee or anywhere else. I have an intimate connection with this railway problem by virtue of the fact that during the time of the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Pacific Great Eastern, I represented that district in the local legislature. My connection, in the first place, with the Pacific Great Eastern dates away back to 1912, and 50 or 60 per cent of that road was within the confines of the district that I represented locally. You can readily understand, therefore, that it was impassible for me to do otherwise than gain some knowledge in regard to this question. The point I want to make is this: The province of Alberta and British Columbia are in exactly the same position so far as this question is concerned; It will be found from the records, which are easily available to every member of this House, that except for fifty miles-as stated by the Premier of Alberta the other day-not a single dollar of money has been contributed towards the construction of this railway by way of cash subventions from the federal government. I submit and know that when we undertook the construction of the railway in British Columbia we expected to receive a cash subvention from this country of $6,400 per mile. The province of Alberta is in exactly the same position, and you can easily see the strength in my argument when I tell you that the government of that province received a cash subsidy of $6,400 per mile towards the construction of fifty miles of the railway. Now my point is that the province of Alberta has made an investment of $40,000,000 in provincial railways for the purpose of developing that province which naturally belonged to the federal government, because the lines in that province are federal lines. Such being the case the province would naturally expect some assistance from the federal government when railway lines were built in that province, especially when it is remembered that Alberta does not possess her natural resources. The province of British Columbia is in a different position in that regard. She has invested in the railway $50,000,000, but both provinces came before the committee and said that they had gone to the length of their financial resources as regards the completion of these railways. My point is this: There is a

Peace River Railway
thousand miles of railway undertaken by these two provinces for no part of which, other than the fifty miles already referred to, has any federal assistance been received. Now whether this project goes through parliament this year or not, both these provinces are going to make a claim for a cash subvention, and in my opinion they certainly are entitled to it. They are entitled to it because if you refer to the report of the Department of Railways and Canals you will find that subsidies have been provided in the case of all the other provinces to an amount of $78,000,000. Do you mean to tell me, therefore, that if it is the general policy of the Dominion government to provide cash subventions for the construction of these railways, the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia are not to make claims for these grants?


Charles Avery Dunning: Was it the policy of the
federal government, at the time these railways were commenced, to grant such subsidies anywhere in Canada?


Mr. ERASER:: All over Canada, I tell
the minister.


Charles Avery Dunning: At the time these railways were commenced?


John Anderson Fraser: At the time these lines
were commenced.


Charles Avery Dunning: And they were commenced when?


John Anderson Fraser: In 1912.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend will remember who was in power in 1912.


John Anderson Fraser: Certainly I remember who
was in power in 1912. The proof of what I say is that the province of Alberta, in line with that general policy, made application for a cash subvention for fifty miles and actually received it. The Premier of Alberta admitted that at the conference the other day. Now when you take this thousand miles of railway and multiply that mileage by $6,400, you will find it amounts to $6,400,000. Therefore I say that in any case the federal government is going to be presented with a bill for that sum. In addition, the total expenditure for connecting this road up to Fort George and the Peace river country is only $15,000,000. So that all we are asking the federal government to do in connection with the construction of the line is to put up about $8,000,000 in addition to what they will have to pay in any case. I submit that is not a very unreasonable demand to make on behalf of the people who are in the Peace river country, when you take into
consideration the amount of available land and the other possibilities there are in that district. At the present time I am speaking on behalf of the people of the district and pointing out the potentialities of that country. Now may I point out that the House is already committed to very substantial expenditures which are not justified if the Peace River railway is not undertaken and an outlet provided for that country. We have undertaken liabilities to the extent of $20,000,000 in connection with the branch line program of the Canadian National Railways, and these further amounts are being voted: $10,000,000 to satisfy the claims of the mari-times; $5,000,000 for the construction of the Hudson Bay railway, which the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., very well remarked could not be justified at all on the same grounds as those which justify the construction of the Peace River railway, and there is the further fact to be borne in mind that there is a prospective liability of another $20,000,000; $4,000,000 to beautify the city of Ottawa; $250,000 for the diamond jubilee; $3,000,000 of an increase for the civil servants; and an increase of $2,000,000 for the air service. The people of Peace River have not complained about these expenditures, they do not argue that these expenditures are not justified; but they do say that when a reasonable claim is made on their behalf they are entitled to the same consideration as the people in other parts of the Dominion.
Now, I want to consider as briefly as I can some of the evidence submitted to the committee in regard to the area of land available in that district. The engineers report that there are eight and a half million acres of agricultural land available for development in the limited area they had under consideration. An officer of the Department of the Interior, a man of experience, a man who has been over the district judging from his remarks, estimated that in the same area there were 12,000,000 acres of land of that sort. There you have a discrepancy right at the start, and that acreage is only in a limited area. I maintain there are 25.000,000 acres easily available for agricultural development. The engineers will only admit a maximum total of 2,790,000 tons of freight for the area they were considering-not the minimum but the maximum -and let me say that they exclude everything except the products of agriculture-they give no credit for anything else. If the estimate of the engineers is correct as to the tonnage and the acreage you have a total yield from each acre of land of 0.33, or one-third of a ton from each acre. The Premier of Alberta when
Peace River Railway

he was before the committee stated that the actual tonnage of the Peace River crop this year moved over this line amounted to 179,611 tons. Now the minimum tonnage which the engineers estimated could be developed within ten or fifteen years was 170,000 tons, so at the present time the Peace river country is producing, according to Premier Brownlee's statement, more than the minimum tonnage which the engineers estimated it was possible for that country to produce within the next ten or fifteen years. That tonnage was produced from 270,000 acres of land under cultivation, which amounts to .66 tons per acre, or two-tbirds of a ton; in other words, the actual tonnage at present is exactly double what the engineers estimated in their report I do not think it is fair to allow the impression to go all over this country that the tonnage will amount to only one-third of a ton per acre, when it is actually twice that now. Taking Premier Brownlee's figures, and the figure of 8,500,000 acres which the engineers admit is in that area, that territory will produce if the same ratio of production is applied to the whole area, 5,600,000 tons of freight, which is double the maximum tonnage estimated by the engineers.
I want to impress upon the House, first, that the construction of this railway will simply be the ordinary railway construction. That is stated in the report. The grade required to connect these two points I have mentioned is four-tenths of one per cent; all the engineers admit that. Not only that, but it is the lowest grade which the engineers have submitted for any of these routes. The Peace river pass provides the best gradient for the opening up of that country. In addition to that, on page 15 of the engineers' report you will find that they admit that the Peace river route is the most likely to produce the maximum traffic.
Now I want the House to ask itself this question. What are we considering? Are we considering simply the construction of a temporary expedient which will last only a few years and then have to be reconstructed, or are we considering the construction of a permanent railway that will have for its object the maximum development of that country? If you are thinking of permanent construction for the maximum development of the country, I submit that you should take the long view and put the railway where the best grades are, even if it involves a little longer mileage. Again I repeat, the summit of 2,350 feet is the lowest on the North American continent.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, aft'er the promises that have been made not only by this

government-I do not want to inject any political animus into this question at all

after the inducements that have been held out to people to go into that country and settle, such as the literature of the federal government which was read in the committee, and the situation being what it is at the present time, I do submit that this House would be justified in going ahead during the coming year and making an actual location survey of that route for the permanent development of that country. It is the shortest route to the coast, and there is no proper way of providing an outlet except as I have indicated. I state that" on my responsibility as a resident of that country for just about forty years. I know the situation of the people who went into that country expecting this railway to be built, and I do submit that in view of all the frills and furbelows for which we have been voting money here this session, this is the most reasonable, the most sensible, and the most feasible project' that has been submitted to parliament this session.


Mr. A. M. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, as acting chairman of the railway committee I think perhaps I should say just a word as to what took place in the committee. I do not intend to delay the House longer than a very few minutes.
In the committee a very great deal of time was given to the study of this question. We had before us the chief engineers of the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific Railways, the men who were responsible for the preparation of the report that has been mentioned. We had also before us Premier Oliver of British Columbia and Premier Brownlee of Alberta, also the Deputy Minister of Railways and the Chief Engineer of the province of Alberta. We adjourned from day to day in order that all the evidence might be brought before the committee.
With regard to the engineers' report, I would like to say in the first place that I am not going into any details whatever, but that' report distinctly is of the opinion that it is economically unsound, in view of the present volume of traffic, to begin to construct further railways in that country. I would like to quote just a few words from Premier Oliver's address. After stating at length the policy which he favoured he said:
The policy outlined will require the expenditure of a large amount of money and the present volume of business may not warrant further capital expenditures. Any policy adopted should afford a reasonable assurance that in a short time the returns from the expenditure made would be sufficient to meet operation and maintenance as well as interest charges, and eventually liquidate the original capital outlay.

Peace River Railway
Then he asked himself this question:
Is it practical to justify the necessary expenditures by the production of a sufficiency of revenue, and if so, how is it to be done?
He answered that in this way:
A careful and conservative survey of available resources should be had, and a liberal estimate of expenditures and time necessary to develop the resources so as to provide a volume of traffic sufficient to make the railway pay should also be made. The methods to be employed and the costs incurred in procuring the necessary population and development should be considered. There are many other factors also, but generally speaking, settlement and development upon a sufficiently large scale is imperatively necessary to accompany railway construction. Any other course would be madness.
Premier Brownlee had this to say in reply to a question by the hon. Minister of Railways :
So far as I am concerned I have tried to indicate-I may have failed in my argument

that in my opinion, steps should be taken at once to lay down a program leading to the ultimate development of the Pacific coast outlet. I think there should be some kind of a body gathered together, such as an independent commission, to hear evidence as to the proper outlet. A definite program should be laid down that the route will go a certain way, and the necessary extensions should be made at once to adequately serve the territory. So far as the time of completion is concerned, I would prefer to leave that, to some extent at least, to those who are engaged in developing the route, having regard to the increased traffic that would come from a move of this kind.
Then the Minister of Railways asked him the following question:
It would involve, in your judgment, the taking over of the E. D. and B. C.?
To which Premier Brownlee replied:
Yes.
I want to go a little further and say that the engineers and Premier Oliver and Premier Brownlee and the Deputy Minister of Railways of Alberta apparently do not agree on which is the best route. Both premiers are apparently of the opinion that this matter should be further studied. That is as far as I wish to go in regard to the evidence.
Apparently we are all decided that the Peace river country has wonderful possibilities, and that those possibilities should not be neglected, but at the same time all seem to agree that we have not sufficient data at the present time to proceed forthwith with construction. What does the resolution call for?


Mr. POULIOT:: What would be the approximate cost?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I do not think I can go into that question. We had the approximate cost of several sections of the road but I am not an expert in the cost of railways. The resolution submitted to the House says:
That, in 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.
Having regard to the evidence before us, we in the committee did not believe that we could recommend that this be done forthwith. The actual report which has been submitted to this House was submitted to the committee and, upon the question being put, was passed by the committee unanimously, with the exception of a few members.


Robert Gardiner: How long before the committee rose was this report submitted to them? Is it not a fact that it was submitted after only a few minutes' notice and with no opportunity to consider it?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: There was no limitation to discussion in that committee. The report of the committee goes on to say:
Your committee, having heard evidence on the subject matter of the resolution from the premiers of Alberta and British Columbia and from 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 next clause reads:
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.
I understand the hon. member for Peace River takes more objection to the last clause than to any other. The report continues:
Your committee is further of opinion that potentialities of that area are such as to warrant a continuous study of its development.
I think the hon. member said that the effect of the last clause would be that this project would be shelved. In my humble opinion this clause means the very reverse of that-that the potentialities are such that the matter cannot be neglected, but that a continuous study should be made; not that that study should be given next year, but that it should begin now in the interests of the development of the country. So that, instead of the report of the committee meaning delay, I take it that it means that the study should

Peace River Railway

begin now, that it should proceed with as much haste as possible, and that after all the matters are investigated a policy should be brought to the House and should be acted upon as soon thereafter as possible.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I should 'like to ask the hon. member to state one thing which the report recommends should be done.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: There was no limitation placed upon it. It says "continuous study." That means, not a study of one branch, but a study of all phases, and a report brought in and acted upon. I think that is a fair statement of the facts.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): I should like to make a few remarks on this matter before the debate is closed. One can well understand the anxiety of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy); as he has himself said, he is here for this purpose. I think perhaps he over-states it when he says that, but at least it is the most important objective he has in view, as the representative from Peace River. Therefore one must commend him for diligence in prosecuting this matter
Mr. KENNEDY The minister is merely stating his own opinion.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am commending my
hon. friend for his diligence in prosecuting it. If he disagrees with that opinion, I could offer some criticism as to the method followed by the hon. member in endeavouring to get the support of other hon. members with respect to the problems of his district, but I will refrain from doing so. There is an old saying that you can catch more flies with molasses than with vinegar, which I hope my hon. friend will take to heart. With regard to the treatment accorded the matter by the House and by its committee, I think I am safe in saying that no question has been given fairer consideration by this House, or by one of its largest committees, than the question raised by the hon. member for Peace River on this resolution. I have in my hand the printed evidence taken on motion of my hon. friend and available to him for his own purposes for propaganda, to which I register no objection at all. The committee agreed to that and spent day after day on the matter, and heard evidence from the engineers who drafted the report; the report was agreed to as a result of former representations by my hon. friend and those interested in the project. My hon. friend had perfect liberty to cross-examine the engineers and I am prepared to leave .it to the judg-

ment of any member of this House as to whether or not the reading of the evidence of those engineers justified in the main the position they took in the report. I am willing to leave it to the people most nearly concerned, the people of Peace river district. The committee heard evidence also from the premiers of British Columbia and Alberta. The resolution moved originally in this House by the hon. member for Peace River and submitted to the committee does not represent the full picture of the problem of the Peace river country by any means. I offer in testimony in that regard the evidence of the premiers of British Columbia and Alberta, both of whom urged the committee to look into the matter carefully, and to look at what they described as the larger picture or the larger question. And what is that? Not only an outlet from the Peace river line to Prince George, but the position of each of the two provinces with respect to the lines now owned by themselves-a much larger picture from the point of view of the financial commitment by this Dominion than is involved in the resolution submitted to the House by the hon. member for Peace River. As Minister of Railways, responsible in some degree, I cannot ignore that larger picture which was also presented by my hon. friend from Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). I find no fault with him for presenting it. We might differ in opinion as to the extent to which those considerations should be taken into account, but we cannot ignore the fact that, from the point of view of the people of the two provinces, very much more is involved than the building of a railway from the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia line to Prince Geoige.


John Anderson Fraser: Does the minister not
think, having regard to what has been done by the provinces, that taking the larger picture he is submitting now he would get reasonable assistance from those provinces for the further development of the project?


Charles Avery Dunning: My impression, after listening to the premiers of those two provinces, was that what they wanted was not so much to give assistance to the Dominion, as it was to get the Dominion to take off their hands two white elephants which they possess. That was the view held by members of the committee.


John Anderson Fraser: So far as we are concerned, we did not consider the Pacific Great Eastern a white elephant. It would not be a white elephant at all, if it were properly proceeded

Peace River Railway
with. It is because it is hung up in the air that it is a white elephant as the Liberal government said at the time.
Mr .DUNNING: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if the use of the term "white elephant" is offensive. I intended merely to convey the idea that by the testimony of their respective premiers the provinces now have railways on their hands which are involving them every year not only in very heavy operating deficits, but that also they do not earn a cent toward their capital charges.


Mr. BENNETT:: A deficit of a million a year in Alberta.


Charles Avery Dunning: A deficit of a million a year in Alberta, my hon. friend from West Calgary says. I believe that was the figure submitted by the premier of Alberta. I merely used the term "white elephant" as illustrating that condition. This government is not prepared immediately to take any position which can be construed as an admission that the Dominion must take over the liabilities of these provinces. I am not saying that in the working out of a larger picture consideration will not be given to these factors, I am not in any sense closing the door, but I do say that in the light of the information now available, and in the light of the present railway responsibilities of the Dominion, we are not ready to proceed forthwith along that line.
Confining my remarks now entirely to the outlet, the cut-off, so far as the people now in the Peace river country are concerned, may I, with all respect, point out to the House that they are not at such a very great disadvantage in shipping their products to the Pacific coast as compared with the people of the central west generally. With regard to freight rates alone, may I point out that the furthest distant points on the existing Edmonton, Dunvegan and central Canada railways have a freight rate to Vancouver exactly similar to the freight rate paid from points in central and western Saskatchewan in the neighbourhood of Saskatoon. In other words, it is just as cheap for the people of the Peace river country to get their grain to the Pacific coast over their existing lines as it is for the people in central Saskatchewan to ship their grain to the Pacific coast. That is the degree of the disadvantage and the discrimination under which they labour.
I said a little time ago that I did not think any case had been given fairer consideration by a committee than this particular case. The committee's report was moved and seconded and agreed to. My hon. friend from Acadia
(Mr. Gardiner) complains that the proceedings of the committee terminated shortly thereafter. He does not suggest, I gather, that no opportunity was given by the chairman of the committee to those associated with him to move the amendment to the report which they now move in this House. I submit that the proper procedure to amend the report was, in the first instance, to attempt to do so before the committee, of the House dealing with the matter, which had the advantage, not possessed by this House, of having heard all the evidence submitted. If the hon. members were dissatisfied with the draft report as presented before that committee, it was within their power there to have moved the amendment which they now bring before the House, and so to have brought to bear upon it the judgment of the members of the committee who had the advantage of hearing the evidence. They did not do that. I gather from the remarks of the hon. member for Acadia that the proceedings terminated shortly thereafter. I would have thought that hon. members so vitally interested would themselves have drafted something in the nature of the report which they desired the committee to make, and would have been ready to present it to the committee. I confess frankly that one or two members of the committee cooperated that morning in an endeavour to shape up what appeared to be the consensus of opinion. There was no effort on the part of the members most interested to put before the committee anything in the nature of a draft report, nor was there any effort on their part to amend the draft report which was put before the committee.


Robert Gardiner: Is it not true that the
chairman of the committee and the hon. minister were the only ones that cooperated in drafting the report, and that it was drafted only a few minutes before its submission to the committee?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is not true, Mr. Speaker. Several of its members spoke to me during the sittings of the 'committee as to the nature of the report which should be submitted, and that morning I think-probably the chairman will confirm me-half a dozen drafts of one kind and another were before the chairman and myself, emanating from one source or another. But that is not my point. I submit my friends from Alberta had an opportunity in the committee of moving the amendment which they now move in the House. I am not complaining, but I must confess their doing so did take me somewhat by surprise. I was made aware of their in-
Peace River Railway

tent-ion only three-quarters of an hour before they took action, and consequently I had very little opportunity to look into the procedure necessary.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The minister surely will admit that when I sent him a copy of the amendment I intimated that I was willing to wait a day or even two days before moving
it? .


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. I would further
point out that in the committee itself, on the motion that the report be adopted, there were only a very few dissentient voices. I think I can fairly say that members of the committee from the opposite side as well as members from this side who attended (the sessions faithfully were impressed with the manner in which the evidence was presented, and concurred pretty generally in the judgment of the committee as presented in the report.
In answer to my hon. friend from Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) with respect to his support of the suggestion by the deputy minister of Railways for Alberta/that unless action as proposed by the amendment is taken the line from the Red pass junction to Prince Rupert will have to be abandoned, I want to say with all the force at my command that we have no intention whatever of abandoning that line, even if no outlet from the Peace river is ever built. We intend to continue to build up that line and its resources and the port at the end of it.
As to the engineers' estimates quoted by my hon. friend from Cariboo, in my experience when I had before me estimates from four or five engineers with respect to the cost of a particular project, I have found it the part of wisdom to base my calculations upon the highest estimate, pot the lowest, because it is well known that in large -construction projects the tendency is for the actual cost of construction to go beyond the estimate. In this case, my hon. friend based all his calculations upon the evidence of Mr. Calloghan, chief engineer for the province of Alberta, which disagrees with the evidence submitted by the four eminent engineers who signed ,the report. Mr. Calloghan's estimate is very much below the estimates of the other engineers.
I will not discuss the question of Dominion subsidies to provincial railways. I think my hon. friend will find that the provincial lines to which he refers were built after the time when the Dominion discontinued the policy of granting subsidies.


John Anderson Fraser: I must absolutely disagree with the minister on that point.
[Mr. Dunning.!


Charles Avery Dunning: Then the hon. gentleman must account in some way for the fact that the party of which he is such a distinguished member, and which was in power at that time, did not make -any move to grant subsidies in these particular cases.


Mr. STEVENS:: In 1912 a subsidy was voted of $6,400 a mile for a line into the Peace River district, which subsidy expired in 1914, when it was renewed for a further two years. But it was not applicable to provincial roads. It was voted -for a road into that district.


John Anderson Fraser: In answer to the point-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The hon. gentleman has already spoken. Is he putting a question?


John Anderson Fraser: No, Mr. Speaker.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am afraid the hon.
member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has not helped the situation very much with respect to the complaint of -the hon. member for Cariboo. That complaint, to put. it in his own words, is that the provinces have a bill to present to the Dominion for $6,400 per mile for the whole mileage they have constructed.


John Anderson Fraser: They sure have.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre says, and I believe very correctly, -that the subsidies voted by this parliament with respect to roads into that area were not applicable to provincial roads.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister has not
stated the matter correctly. He said that the parliament of the day did not think it wise to vote any subsidies for roads in that district'.


Charles Avery Dunning: For these roads.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I tell him that not only was a vote passed but a bill actually went through parliament in 1912 for a subsidy to a line into the Peace river country. It was not however applicable to a purely provincial road, and naturally so. This road, the Pacific Great Eastern, was built by the province but it was understood that later on, when the connection was made with the Peace river district, the bill in question would become applicable.


John Anderson Fraser: Is it not apparent to the
minister that the real reason for the suspension of the subsidies was the war, the Dominion government requiring all its resources at that time?

Peace River Railway


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall have to let my
hon. friend from Cariboo and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre settle that point between themselves. It is at least quite apparent that the claim made by the hon. member for Cariboo with reference to this big bill to which he has alluded has been well answered by the statements of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. The subsidies did not apply to provincial roads, says the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. These two roads were then and are still provincial roads. My hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) might well pray to foe delivered from his friends, for I am sure that it does not forward the task of getting through this parliament a vote for the Peace river outlet to have submitted t'o us prospective bills of all sorts both by the premiers of British Columbia and Alberta and, in further degree, by my hon. friend from Cariboo.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You will pay for them
just before the next election.


Charles Avery Dunning: We shall pay for them before tihe next election, says my hon._ friend. Well, that brings me to the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr Gardiner), the leader of the United Farmers of Alberta group. That hon. gentleman proposes that as soon as practicable we determine which of the passes should be used for t'he railway when it is built, without in any way committing ourselves to the construction of the railway this year or next year or in the immediate future. That I understood to be his suggestion. I intimated while the hon. member was speaking that the government was prepared to accede to that request if the amendment now before the House were withdrawn; and, indeed, whether it is withdrawn or not-my hon. friend can press it to a vote if he desires-the government does intend in any event to secure further detailed engineering information in order to be able to say to the people of the Peace river country and to the people of British Columbia, who are vitally affected, "When a western outlet is built, this in our opinion is the pass through which that line of railway should be constructed." We are prepared to do that in any case.
My objection to the amendment is this: it does seek to commit this parliament more definitely than I think the fact's now available warrant us in committing ourselves so far as the immediate future is concerned. My hon. friend from Peace River naturally desires something to which he can in the future refer back and say, "The parliament of Canada said so and so; parliament decided to do this
immediately." That is the general tenor of the amendment, particularly in its last two paragraphs. The government is prepared to go the length I have indicated to the hon. member for Acadia. We are prepared to ask the Canadian National Railways to determine definitely as early as possible which pass should be used when a railway is t'o be constructed from the Peace river country into British Columbia and down to Prince George. That is as far as we are ready to go at present.


John Anderson Fraser: Would the minister be prepared to go the length of allowing the deputy ministers of the two provinces to be associated in the suggested inquiry by the Canadian National Railways?


Charles Avery Dunning: I should not like to give offhand an answer to that question. After all it is a matter of assembling engineering data and making an instrumental survey. That is what is involved. We heard a great deal before the railway committee about surveys of various kinds, -but undoubtedly in this matter an instrumental survey would be necessary. It is a question of getting the facts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: An election survey?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no election in
prospect.


John Anderson Fraser: Is it not apparent in any
case that these bodies will have to be associated with the Canadian National Railways in the determination of this complicated problem?


Charles Avery Dunning: I can assure my hon.
friend that every consideration will be given along that line to the views of the governments of Alberta and British Columbia. I will not say that we will have this deputy minister or that deputy minister associated with the work. I do not know where that might lead. It might, of -course, prove to be practicable but I should prefer not to be committed in advance at this time. I want the House clearly to understand that beyond that limit the government is not -prepared at this session to go; and my hon. friend from Peace River in the light of the evidence submitted -to the committee, is rather unreasonable in asking us for -a further commitment than that. If he presses hiis amendment I shall very reluctantly be compelled to vote against it for the reasons I have stated. 1 do not want -to find myself in the position of being represented as opposing the development of the Peace river area. In conclusion I would call to the attention of the Bouse the evidence before the committee as to what would really be involved in this matter. 1 submilt that a fair calculation of what would
Peace River Railway

[DOT]be really involved, to carry out the desires of the governments of the two provinces and to build the outlet as well, would fall not very far short of $85,000,000 before we got through with it, and for that reason I do not think it fair to press the government to a commitment on an enterprise of such propprtions immediately.


William Irvine: Does the minister really say that the amendment would involve such a commitment as he has just indicated?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, I would not say that exactly, but it would involve approval of a basis of action by this House which I believe would ultimately result in an expenditure of that size.


William Irvine: Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member has
already spoken.


William Irvine: I wish to speak to the
amendment. It occurs to me that the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) has taken the amendment much too seriously. He suggests that if we want to catch flies we ought to proceed in some other manner. Let me assure him that I am not trying to catch flies, nor do I regard the minister himself as one of that breed. Neither do I think the member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) has in mind any political or ulterior motive in moving the amendment. We Iconsider the minister fair and we believe he intends to do the best he can for the people of Canada. We therefore present the case to him on a basis that is reasonable.
The situation in Peace River is not denied The necessity for the railway for which we are asking is admitted by everyone and more specifically by the minister himself than by anybody else. Speaking on a resolution moved by the hon. member for Peace River the minister used these words:
1-as the engineers' report demonstrates, there is undoubtedly need for some further branch line construction on the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia system in order to enable the country to fully develop, in order to assist in its settlement and encourage immigrants, but in the main the problem is one of providing a more economical outlet-
The amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River has only that object in view. We are not seeking to commit parliament or the government to the taking over of all the government railways of British Columbia or all the government railways of Alberta. This may be subsequently considered, as the minister has said.


Charles Avery Dunning: Might I just point out
to my hon. friend that the last paragraph except one of the amendment contains the following:
-and that on completion of this survey a definite policy of railway development for the Peace river country should be decided upon.
That is the country which is now partly served by a provincial railway.


William Irvine: We are seeking to lay
down some policy regarding the whole railway problem, and are not trying to commit this parliament to the taking over of one or the other of the provincially owned systems.
I think the minister has indicated that the suggestion of the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) would be acceptable to the government. As I understood that suggestion, it was that some progress towards providing the people of the Peace river district with transportation facilities should be made, and that in order that this progress might be made, he suggested an instrumental survey with the view of determining an outlet in order that subsequent branch lines may tend to the development of such an outlet.	'
At one o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at three o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George) moved the third reading of Bill No. 107, respecting the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada.
Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: When opposing this bill last night I submitted an amendment to clause 2, which reads as follows :
Of the capital stock to be hereafter issued no shares shall be distributed to the stockholders as dividends or bonuses, or shall be issued in any other way than in return for the payment to the company of at least the full par value thereof.
After the issue of any capital in excess of two million dollars, no dividend to shareholders shall be declared by the company in excess of fifteen per cent per annum.
The supporters of the bill objected to the second part of this amendment, which was afterwards deleted by the House. When the bill went to committee it went through far too rapidly. Its amended provisions were not. read,, and it was therefore most difficult to grasp the details of it. When you, Mr. APRIL 13, 1927
Sun Life Assurance Company
Speaker, asked when the bill should be read a third time, the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) made the following statement:
Mr. Speaker, there have been many important amendments proposed to this bill, so important that we would like to have a look at them in the printed form, therefore I suggest that the third reading stand till the next sitting of the House.
The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) moved this morning that we should take up private bills at three o'clock this afternoon. Now, to show the importance of the suggestion of the hon. member for Acadia last night that we should have time to read over these various important amendments, I want to make a few comments on the bill. I am very sorry that the second part of my amendment to clause 2 was rejected last night, for with the rejection of the amendment restricting dividends the prohibition of stock bonuses is senseless. All that it will mean will be that instead of declaring a bonus of stock, there will be declared a special dividend to be repaid immediately as a payment by shareholders on their stock. The so-called concession by the company in respect of stock bonus is therefore a joke. It is probable that the company's refusal to accept the amendment limiting dividends to 15 per cent is due to the fact that since the beginning of 1927 the company's dividend rate has been increased from 15 per cent to 25 per cent. This makes the actual rate of dividend on the payments made by shareholders on their capital 123 per cent per annum, or on the total payment by shareholders on capital and premium account, 89 per cent.
It is also to be observed that the amendment respecting stock bonuses made in this section contradicts the provisions of section 9 of the bill. I will refer to section 9 in a few minutes. So rapidly did we go through the bill last night that I was glad on going through it again this morning to notice that we overlooked something in section 3 which should have been called to the attention of the House. This section is one of the most pernicious sections of the bill. Its apparent effect is to put life insurance stock on the same basis as mining stock. The real object of the section is to enable dividends to be quoted as so much per share rather than so much per cent and thus to conceal the real rate of dividend paid.
If the amendment respecting dividends had been made in section 2, section 3 would not have been, from this standpoint, so objectionable, but with section 2 left as it is, section 3 should come out.
Now I should like to say a few words regarding section 9. This section contradicts the amendment adopted respecting stock bonuses in section 2. Section 9 declares that so long as any stock of the company is not fully paid, dividends may be applied in reduction of the unpaid amount thereof. This means that dividends may be applied as stock bonus although the amendment adopted in section 2 declares that there shall be no stock bonus. The two sections can be made to harmonize by inserting after the word "company" in the first line of section 9 the words "heretofore issued." This will mean that so far as the stock already issued is concerned, dividends may be applied as stock bonus, but so far as any stock issued in excess of $2,000,000 is concerned, dividends must be paid in cash.
Those are the only criticisms that I have to make with regard to this bill. As I cannot move two amendments, Mr. Speaker, I am going to take this opportunity of moving one which I hope will improve this bill, making it a good deal safer and more in the interests of the policy holders. I therefore beg to move, seconded by Mr. Gardiner, that section 2 be amended by adding the following words:
After the issue of any capital in excess of two million dollars no dividends to shareholders shall be declared by the company in excess of fifteen per cent per annum.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I object to that motion, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. My point of order is that there cannot 'be a distinct motion to amend a bill when a motion for its third reading is before the House. It must be a motion to refer the bill back to committee.


Hewitt Bostock: I was just about to say
that no amendment of this nature can be moved unless it is preceded by the words, " That the present bill be referred back to the committee of the whole."


Henry Elvins Spencer: That was my intention,
Mr. Speaker, and I should like to have those words added to my amendment.


Hewitt Bostock: I think the amendment
is in order with that addition.
The House divided on the amendment which was agreed to on the following division.
YEAS Messrs:
Blanchard,
Bothwell,
Bouchard,
Boucher,
Bourgeois,
Allan,
Auger,
Bancroft,
Benoit,
Bettez.

Sun Life Assurance Company
Campbell,
Cannon,
Cardin,
Carmichael,
Chevrier,
Coote,
Delisle,
Denis (St. Denis), Denis (Joliette), Desaulniers, Deseoteaux, Deslauriers,
Donnelly,
Dunning,
Edwards (Ottawa), Elliott,
Euler,
Evans,
F ansher
(Last Mountain), Fansher
(Lambton East), Fiset (Sir Eugene), Forke,
Gardiner,
Garland (Bow River), Gervais,
Girouard,
Glen,
Goulet,
Heaps,
Hepburn,
Howden,
Ilsley,
Irvine,
Jelliff,
Jenkins,
Johnston
(Long Lake), Kellner,
Kennedy,
King '
(Kootenay East), Laeombe,
Laflamme,
Langlois,
Lapierre,
Lavigueur,
Letellier,
Lovie,
Lucas,
MaeLean (Prince), McLean (Melfort), Macphail, Miss, McKenzie,
McPhee,
Malcolm,
Mercier (St. Henri), Millar,
Milne,
Morin (Bagot),
Morin (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville),
Morrissy,
Motherwell,
Neill,
Perras,
Power,
Ralston,
Rheaume,
Rinfret,
Robb,
Ross (Moose Jaw), Sanderson,
Seguin,
Sinclair (Queens), Spencer,
Steedsman,
Taylor,
Totzke,
Vallance,
Veniot,
V erville,
Ward,
Woodsworth,
Young
(Saskatoon).-91.

Messrs:
Anderson (Toronto-High Park),
Barber,
Bell (Hamilton West), Bell (St. Antoine),
Bell (St. John-Albert), Black (Halifax), Bowen,
Brady,
Cahan,
Casselman,
Chaplin,
Charters
Cowan,
Dickie,

Edwards (Frontenac-Addington),
Edwards
(Waterloo South), Embury,
Esling,
Fraser,
Garland (Carleton), Gott,
Grimmer,
Guerin,
Guthrie,
Hanson,
Harris,
Hodgins,

Howard,
J acobs,
Jones,
Kaiser, -Kay,
Ladner,
Macdonald (Kings), Macdonald (Richmond-West Cape Breton), MacLaren,
MacNutt,
McGibbon,
McGregor,
McRae,
Maloney,
Matthews,
Maybee,
Peck,
Pettit,
Preston,
Price,
Quinn,
Rennie,
Robinson,
Ross (Kingston City),
Ryckman,
Ryerson,
Simpson,
Smoke,
Spence (Parkdale), Stevens,
Stewart (Leeds), Stinson,
Stirling,
Thompson,
Tolmie,
Tummon,
White (London), Young (Toronto Northeast), Young
(Weyburn).-67.
The House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I desire to say that an
amendment in the exact terms of the present amendment was voted down last night by a large majority.


Henry Elvins Spencer: No vote was taken.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There was a standing vote
and that vote was against this amendment. I am not interested in the Sun Life Assurance Company in any way, shape or form, political or otherwise. I have a policy of $2,500, which I took in my early life, which is now paid-up. The Sun Life Company has proved to be one of the best administered financial companies in this country. I may say one of the best in the world. A year ago sixty-three per cent of its business was done outside of Canada. Probably, as the business is progressing, this year seventy-five per cent will be done outside of Canada. This company is increasing its business in the United States, where its reputation is of the highest, and it has been increasing its business, particularly in Great Britain, where its reputation is of the best. The main reason that this bill is brought before the House is that the charter of the company granted sixty-five years ago by the parliament of old Canada fixed its authorized capital at $4,000,000. Subsequent acts of the parliament of Canada in early times reaffirmed its authorized capital at $4,000,000. In the seventies it was provided that $2,000,000 of its capital -might be applied to accident insurance and other branches of a like kind. In a year or two the general policy in this country with regard to life insurance companies developed, in the direction of maintaining life insurance companies, in fact, as life insurance companies, and the company came to parliament and asked leave to discard its accident branch, and wound it up. Since that time, from time to time in the returns which this company has made, its authorized capital has been $4,000,000. The Insurance branch of the Finance department, until something like a year ago, returned its authorized capital as $4,000,000. But a short time ago, in re-insuring and in taking from English line companies-because these English companies distribute their insurance both to American and Canadian companies-the question arose in England as to

Sun Life Assurance Company
what the capital of this company was and how much was paid up. I am instructed that it arose in this way: In order that there may be a transfer from the English line companies to foreign companies-and this is a foreign company, so far as England is concerned-it is necessary that the re-insurance and distribution of life policies by English life line companies to other companies be made only by the approval of the court, and so the matter came before the judge of the court in England. There was an inquiry to ascertain what was the capital of the company, and the company informed the judge that they had always believed and still believe that their authorized capital is $4,000,000, upon which a certain portion had been paid up. The judge took the view that the paid-up capital of the company is one of the strongest guarantees, in the long continuation of risks, for the policyholders of the company, and he intimated that he would decline to approve of re-insurance by an English line company having 1,000,000 pounds sterling of capital paid-up in a Canadian company, whose authorized capital was in some doubt and of which only a million and a half dollars had been paid-up; and so the negotiation fell through, and it was simply to place this Canadian company in a position to carry on the great financial operations which it has been carrying on in England that it asked to have its authorized capital declared, as stated in the original act, to be $4,000,000. This bill was debated in standing committee for two days. It has been debated in this House on the three days open to private bills. On every occasion in that committee and in this House up to the present it has received the support of the majority. Last night this very amendment, as now proposed, was defeated by a majority of the House. The adverse suggestion, as I have understood it, is that this company might issue a stock bonus. I wish to say-and it cannot be contradicted-that on the subscribed capital of this company the average cash dividend annually paid from the time that it was incorporated in 1865 down to the present time has been 3.5 per cent,- three and five-tenths per cent. The company had the right up to 1910 to share whatever it pleased with the participating policy holders, but was restricted, as, other companies were, in 1910, to receive only ten per cent of profits arising from its participating policy business. This company comes before this House and offers to reduce that ten to three per cent. I say that this company is entitled to fair consideration, and further that a company which,
of its own accord, has reduced its share of participating policy profits from ten per cent to three per cent cannot be properly accused of attempting any sort of jobbing transactions by the favour of this House. I repudiate that. There is nothing in it. This company is proceeding in a fair, open, straightforward way to do its business, to add to the reputation of the company no doubt, but to add to the reputation of this country as well.
Now, I ask for reconsideration of this amendment, because if it passes the company must withdraw the bill. It will be absolutely impossible for it to proceed under the circumstances, and it will have to take the best means available outside parliament for protecting its business in such way as its financial advisers may see fit to suggest. The company can, as everyone knows who is accustomed to life insurance, cease from this day forth its participating policy branch and confine itself to ordinary insurance; it can take several alternatives-it can reinsure in an English company for a large part of its business, or it can organize an English company and carry on the English business under an organization known as the Sun Life Company of Great Britain; in short, it can take a dozen expedients. But it came before this House and for two days it explained frankly to the committee on banking and commerce the purpose of the bill, and received the assent and approval of the majority of that committee. The bill came before this House again, and on three occasions there was an attempt to talk it out. I make no complaint of that. I merely say that in respect of private bills there must be self-restraint on the part of members or it may be impossible in the future to secure private legislation. Last night I might have stopped all the private bills following this bill, but I did not; I allowed them to go through for third reading, although under the rules, I had strong grounds for opposing them. I deemed it right and just that the parties interested in those bills should have an opportunity to be heard. I have had an opportunity to be heard to-day under a special resolution. I do not understand the cause of this House reversing its judgment, and all I can say is that if this amendment is made to restrict the dividends of this company for all time in the future to 15 per cent, it is not right, it is not just, because during sixty-five years, in order to give to the policyholders a greater guarantee, the management have left in the company $30,000,000 of individual shareholders profits, and intend to leave them there until the Sun Life Company is the

Sun Life Assurance Company
foremost in strength throughout the British Empire-as it might well have been in the near future if it had received the support and confidence of this House.


Mr. WARD:: I have been given to understand that since this bill was introduced the company has held a meeting of its stockholders-quite a hurried one-and declared the dividends would be 25, not 15 per cent. Is that so?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I cannot say as to that, Mr. Chairman, but I doubt it very much. I never heard of such a thing. The company did have a meeting of which they notified, as required by law, every policyholder and every stockholder, and not a single policyholder or stockholder raised any objection to this bill.


Mr. HEPBURN:: When this bill was before the banking and commerce committee and the . superintendent of insurance registered such strong objection to it, did he not repeatedly say that the main purpose of the measure was to conceal the actual profits that the stockholders were going to pay to themselves; and is not the very fact that the company now refuses to accept the restriction of 15 per cent confirmation of his statement?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that under the proper practice of this House and of its committees in times past-and I have attended before them on many occasions -departmental officials appeared before committees and gave their evidence. That rule seems to be abandoned now, and instead of members of the committee and of the House reaching a decision on the facts presented to them, we have some permanent officials not only attempting to usurp the functions of this legislative body but of its standing committees. In contradiction of what was alleged by Mr. Finlayson, I say on my judgment as a lawyer and my honour as a gentleman that there is no intention on the part of this company to make a stock-jobbing venture of its proposed issue of additional capital.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I protest against any reflection in this connection on an official of the department. Further,
I protest against the statement by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George that there was an attempt to talk out this bill. He has done more himself to-day to talk the bill out than any other member has ever attempted. This is the first time I have spoken on the bill, and I would not do so had not the hon. member sought special privileges before this House. The advice has been
[Mr. Cahan.l
tendered to some of us that we should "learn to contain ourselves," I think if anyone needs to follow that advice it is the hon. member himself.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not speaking on the merits of the bill at this moment, but I protest against a member, simply because he has been disappointed in carrying his bill, reflecting on the House and on an official of the Finance department.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I utterly repudiate the suggestion that I cast any reflection upon the members of this House or the committee. So far as the bill goes, I am not disappointed; I accept the judgment of the House.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to offer any defence of the superintendent of insurance. That gentleman requires no defence from any person. In the insurance field of Canada he is recognized as a fearless official who is afraid neither of the wealthy company nor of the company on the verge of bankruptcy. With all that my hon. friend the member for St. Lawrence-St. George, the promoter of the bill,-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I beg my hon. friend's pardon, I am not the promoter of this bill.


James Alexander Robb: Then I withdraw that. With all that he has said regarding the Sun Life Company being one of the best insurance companies in Canada, yes, one of the best in the British Empire, and of its excellent management, I quite agree. As a Canadian I have been proud of the Sun Life Assurance Company as I have travelled about from place to place and find it doing business that is a credit to Canada. But the fact that the Sun Life Assurance Company has been so well managed that it is very profitable to its stockholders is no reason why this department or the department of insurance should neglect the protection of its policyholders.
Now, it seems to me that my hon. friend, although he has displayed much heat, has not challenged the amendment presented by fhe hon. member as to the value of the 15 per cent. And 15 per cent on $4,000,000, where the actual cash put into the whole business from the start is only $305,000, is not a very bad return. It is true, as my hon. friend has said, that the company proposes to issue the shares for the additional capital for cash payments. But had my hon. friend listened to the advice of the superintendent of insurance, that there should be a guarantee that the actual cash be put into the business, there would have been no opposition from this

John E. Russell Company
side of the House. I want to assure the House that I am not one of those who is afraid of big business. I am proud that the big institutions of Canada can go throughout the world and say they are strong; but I have a duty as Minister of Finance of this country, and the superintendent of insurance has a duty, to see to it that all these companies are kept on a parity. If legislation is required for this or any other company it should be brought in in the form of a general bill. I propose during the year to have the superintendent of insurance confer with the different life insurance companies of Canada and if necessary, at the next session of parliament, propose such amendments to the insurance laws of the country as will meet the new conditions that have arisen since the last amendment was adopted, We shall be glad to do this, always bearing in mind that the insurance companies have no greater rights to profits from their investments than has any other business. We will take care of the policyholders, for after all it is their money that provides the capital. I want to say that the policyholders* investments in the Sun Life Company have been well managed, and I am proud of the company. At the same time, I believe that 15 per cent is not an ungenerous interest on the investment.


Mr. LADNER:: The minister intimated
that the policyholders would be adversely affected by this bill. Will he say in what respect?


James Alexander Robb: I did not say anything of the kind.


William Irvine: The law governing insurance companies is general in its application and the policy of the department has been to unify the legislation to provide for better control of all companies. This legislation provides for special treatment for the Sun Life Assurance Company, which it is not intended to make general, and the departure in this regard is to be deplored. The hon. member who sponsors the bill emphasized before the committee that the company has made slightly over 3 per cent on its subscribed capital in the early years. If it made 3 per cent on $2,000,000 what would be the percentage on $305,000 which was the entire capital they had actually paid in? They must have made 21 per cent on their actual investments during those lean years. I do not wish to talk the bill out, and I shall therefore refrain from saying anything further.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN:: Shall I report the
bill?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


John Frederick Johnston: Carried.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is it in order at this stage to bring in an amendment to section 9?


John Frederick Johnston: Such a motion would
be out of order. The House instructed that the bill be referred back to the committee and it has been reported.
Bill reported.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: As there is another bill
which I desire to have read the third time, and in order to avoid further discussion of this matter, I would ask that this bill be withdrawn.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member may
make his motion when I put the question. When shall the bill be read the third time?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In view of the fact that useless discussion in connection with this bill is consuming the time which might be devoted to other private bills, I respectfully ask the leave of the House to withdraw the bill.


Hewitt Bostock: The bill is now in possession of the House and may be withdrawn only by consent. Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member have leave to withdraw the bill?


Hewitt Bostock: The bill is withdrawn.
Bill withdrawn.



THE JOHN E. RUSSELL COMPANY, LIMITED

[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa) moved the third reading of Bill No. 117, respecting a patent owned by the John E. Russell Company, Limited.
Mr. J. A. GLEN (Marquette):: Yesterday
when this bill was before the House I endeavoured to indicate what I considered to be the real purposes of it, and I believed when speaking then that I was echoing the absolute truth as represented to the private bills committee. No hon. member of the House has contradicted any statement that I made on that occasion, but inasmuch as many members were not present when I spoke I venture now to state again very shortly the reasons I set forth. I pointed out that the patent laws of the Dominion were intended to protect the inventor and that if for any reason the inventor should sell his rights to some one else then that protection ceased. The protection
John E. Russell Company

cannot extend to the assignees for the reason that the patent is granted only to encourage the genius of the inventor and not to provide a basis for speculation on the part of any company. In this case the inventor is a man in the United States. He sold the patent to a company carrying on business in Canada and it is now the assignee who is asking for the renewal of the patent.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I am in the judgment of the House, but I understood this morning that private bills would this afternoon be considered for one hour. The hour has expired.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: One hour.


Mr. DAVID SPENCE (Parkdale):: I appeal to the good sense both of yourself, Mr Speaker, and of the leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King) to allow the House to consider for a short time longer the bill now under consideration. I have not asked for any privileges this year but I should like to have the motion disposed of. I shall not speak to it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Hewitt Bostock: I am entirely in the
judgment of the House. If the matter were left to me I should say yea, but it is not for me to decide.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Leader of the Opposition):: I read the motion which was
made this morning with respect to the consideration of private bills this afternoon and I must say that I saw nothing in it in any way limiting the time.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend the leader of
the opposition is quite right; there was nothing to that effect in the motion, but there was an understanding by which it was agreed that if would be one hour. I have no objection to giving my hon. friend fifteen minutes more.


Hugh Guthrie: The agreement was made with my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan).


Hewitt Bostock: Am I to understand that we are to proceed for fifteen minutes?


Hugh Guthrie: I can only remark that
the language of the motion passed this morning contains no limitation. IV^y hon. friend did ask the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George whether an hour would be sufficient, and he said yes, but there are other members of this House who were not committed in any way. It was an open motion that we should proceed to private bills at three o'clock.


Hewitt Bostock: I would like to know
whether we are to go on for fifteen minutes or an hour or for the whole afternoon.


James Alexander Robb: I am willing to make it half
an hour.


Hugh Guthrie: I have no desire in the
matter one way or the other; I am only pointing out what the motion contained.


James Alexander Robb: Fifteen minutes?


Hugh Guthrie: I am not suggesting any
term; I have no right to do so and I do not propose to try. I am calling attention t'o the fact that this House passed a definite motion to go on with private bills at three o'clock; the motion is in writing, and there is no limitation.


James Alexander Robb: I would move that private
bills be continued until 4.20 p.m.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The order was altered this morning on the express understanding, which was clearly understood by the House, that the time would be limited to one hour. I objected this morning to anything which would interfere with the regular routine for the purpose of permitting a private bill to be proceeded with, and I would now have to maintain that position, which I think is correct.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Time is up.


Hugh Guthrie: Would the clerk read the motion which was passed this morning, in order that there may be no mistake?


Hewitt Bostock: There is no question
about the motion; there was no fixed limit, but I heard the conversation between both sides of the House and I gathered that the motion was intended to cover a period of an hour, although that is not stated.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: As a private
member of this House, may I say that when we voted this morning there was a distinct understanding that the period would be one hour.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I can only say that the
Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister, I have forgotten which, did ask me, and I said I certainly would not' take more than an hour. It was in my mind that I would adjourn the discussion or withdraw the bill rather than exceed that time limit.


Mr. CANNON:: The House must bear in mind that when that motion was proposed and adopted this morning it was with the desire to give all private bills a chance to be disposed of. and no one had any idea that this particular bill would take so long. I think

John E. Russell Company
that within ten or fifteen minutes we could dispose of the remaining private bills, providing we do not discuss the details too much.


Hugh Guthrie: Let us have a vote, and
that will end it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I was interrupted
a moment ago by an hon. member who claimed that the time was up, and that I should not speak. I wish to finish what I started to say, that there was a distinct understanding when we voted this morning. If these understandings between the various sections of the House are not lived up to it means that we must insist in the future upon every detail being put into every motion. When we voted in favour of the motion it was on a definite understanding, and I urge that this be not altered now.


Hewitt Bostock: I must be guided by
the principles which are followed in courts of law; written evidence is always taken in preference to verbal evidence. We have a motion which contains no limit, and since there is a disagreement in the House I must take the motion as it stands.


James Alexander Robb: I have just presented a motion, in which I am seconded by Mr. Dunning, that we extend the time until 4.20. We have now wasted five minutes, and I will amend the motion to make it 4.25.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the
House that the time for private bills be extended to 4.25?


Mr. COOTE:: Might I be allowed one
moment to point out that for the last ten days the House has been working under high pressure, with the view of having prorogation before Easter. For the last two nights we have sat until half past two in the morning and it does seem strange to me that the government should block the accomplishment of that purpose by deliberately giving way in the matter of government business to allow the passage of private bills.


Hewitt Bostock: I take it that the judgment of the House is that the time be extended to 4.25?


James Allison Glen: I have not heard from any
of those asking for the extension a denial of the understanding which was made before the vote was taken. Will the leader of the opposition or any other member say that there was no understanding that private bills would be taken up for one hour this afternoon?


An hon. MEMBER:: That is settled.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


James Allison Glen: I do not propose to talk this bill out, but I wish to remind the House of the merits and demerits of the bill as I see them, in order that this House may voice an opinion upon the principle involved.


Mr. McGIBBON:: I rise to a point of
order, the hon. gentleman has already spoken.


Hewitt Bostock: I do not see a point of
order; the hon. member was getting some explanations with regard to the time limit.
I think he should continue, having regard to the parliamentary amenities and with the desire of concluding this session at the earliest possible moment.


James Allison Glen: I suppose I may now go on,
although I do not know what was said. I wish to enumerate some of the demerits of this bill, because some hon. members do not know why we are objecting to it. We are not taking exception to the renewal of vflis patent in any captious mood, but we do take exception on the ground that there is a general principle involved which we say this House should not establish. That principle is that here we have a bill in which the inventor of the patent is not asking for a renewal.


David Spence: Because he is
dead.


James Allison Glen: It doesn't matter whether or
not he is dead; the inventor-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


James Allison Glen: The indications coming from
the other side of the House are those which will be given when this bill comes to a vote and is defeated.


An hon. MEMBER:: Let it come to a vote.


James Allison Glen: I just wish two or three
minutes more, if those hon. gentlemen will give me that time. Here is a bill which is giving effect to something which this House cannot allow on any account; under the bill we are asked to grant an extension of eight years after a period of eighteen years to the assignee of this patent. Not only that, but the company which is now asking for the renewal of the patent will be enabled to collect royalties under it. In these circumstances I desire to move the following amendment:
That Bill No. 117 be not now read a third time but that it be read this day six months.
241S
John E. Russell Company


Hon. JAMBS MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker,-


Hewitt Bostock: The question is put.


Lucien Cannon: The minister has a statement ito make.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Lucien Cannon: This morning Your Honour allowed other speakers to express their views. I think the minister has a statement to make.
order of motions. The debate had not concluded on the motion of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) that the House concur in the eleventh report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and the amendment thereto of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy).



PEACE RIVER RAILWAY OUTLET

Hewitt Bostock: I must say I did not see the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce.


James Malcolm: I rose three times, Mr. Speaker.


Hewitt Bostock: My eyes were not directed towards the minister. However, under the circumstances it will be quite in order for him to proceed.


James Malcolm: As minister of the department administering the Copyright Act and the Trademark and Design Act I have given some consideration to this bill, and to the principle involved in it. We have been loth in British countries to renew a patent unless it could be shown that through some circumstance the patentee did not 'have an opportunity during the life of his patent to profit thereby, and further that no hardship was being done by the renewal of the patent. As minister of the department I cannot find in this case but that a hardship would be inflicted by the renewal of this patent. There are three principal firms in Canada desiring to manufacture this product, which is a lock-joint cement pipe used largely by municipalities. The three principal firms in Canada now wanting to manufacture this product are the Standard Clay Products Company, Montreal, the Nelson River Construction Company of Winnipeg, and the Consolidated Pipe Company of Montreal. These firms attest the fact that the holder of this patent is asking an exorbitant price for his patent. In reviewing what took place before the committee I cannot find that any evidence was submitted to justify the renewal of this patent on any principle that has heretofore been considered by the department, and I intend to vote against the measure.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
David Spence: Should we not have a vote?


Hewitt Bostock: The amendment is carried. The time allotted for private bills having elapsed, Bill No. 255 cannot now be considered and the House will now revert to the



OBJECTION TO MOTION TO CONCUE IN THE REPORT OF RAILWAY COMMITTEE

William Irvine: When the House rose at one o'clock I had almost completed my remarks on the question under discussion. I was at that moment referring to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) which the Minister of Railways virtually accepted, and I was trying to show that there was very slight difference between that suggestion and the amendment. I would urge the minister to accept the amendment. The fact is that the last clause of the amendment to which the minister takes special objection merely means this: That branch lines are required in the Peace river district; that these branch lines when they are built should be directed so as to fit in with the outlet; that if the proper course is now taken, that of surveying and deciding the outlet, then the subsequent construction of these lines, in keeping with this plan, would really mean the "commencement" indicated in the amendment. That is all that is implied in the last clause, so I suggest that the minister accept it.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: I was paired		with
the hon. member	for St. John-Albert	(Mr. MacLaren). Had I voted I would have		voted
against the amendment.


Mr. SANDERSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cant-ley). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was paired with the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. ROWE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix):	Had I
voted I would have voted for the amendment.
Questions


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was paired with the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. JOHNSTONE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Baldwin). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. TOBIN:: I was paired with the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. YOUNG (Toronto Northeast):: 1.	Is the Pension Act administered by the Board of Pension Commissioners or by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment ?
2.	If the provisions of the act are given effect in part by the Board of Pension Commissioners and in part by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, what part is within the respective jurisdiction of the department and the board, and what parts if any, are under the board and the said department jointly?
3.	Hon- is the degree of pensionable disability ascertained, and in such ascertainment what part is the responsibility of the board and what part, if any, is the responsibility of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment?
4.	By whose authority are pension examination or re-examination carried out?
5.	Has the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment any control over the Board of Pension Commissioners as to administration or otherwise ?
6.	Is the Board of Pension Commissioners entirely independent of Soldiers' Civil Re-estab-Iishment ?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	The relations between the Board of Pension Commissioners and the Department of Soldiers Civil Re-establishment are defined by P.C. 2722 of the 17th August, 1921, which provides that:-
...the Board of Pension Commissioners shall, through the department, lay down the policy to be followed in the administration of the provisions of the Pension Act."
2.	The board is a court of judicature rather than an administrative body. It determines questions of eligibility, of degree of disablement, and is the sole authority competent to
	I
award or refuse pension. The department pays the pensions awarded by the board, arranges for the routine medical examinations of pensioners and prospective pensioners and is generally responsible for the administrative work involved in giving effect to the decisions of the board and in collecting and collating evidence relating to pensionability. No parts of the act are administered jointly by the board and the department.
3.	The degree of pensionable disability is ascertained by the medical examiners and specialists employed by the department, who have been specially trained in assessment work by the medical advisers of the board. They examine individual pensioners and make recommendations as to the degree of disablement. The medical advisers of the board review such recommendations and place them before the board, which approves, rejects or amends them as to it appears proper. The department is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the medical reports and examinations presented to the board and in respect of investigation reports made by departmental officials for the information of the board.
4.	The treatment branch of the department recommends the review dates for medical examinations and the board approves or amends such recommendations. In certain circumstances, the board calls for special medical examinations at other than the regular review dates.
5.	Answered by No. 1
6.	Yes.


CANADIAN BEEF CATTLE
Mr. ALLAN:: L Is the government aware that the beef cattle mdustry is in bad shape in Canada?
2.	Does the government anticipate any improvement in the near future?
3.	Why has the export of beef cattle to Ureat Britain fallen off in the past 15 months?
4.	Is the government doing anything to overcome tins very unsatisfactory situation?
o How many cattle were exported to the United States in 1926?
6.	IIow many cattle were exported to Great Britain in 1926?
7.	Is the government aware that the transatlantic freight rate on cattle has been reduced to ?15? If so will this rate be in effect this summer from Montreal and Quebec?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	The average price of the rank and file of cattle marketed during 1926 was higher than in any of the previous four years, and the market has since 1922, shown a very definite upward tendency. The total value of livestock publicly marketed in 1926 exceeded $47,500,000, as compared with approximately

Questions
$43,000,000, in 1925, $37,000,000 in 1924, $36,000,000 in 1923, and $37,000,000 in 1922. The year 1925 was considered by the rank and file of producers to be the best year experienced in any of the past twenty-five years. At most markets in Canada, the average prices received for the various classes of cattle, marketed in 1926 were in excess of those marketed in 1925.
2.	During the present year, the market for good classes of cattle, as well as the ordinary sorts of stock, is either strongly on the upturn, or steady.
3.	The price spread as between the British market and the Canadian domestic market has been too narrow to allow of extensive export. The cause for this narrowness has been the poor condition of the British market, due to a depressed industrial situation, as compared with the relatively strong price situation existing in Canada under a keen domestic inquiry, and steadily improving industrial conditions.
4.	The government has no control over the state of the British cattle and meat trade conditions.
5. The number of cattle exported from Canada to the United States in 1926 was 92,962 head.
6. The number of cattle exported from Canada to Great Britain in 1926, was 79,985 head.
7.	Yes. When this freight reduction was announced, it was understood that it applied to exports from winter ports. We have not been advised as to whether this rate will be extended to include the summer months.


HONEY PRODUCTION
Mr. HEPBURN:: 1.	What is the annual production of honey in Canada ?
2.	Is honey produced to any extent outside of Ontario and Quebec ?
3.	Has any honey been exported from Canada in recent years?
4.	If so, to what country or countries?
5.	How does Canadian honey compare with honey from other countries, (a) in colour; (b) in flavour; (c) in body or density?
6.	Is honey graded by the federal Department of Agriculture, (a) for export; (b) for domestic use?	_
7.	What is the federal Department of Agriculture doing to help develop the production of honey in Canada?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	In 1925 the production was 21,000,000 pounds; in 1926 it was slightly less.
2.	Yes, in the year 1925 Ontario produced about 10,000,000 pounds, Quebec between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 pounds, Manitoba
slightly over 4,000,000 pounds, Alberta and Saskatchewan several hundred thousand pounds and the maritimes a small quantity. The production in Alberta's irrigated areas is increasing enormously.
3.	There has been considerable export since the year 1925 which now amounts to between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 pounds per annum from the province of Ontario alone, this being exported largely by the Cooperative Honey Producers' Association. Quebec also has established a small export in clover honey.
4.	Exports are mostly to Great Britain but there is also some to Germany, Holland, Denmark and other continental countries.
5.	Canada's honey in colour, flavour and body is unsurpassed by other countries exporting to Great Britain. This naturally applies to superior grades. As evidence of this, Canadian honey has taken premier honours in the London show for several years.
6.	(a) No official grading; (b) No grading. In explanation of the above, it is only fair to state that the federal department has been assisting the Ontario exporters who had large stocks for export, to the extent of inspecting their honey before it was exported and basing the inspection on sound honey of good quality and according to the grades adopted by that association.
7.	The federal department of Agriculture is doing a considerable amount of work toward the development of the honey industry in Canada. Among the present activities are the following:
1.	Experimental and demonstration apiaries scattered all over Canada on Dominion experimental! farms.
2.	Investigating new areas by placing out apiaries from these branch farm apiaries.
3.	Improving the raising of bees now kept in Canada through selection of proper strains, breeding of superior queens, and so forth.
4.	Investigating more suitable methods for different parts of Canada in the feeding, methods of establishing apiaries, methods of strengthening colonies, methods of wintering, methods of swarm control, the prevention of robbing, and distribution of disease, extermination of disease, etc. In addition thereto experiments and demonstrations are continuously made in the handling of honey and general management problems.
5.	Assistance in inspection of honey for export as above mentioned.
6.	In addition to the above the compilation of bulletins, annual reports, pamphlets, press articles and a very heavy correspondence shows a great demand for information in regard to honey throughout Canada. The bee division works closely in cooperation with

Questions

provincial apiaries toward assisting them in their general educational work, service work, etc.


ALBION R. FOSTER
Hon. Mr. JONES:: 1.	Has Albion R. Foster of Hartland, New Brunswick, been appointed to a position in the customs service?
2.	If so, by what authority was the appointment made, and what is the nature and character of his duties?
3.	What is the amount of his remuneration (a) for services, (b) for expenses, and how much has been paid to him to date ?
4.	Is his employment temporary or permanent?
5.	Was the Civil Service Commission consulted as to his employment?
6.	Is the said Albion R. Foster the same Albion R. Foster who was the Liberal candidate in Carleton-Victoria in the last federal election ?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN (for Mr. Euler):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Appointed by the hon. minister under authority vested in him by subsection five of section two of the Department of Customs and Excise Act (Chap. 26 of the Statutes of Canada, 1921).
Customs excise enforcement officer on the staff of the special preventive service.
3.	(a)	$1,200 per annum; (b)	$170.55
(December 3, 1926-March 31, 1927).
4.	Temporary.
5.	No.
6.	No information.


ST. CAMILLE DE BELLECHASSE POSTMASTER
Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Why is the appointment of a postmaster to fill the vacancy at St. Camille de Bellechasse being delayed?
2.	In filling this vacancy will a preference be given to a veteran of the late war?
Hon.' Mr. RINFRET:
1.	Certificate appointing Florent Corriveau was issued by the Civil Service Commission on the 30th March, 1927.
2.	The only overseas active service candidate who applied for this position, was not considered qualified.


CIVIL SERVICE-&quot; AMPUTATION CASES &quot;
Mr. WHITE (London):: , 1- Have instructions been given (as stated in the public press of London), by the Civil Service Commission, that no veterans of the Great War who are known as Amputation cases" may try examinations for positions in the postal service in so far as London, Ontario, is concerned?

2.	If so, is this policy to extend throughout
Canada?	[DOT]
3.	Is the government of the day or any member of the government responsible for this decision? [DOT]
4.	If not responsible, does the government endorse the regulation of the Civil Service Commission ?
5.	How many employees are in the inside service of the Post Office department at London, Ontario?
6.	How many are in the outside service?
7.	How many in the inside service are returned solders?
8.	How many in the outside service are returned soldiers?
9.	How many "Amputation cases" are employed in the London post office?


Hon. Mr. VENIOT:: 1, 2, 3 and 4. The employment of amputation cases in city post offices was discussed by representatives of the Post Office department, Civil Service Commission and 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 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 Civil Service Commission and the representative 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.
5.	117.
6.	202.
7.	44.
8.	82.
9.	3.

Questions


EGG IMPORTATIONS AND CONSUMPTION
Mr. LADNER:: 1. What is the total (a) production, (b) consumption; (e) importation of hen's eggs by dozen in each of the provinces of Canada annually from 1922 to 1926, inclusive?
2. What is the total importation of hen's eggs by the dozen into Canada annually from China and Japan during the years 1922 to 1926, inclusive ?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	See following tables.
2.	See following tables.
Egg Production
Canada's Egg Production for 1920 was 121,604,000 Dozens
Province	1921	1922	1923	1924	1925	1926Doz.	Doz.	Doz.	Doz.	Doz.	Doz.Prince Edward Island	2,822,677	3,420,136	3,326,593	3,928,332	4,046,287	3,709,115Nova Scotia	.'.	3,100,796	3,891,510	3,536,406	4,042,344	3,867,237	3,881,657New Brunswick	2,972,999	5,112,707	3,730,907	4,060,740	4,136,768	3,931,753Quebec	15,210,691	26,765,043	26,672,975	29,721,310	32,041,625	34,081,125Ontario	55,196,089	67,685,734	73,959,159	80,681,900	89,009,287	90,628,530Manitoba	16,169,987	15,239,019	13,871,350	15,048,875	16,429,482	16,646,877Saskatchewan	42,430,250	36,117,662	37,485,319	36,048,112	33,692,268	38,224,433Alberta	21,253,325	25,414,212	27,457,313	26,514,275	26,754,959	28,510,014British Columbia	8,892,340	10,412,445	11,827,133	12,225,611	14,476,550	17,112,770Indian Reserves	' 319,353	377,186	324,404	354,125Total	168,049,154	194,058,468	202,186,508	212,648,685	224,778,867	237,080,390
Per Capita Consumption of Eggs in Canada
-	Population	Production	Export	Import	Per Capita Consumption
					Doz.
*1901	5,371,315	84,132,802	11,363,064	951,745	1510*1911	7,206,643	123,071,034	87,420	2,926,856	17-51920	8,631,475	144,475,072	6,322,838	6,515,928	16-81921	8,788,483	193,049,154	5,444,014	6,582,739	22-01922	8,966,834	219,058-,468	3,619,356	8,140,547	24-101923	9,146,457	227,186,508	2,900,111	6,623,253	25-31924	9,226,740	238,648,685	2,716,604	4,980,704	26-11925	9,364,200	249,778,867	2,466,270	3,726,311	26-81926	9,390,000	262,080,399	1,776,559	4,156,474	28-1
'Census.
1920-25 Bureau of Statistics.
Importations of Eggs by Provinces for 1923
Province
British Columbia...
Alberta	
Saskatchewan	
Manitoba	
Ontario	
Quebec	
New Brunswick	
Nova Scotia	
Prince Edward Island Yukon	
Quantity	Value
Doz.	$
298,950	94,846
67,541	21,404
23,516	7,896
337,517	104,973
3,592,666	1,133,187
2,126,397	671,365
79,551	24,619
95,374	28,448
1	18
1,740	550
Total,
6,623,253	2,087.306
2424
Questions

Eggs for Domestic Consumption Imports by Provinces and Months for 1924.-Calendar Year.
Month	British Columbia	Alberta	Saskatch e wan	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Valuedoz.	1	doz.	$	doz.	iJanuary	44,059	13,696	27,006	9,495	600	222February	24,571	7,130	10,560	3,347	2,850	883March	22,779	5,789	2,671	863	22	41April	[DOT]	5,184	1,649	83	443	104	545May	5,984	1,660	148	309	99	656June	5,141	1,242	34	53	53	3262,892	807	25	10	2,657	842	6,215	2,598	13,805	6,405	25	16	3,156	1,020	3,770	1,308	2,155	894	T otal	140,2.13	44,146	42,707	15,430	3,728	2,673Month	Manitoba	Ontario	Quebec	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Valuedoz.	%	doz.	$	doz.	%January	91,658	23,919	764,295	222,317	307,777	85,907February	97,163	29,300	1,001,905	337,498	741,521	255,618March	41,007	12,058	862,615	234,260	691,130	198,443April	156	304	8,260	4,448	12,988	3,063May	184	451	3,812	2,926	409	408June	18	104	2,781	1,537	331	131July	88	21	2,357	822	171	40August	34	24	1,207	403	173	35September	146	37	1,958	717	50	10October	123	36	3,978	1,419	778	152November	52	23	3,390	1,386	408	110December	203	103	26,399	10,161	24,985	9,440Totals	230,832	66,380	2,682,957	817,894	1,780,721	553,366Month	New Brunswick	Nova Scotia	Prince Edward Island	Yukon	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Valuedoz.	$	doz.	%	doz.	8	doz.	$11,730 60	3,215 23	24,000	5,400	
12,033 67	4,840 133	49,759 7	14,167 48			120	42
								
82	123	96	383	3	30	315	11611	43	12	90	2	30	30	11	12	41	445	118120	45	222	110
120	49						
	60	29					210	97
	30	17						
								
Totals		24,343	8,528	73,886	20,129	5	60	1,312	483
^lr. Motherwell.'

Questions
Total for Calendar Year
Dozens	Value
British Columbia...
Alberta	
Saskatchewan	
Manitoba	
Ontario	
Quebec	
New Brunswick	
Nova Scotia	
Prince Edward Island Yukon	
Totals

140,213	44,146
42,707	15,430
3,728	2,673
230,832	66,380
2,682,957	817,894
1,780,721	553,366
24,343	8,528
73,886	20,129
5	60
1,312	483
4,980,704	1,529,089
Eggs for Domestic Consumption Imports by Provinces and Months for 1925.-Calendar Year
Month	British Columbia	Alberta	Saskatchewan	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Valuedoz.	$	doz.	$	doz.	$January	21,686	7,231	20,460	5,374	540	270February	- .	71,791	16,113	73,358	29,747	8,310	3,128March	17,380	5,471	1,259	571	18,521	5,343April	5,775	1,744	SO	333	83	411May	12,026	3,461	93	213	129	562June	8,210	2,136	18	32	39	1682,338	726	30	44	410	156	4,439	2,001	October	2,278	795	November	2,477	893	1,835	788	3,736	1,344	240	96	Totals	152,546	42,071	97,373	37,198	27,622	9,882Manitoba	Ontario	Quebec	Month	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Valuedoz.	$	doz.	s	doz.	$January	7,675	3,755	69,541	29,832	13,161	5,197February	77,785	33,007	444,673	183,982	332,185	133,541March	161,034	46,900	439,878	132,780	724,828	227,563April	840	644	4,976	3,558	14,254	4,341May	276	573	1,234	1,804	806	286June	196	247	1,188	888	787	188July	181	84	1,423	601	292	83August	30	10	863	375	1	15September	86	25	2,286	1,018	12,002	3,601October	55	21	34,282	11,806	116	26November	78	27	9,227	3,522	144	52December	3,466	1,416	25,123	11,816	15,950	8,897Totals	251,702	86,709	1,034,694	381,982	1,114,526	383,790
Questions

Month	New Brunswick	Nova Scotia	Prince Edward Island	Yukon	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Valuedoz.	$	doz.	$	doz.	s	doz.	$960	481	12,600	5,114	605	1535	17	28,097	9,605	86	105	' 57	143	3	12	26	43	17	52	4	12	6	20	July	30	10	167	90	
150	70					90	47
	310	136						
	60	28						
								
Totals		1,633	910	40,938	15,004	7	24	695	200
Total for Calendar Year
British Columbia...
Alberta	
Saskatchewan	
Manitoba	
Ontario	
Quebec	
New Brunswick	
Nova Scotia	
Prince Edward Island Yukon	
Dozens	Value
	$
152,546	42,071
97,373	37,198
27,622	9,882
251,702	86,709
1,034,694	381,982
1,114,526	383,790
1,633	910
40,938	15,004
7	24
695	200
2,721,736	957,770
Eggs for Domestic Consumption Imports by Provinces and Months for 1926. Calendar Year
Month
British Columbia
Quantity
doz.
Value
Alberta
Quantity
doz.
Value
Saskatchewan
Quantity
doz.
Value
January

February...
March	
April	
May	
June	
July	
August....
September.
October___
November.
December.
6,933
9,925
9,294
2,866
2,451
86,625
2,387
2,393
3,924
3,898
1,455
13,669
27
15
148
25
33
90
18
341
241
35,200
106,936
2,886
10,194
5,456
16,885
1,027
3,365
38,520
14,632
Totals
280,005
55,413
38,920
15,022
968

Questions
Month	Manitoba	Ontario	Quebec	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Valuedoz.	$	doz.	$	doz.	$January	14,689	5,105	56,134	20,423	15,377	4,380February	3,680	1,072	476,069	144,068	308,855	96,232March	29,633	8,559	1,067,950	293,970	1,135,514	312,499April	184	352	30,228	11,177	130,521	37,646May	225	447	1,989	2,257	105	199June	163	178	1,525	1,042	174	9911	1 100	584	69,784	10,827400	212	43,250	6,38126,250	7,835	50,000	10,86791* 420	20,987	94,500	23j503November	1,230	635	12,179	5,414	12,800	4,442December	5,400	2,468	28,212	13,973	92,214	38,611Totals	55,204	18,816	1,793,456	521,942	1,953,094	545,686Month	New Brunswick	Nova Scotia	Prince Edward Island	Yukon	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Valuedoz.	$	doz.	$	doz.	$	doz.	$30	14	30	11	12,000 21,540 13	3,000 5,841 17	960	32321	57	1	15	41	42	5	30	2	35	2	15	3	14	60	24
397	183						
							72	79
								
	215	88						
	90	39						
								
	827	464	33,558	8,888	5	49	1,092	426
								
Total for Calendar Year
British Columbia...
Alberta	
Saskatchewan	
Manitoba	
Ontario	
Quebec	
New Brunswick	
Nova Scotia	
Prince Edward Island Yukon	
Dozens	Value $
280,005	55,413
38,920	15,022
313	968
55,204	18,816
1,793,456	521,942
1,953,094	545,686
827	464
33,558	8,888
5	49
1,092	426
Totals.
4,156,474	1,167,674
Memorandum concerning the importation of Chinese eggs into Canada The customs figures giving the importations of whole eggs into Canada from the orient do not distinguish between salt duck eggs and hen eggs. The figures given in the accompanying table are those taken directly from the customs report.
For the most part these figures represent the importations of Chinese salt duck eggs with the exception of the fiscal year 1924, when some Chinese hen eggs did come into Canada. On inspection a large proportion of
these were diverted to the United States, only a small quantity being held for local sale in Calgary by a representative of the oriental exporter. These eggs incidentally found very slow sale.
Previous to the introduction of the import regulations of 1922 large shipments of Chinese eggs reached Canada, a number of which were turned back to the United States through the cooperation of the Department of Health because of their containing such a large volume unfit for human consumption.
Privilege-Mr. Bennett

Accompanying is a statement of the exact nature of the so-called Chinese salt duck eggs or "century eggs", which comprise the bulk of the imports given in the customs figures.
Chinese salt eggs
More or less is heard about the Chinese "century eggs". These are duck eggs which have been preserved by a coating of mud, rice hulls, lime and wood ashes. The whites become a transparent brownish green, and the yolks a yellowish green. These eggs are held in the preservative for 100 days, and it is probably from this that the name "century eggs" arose. These eggs are considered a banquet delicacy. They do not have a disagreeable odor but taste "eggy". The egg plays an important part in many Chinese customs. In some places, when a child is born, the father sends a red egg, an egg the shell of which has been dyed red, to each of his many friends. Upon receipt of such eggs, the friends return a gift or some money.
Importations of whole eggs from Hong Kong
Dozens
1922		 116,811
1923		 52,455
1924		 58,044
1925		 51,836
1926		 50,964


STEAMSHIP HOCHELAGA
Mr. QUINN:: 1.	Has the Steamship Hochelaga been put in the government patrol service in Halifax?
2.	If so, who are the owners?
3.	What price has been agreed upon for her services ?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN (for Mr. Euler):: 1.	Yes, for a period not exceeding six weeks.
2.	Hochelaga Shipping and Towing Co. Limited, Nova Scotia.
3.	$5,000 per month.


PATRONAGE IN SOUTH ESSEX
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	Who holds the patronage for the constituency of Essex South?
2.	What is the attitude of the government relative to his recommendations before governmental undertakings become operative?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to adhere strictly to a line of party patronage in Essex South?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I think this question was ruled out, Mr. Speaker, some time ago. I would like to ask Your Honour's opinion whether it is a question that should be asked.


Hewitt Bostock: The question was ruled
out because I found that the language was not in conformity with parliamentary usage, but the language of the question as now framed is, in my humble judgment, parliamentary.


Mr. GOTT:: Is the question embarrassing
to the Prime Minister?


Hewitt Bostock: Order.
On the question being reverted to later:


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The only answer to this question is that the government controls the patronage. '


ITALIAN IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
James Shaver Woodsworth: Yesterday I asked the Minister of Immigration a question concerning Italian immigrants. I should like to ask today whether the department has under consideration an arrangement for bringing in Italian immigrants, and if so, under what conditions?


Mr. FORKE:: I might answer no.



PRIVILEGE-MR. BENNETT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: I rise to a question of privilege. I was absent from the House Friday afternoon and the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) made a statement-I cannot think he did it designedly -in which he asserted that in a previous debate last year I had supported section 41 of the then act respecting the deportation of undesirables, and had alleged that the section was of no value at all. His language is to be found on page 2123 of Hansard this year. The fact is that there is no warrant for any such statement. If he had read a few lines further in Hansard he would have seen that I not only opposed the repeal of section 41 at that time, but stated my reasons for so doing in terms similar to those employed this year, and further I pointed out that the section as then drawn, which was a new section 41, was a needless repetition, inasmuch as the point was covered by the then section 40 of the act, and I stated that the section proposed to be substituted was of no value. That is an entirely different thing from stating that section 41 of the act was of no value. I supported the retention of section 41 last year as part of the statute law of the country. I will not take time to do more than point this out, because

Civil Service Salaries
at this stage it is not necessary I should read what I stated on that occasion, but if desired I will do so. But I desire to make it clear that I supported the retention as part of the statute law of this country in the present statute. I made that very clear then. I said:
This is not the day to relax the arm of the law, this is not the day to lessen the authority of our officials to bring to account men who are deliberately endeavouring to destroy our institutions.
I think it necessary to correct the misstatement placed upon Hansard in respect to my attitude last year on this question.


Lucien Cannon: One moment-


Hewitt Bostock: This question is not debatable.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend concluded his remarks by saying I had made a misstatement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No doubt about that.


Lucien Cannon: I never intended to say
anything unjust or unfair about my hon. friend from West Calgary. The Hansard report is exactly what was said, and I leave it to the House to judge of the matter. I repeat I had no idea of being in any way unjust to the hon. member.



CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Peter John Veniot: I wish to make a reply to the question asked by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) in connection with the railway mail clerks. I will quote the question and I will give the reply and have it placed on Hansard, because inquiries are being made from different sections of Canada and it might be as well to put it on Hansard, so that one answer will do for all. The inquiry of the hon. member for South Toronto was as follows:
I would like to ask the Postmaster General if he will give an answer to a question which comes from London and which arises by reason of an accident which occurred the other day in which certain railway mail clerks were injured. They desire to know whether the fact that railway mail clerks are engaged in a hazardous occupation will have any effect upon the civil service salary revision as it affects their class.
The answer to that would be: The more or less hazardous nature of railway mail clerks' duties was taken into -consideration when the original compensation schedules were fixed, and the present salary revision is not intended
to alter the relativity between the compensation schedules for the different classes, but simply to provide a general increase to the service as a whole. The compensation for accidents is dealt with on the merits of each case and such sum put into general estimates each year. This year the estimates contain $5,000 to meet such cases.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD AND DEPARTMENT OF SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: I have been requested by the organization in Calgary to ask if it is the intention of the government to bring under the Civil Service Act the Soldier Settlement Board or the Department of Soldiers Civil Re-establishment.


Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment):: The matter is under consideration, so far as the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment is concerned.



SALE AND INSPECTION OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC POISONS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 257, to regulate the sale and inspection of agricultural economic poisons.
Robert Gardiner: What is the nature of these amendments?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: The amendments
are comparatively unimportant. They have made some slight changes in the bill. For the word "poisons" they have substituted " pests' control," and the definition of packages is -changed to mean any container. They have made some unimportant changes, which make the bill neither better nor worse in my opinion.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



FEDERAL DISTRICT COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 280, respecting the Federal District Commission.
He said:	This amendment simply vests in
the Federal District Commission the assets
Pension Act-Mr. Bennett
[Stage Direction]
of the Ottawa Improvement Commission and imposes on the Federal District Commission the duties of the Ottawa Improvement Commission.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 302 to amend the Three Rivers Harbours Commissioners' Act 1923.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. II. KING (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment) moved the third reading of Bill No. 234 to amend the Pension Act.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move the following amendment, seconded by Mr. Guthrie:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"the bill be recommended to the committee of the whole house, with instructions that they have power to add thereto the following section as section 4:
4.	It is hereby declared that the Pension Act shall be construed and administered as remedial legislation, and that if there be a reasonable doubt as to the right of an applicant to pension the applicant shall be given the benefit of such doubt.
(2)	If the decision of the Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada be reversed by the Federal Appeal Board acting within its statutory jurisdiction, the judgment of the Federal Appeal Board shall thereupon for all the purposes of the Pension Act be deemed to be and be the decision of the commission.
(3)	For the purposes of the Pension Act the disability on discharge of an applicant for a pension who actually served in the theatre of war shall in the absence of misrepresentation or concealment on enlistment be conclusively presumed to be attributable to military service."
I do not propose Mr. Speaker, to take any considerable time in speaking to this amendment. The matter has been discussed in committee and it is only necessary that I should make two or three observations to direct the attention of the House to the purpose intended. It will be observed that subseotion 1 of the proposed section declares that the act shall be considered and administered as remedial legislation. It is true that section 15 of the Interpretation Act

applying to all statutes passed by this parliament provides in terms that every statute:
-shall be deemed remedial, whether its immediate purport is to direct the doing of anything^ which parliament deems to be for the public good, or to prevent or punish the doing of anything which it deems contrary to the public good.
. But it will be observed there is no provision that such statute shall be administered as remedial legislation, and in this instance I submit it is desirable, having regard to the dbservations made by the Minister of Defence the other evening as well as by the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, that the Pension Act should be not only construed as remedial legislation but' administered as such, and if there is a reasonable doubt as to the right of an applicant for a pension that doubt should be resolved in his favour. By "reasonable doubt" is meant an uncertainty of mind, not based upon affection or prejudice, but representing a real and reasoned indecision from given facts. If there be a doubt or uncertainty under those circumstances, it may be designated as reasonable, and in the administration of the act that doubt should be resolved in favour of the applicant.
With respect to the second subsection of the proposed section, it is merely a provision to overcome the difficulty to which I directed attention the other evening. Where t'he pension board has been overruled by the Federal Appeal Board, that judgment, instead of remaining nugatory and inoperative, shall be deemed to be the decision of the commission itself, the word " commission " being defined by the statute to mean the Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada.
With respect' to the third subsection, there is of course much difficulty. It is true that post war condition has sometimes been directly referred back to the pre-war condition of a soldier who enlisted for service, and all that is hoped to be accomplished at this time -having regard to the statements made by the ministers the other evening that they are inquiring into the whole operation of the act-is to provide that where a soldier has been in the actual theatre of war his condition on discharge must be conclusively presumed to be the result of his service. In other words, it is not open for this Dominion to say that the condition of a soldier on discharge is attributable to his enlistment condition. If he was sound enough or of sufficiently good health to be attested and enlisted, it must be taken that if he served in the actual theatre of war there as conclusive presumption that such disability was caused by his military service.

Pension Act-Mr. Bennett
In regard to this, I hold in my hand a letter that I have received from a city in Ontario since I last addressed the House. The writer, a young man, says:
I saw a service in France, and when I state "service" I mean front line service from October 3 1916 to August 25, 1918, which includes the Somme, Vimy Ridge, Hill 70, Passchendale ridge. Amiens, Mount Kemmel and the commencement of the drive for Boulon Woods. In the latter all my company with exception of about eight men were badly gassed, myself being one that was gassed and invalided to England where I remained in hospital until about two weeks before armistice was signed. Now Mr. Bennett I think you will agree with me that whatever my disabilities were when 1 enlisted they surely were not improved any after two years of continuous privations. I think if my war service is checked up I missed seven or nine days of front line duty while out in France. I doubt whether there are many first division men with as much continuous front line duty to their credit, if credit be such.
Now, that young man when dealing with the question of a pension was confronted by the fact that prior to enlistment his health had not been as sound in one particular as he might have desired, and it was by the Board of Pension Commissioners concluded that a part of his disability was attributable to his prewar conditions. It is to overcome such a difficulty that this amendment has been suggested.
I have also a communication received from another town in Ontario, in which the young man says that he had a piece of metal in his eye, the wound entirely healed, and he thought his eye was all right, but he told the attesting officer that fact. He joined the flying corps and:
-while flying another plane flew across the tail of my plane at about four thousand feet which made me crash. Somehow I managed to pull up near the ground, how I don't know, but I landed upside down, bruised my head, hurt my ribs and lost the sight of my right eye and damaged my knee.
The pension authorities assumed that his disability should be 16 per cent instead of 20 per cent because he had the injury to his eye in the days of his youth, which he had entirely forgotten except to mention it when he was attested.	.
I bring these matters to the attention of the House in no party sense. I realize the difficulty of the minister with whom I have discussed the matter, and I realize also the difficulty there is in endeavouring to deal with the multitudinous cases that have arisen under the statute. My effort has been to deal with what I conceive to be those pressing cases Which should be dealt with so as to restore in some degree a sense of confidence
in the good faith of the country as a whole when we made the promise during the war that those who were disabled in the service of their country would be taken care of through our Pension Act. I am not unmindful of the many difficulties that have to be encountered in the administration of the statute, and I realize there are many, many suggestions that might be embodied in the form of amendments to this measure. The minister pointed out the other night that he proposed to reconsider and consolidate the Pension Act. I apprehend that the act will be consolidated by the commission dealing with the revision of the statutes. But he will revise and consolidate it during the recess and submit it to pailiament for consideration in the early days of next session. But I cannot think it desirable-nay, I do not think it is at all in the interests of the country as a whole-that at this time we should leave our places in parliament without at least making a declaration in the form of the amendments I have suggested. We ought in the first place to declare that it is our wish, wherever there be a reasonable doubt-and the word "reasonable" is always construed in the sense I have indicated-that such doubt be resolved in favour of the applicant, and that where any man has been attested as sound, after having seen service in the front line trenches in any theatre of war, to use the words of the statute, this country should be precluded and estopped from setting up that the condition of the soldier on discharge was not attributable to military service. I cannot, in any amendment I might suggest, deal with all cases that are likely to arise, but that is the general principle I lay down. The other difficulty concerns the relative position of the Board of Pension Commissioners and the Federal Appeal Board, and it is a difficulty that might readily lead, one might almost say, to public scandal. I suggest that wherever it is within the statutory jurisdiction of the Federal Appeal Board to hear an appeal, and wherever such an appeal has been heard and the judgment of the pensions board has been reversed, the judgment of the appeal board should become thereupon the judgment or decision of the Board of Pension Commissioners itself.
Respecting the general power of a private individual even to suggest amendments of this character, I realize the limitations that are imposed upon us. I therefore have endeavoured to eliminate any possible charge of having proposed new legislation involving the expenditure of public moneys. Rather, I have contented myself with making pro-
Pension Act-Mr. COMMONS
King (Kootenay)
oedural declarations calculated, in my judgment-it is of course entirely for the House to say to what extent these declarations re-flecl the general feeling-to make somewhat easier the way of those who have claims upon the state by reason of services they have given. Above all, I submit that what I propose will make for a more contented state of mind among the soldiers, a calmer and fairer appreciation, perhaps, of the difficulties under which the ministers are carrying on their duties. And these difficulties are quite serious in every country where pensions have to be awarded. I do commend these amendments to the House, and I do so in none but the most earnest desire, by means of these short provisions, to afford some temporary relief until such time as the government may be able to deal with the matter in more comprehensive terms.


James Horace King: On April 1 in
reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans), I intimated that the government, after having reviewed the mass of material submitted by various soldiers organizations in February of this year requesting amendments to the Pension Act and changes in the administrative regulations, had decided that the whole subject was so comprehensive that they did not feel they would be justified in altering this session the principle on which pensions had been heretofore granted. Our Pension Act, I pointed out, had been built up during the war. The present act passed in 1919, and the subsequent amendments thereto, have 'been the controlling instruments for the administration of pensions in Canada. It is well known to hon. gentlemen that the pensions board is composed of three members, a chairman and two others. The chairman has been associated with the administration of pensions since 1917. He ig a man of high educational attainments, with a good overseas record, and, I understand, is an eminent lawyer. He is the son of a former Minister of Justice and Prime Minister of this country.
A suggestion was made in the debate on April 7 that there had been a hardening in the administration. Well, that is difficult to say. We know that our pensions bill is growing from year to year. It may be that the act should be broadened, and I am satisfied that the people of Canada have every wish to deal justly with soldiers. I believe an attempt has been made by parliament to formulate legislation broad enough to realize that wish of the Canadian people. It is the duty of the government to interpret the will

of the people, and parliament is the plhce wherein the government may learn the point of view held by various sections of the country.
The act was brought into being in 1919 and was amended in the years 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924 and 1925. Probably the most important contribution to the amendment of our pensions legislation was due to the efforts of the Ralston commission, which was appointed in 1922. That commission has perhaps contributed more information and general knowledge to the consideration of one of the most important questions, if not indeed the most important, before the Canadian people than any other governmental activity, and out of it many far-reaching amendments were made to the statute in 1924 and 1925. My colleague, the Minister of National Defence (Mr Ralston), was chairman of that commission. He is now a member of the government, and with his wide -knowledge of all matters affecting the returned soldiers-a knowledge gained in the course of an extensive investigation into the subject-he will be invaluable to the government and to the people of Canada in dealing with our soldier problem. I indicated on April 7 that the government were of the opinion that this material submitted to us in February of this year should be thoroughly digested departmentailly and in government circles, and that such legislation as the government deemed necessary, in the light of the representations then made, should be prepared in the form of amendments and submitted to parliament at an early date at the next session.
It has been the practice of parliament and of different governments when important amendments were mooted in this connection to have the question under advisement submitted to a representative committee of the House. And is not that the wisest course?
I think it will be generally conceded that that has been the proper procedure; it has done more than anything else to keep our pensions administration out of party politics. I appeal to the House on this occasion to see to it that the same course shall be pursued in the future, and I will undertake as minister to see that all representations submitted in behalf of the soldiers shall be given serious consideration during the summer with a view tc having any amendments growing out of them referred to a special committee of the House at the next session.
Let me briefly refer to the amendments proposed this afternoon. I will not discuss them at any length; as, I think, it would be better for the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon), with

Pension Act-Mr. Arthurs
his wide knowledge of the statute, to deal with these amendments. I wish however to direct the attention of the House to the third amendment. If the principle therein propounded should be adopted by this House we surely have introduced something new in connection with the granting of pensions in Canada, and I am told by the officers administering the act that it would entail a very large addition to our pensions bill. I am satisfied that on . the third reading of a bill this parliament will not wish to adopt a new principle of this character; if that principle is right, involving as it does millions of dollars, then it should be carefully considered and its effect made known not only to members of the committee but to members of this House. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the course originally suggested by myself, speaking for the government, should be followed at this time, and that the bill should not be referred back to the committee but should receive third reading.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Before the minister concludes would he say what principles contained in the amendment are new?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my hon. friend will understand that it opens the door very wide and brings in a new principle.


Arthur Edward Ross: I have repeatedly
heard representatives of the pension board tell committees of this House that they deal with cases of a reasonable doubt, but of course we know they do not. What other is a new principle?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am told that it
opens the door very wide and will make a great difference in administration and in the cost.


Peter McGibbon: Surely the minister does not raise the question of cost.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not raising
any objection as to the cost, but I say parliament should be advised of that cost.


Hewitt Bostock: I must remind hon.
gentlemen that we are not in committee of the whole but are considering the third reading of this bill.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I did not quite catch the substance of the amendment of the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett). I would like to draw the attention of the minister to a case in my own city of Calgary, that of a man who had been afflicted with a form of Bright's disease before he enlisted. He said, "I was good enough to be taken into the force and I was anxious to serve, but I had this little
trouble." During the course of the war this disease was aggravated and he is now unable to do any work; he applied for a pension and was refused on the ground that his disability did not result from the war. I would like to know if this new pension act would apply' to cases of that kind, because the application of this man has been refused several times already.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am trying to
indicate to the House that amendments of that character, which would enlarge the field of pensions, should be considered by a committee of this House rather than rushed through hurriedly, and that is why I am asking the House not to consider favourably the amendment that has been proposed. I am not taking exception to the amendment, but rather to the time of its presentation.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Would the act cover a
case such as I have referred to?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I could not say,
because each of these cases must be judged on its merits.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: I am
fully in accord with the principle of the amendment. I will not take the time of the House to narrate instances of which I know, but as I have said before it does seem to me that the act is too rigid and does not permit of a sympathetic interpretation, which the amendment would seem to cover.


Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound):: Just before the amendment carries, I would like to say a few words on this question. I have asked the minister on one or two occasions for certain information with regard to the number of appeals made to the appeal board, and the number which were successful. I have not those figures under my hand at present, but doubtless the minister has put them on Hansard. I would point out that whereas the committee which sat two years ago intended that all appeals should come before the appeal board, at present only those appeals are heard which have to do with the eligibility of a man for pension, and the board has nothing to do with the cessation of pension, with the increase or decrease of the amount, or with the diagnosis. That board simply says whether a man is or is not eligible for a pension, which does not cover the real cause of complaint. I am satisfied that the minister has not taken the best course in not having this question looked into during the present session; I believe it should have been done, and I sincerely hope that if the government press this to its absolute conclusion
Pension Act-Mr. Ward

to-day, they will make up their minds to have a committee appointed in the regular way next year in order to go into this matter regardless of what any other chamber or parliament in this country may or may not do.


William John Ward: I would not have risen at all in connection with this matter, except that I wish to state my hearty agreement with the amendment offered by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett). The minister in charge of this bill made some reference to the cost of these pensions, and pointed out that the amendment would broaden -the act. I do not see it in that light at all. It is not a question of broadening the act, but a question of giving equality of opportunity. I could enumerate a great number of cases which I have on file and which involve -the question of equality; I have one case in mind, that of a boy who enlisted in 1915, and who, when he left the army, was shown by his medical sheet to be blind in the right eye. I have repeatedly taken up the matter with the Board of Pension Commissioners and they insist that the boy was blind in that eye when he enlisted. If that was the case, and a partially blind boy was accepted by the examining officer, surely there must have been something seriously wrong. I knew this boy before he enlisted, and personally I am convinced that he was not blind at all. I merely mention that case because he is a chap who should be getting at least a 40 per cent pension, and has received nothing at all.
I remember the case of another boy, who was suffering from diabetes. He was accepted for service, spent three years in the army and came out a physical wreck. Since that time he has never been able to earn a livelihood, yet because his medical adviser told him he had suffered from diabetes before entering the army, he is debarred by the present law from participating in any pension. I think the government could do many worse things than accept the amendments of the hon. member for West Calgary; in fact I believe they are about five years overdue. I am sure any member of this House who has had occasion to visit the pension board and the appeal board during the last four or five years must be impressed with the difficulty experienced in getting consideration for returned men. That fact has resulted in our having demands from all over this country for the abolition of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, the pension board and the appeal board. I have had applications from returned men demanding that these organizations be abolished. Why? Because the returned men

believe that these organizations are not giving the service they should, and that they are costing too much for the service given. Personally I think that the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment should be abolished; I think it has outlived its usefulness. There ought to be ways and means of dealing with disabled returned men much more expeditiously and effectively, and at a lesser cost, than is the case at the present time. I was hoping that the government would accept the very moderate amendments of the hon. member for West Calgairy; it would relieve the members of this House of a great deal of difficulty. I can visualize in the next few years a continuation and an increase of the difficulties we are having in trying to get redress for returned men who are to-day suffering from grave disabilities incurred during their war service, but who cannot get justice done them under the present act.


George Gibson Coote: I think this amendment is in the right direction and something that we have needed, for the last two or three years at any rate. I have had several cases brought to my attention of men who I think need a little more reasonable treatment by the pension board, and I would suggest to the minister that he should accept this very moderate amendment. I think that the men should not be asked to wait for another year till the government considers the proposal which seems to me to be so necessary and which, after all, is so very moderate in its character. The country can very well afford to pay whatever increase in expenditure would be neeessaiy if this amendment goes through. I hope the minister will change his mind and permit the amendment to pass.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to express the same hope from another section of this corner. It does seem that there ought to be a -more generous interpretation of the act, and until the act can be changed the amendment would appear to be one way of overcoming the difficulty. I trust that we shall not be asked to wait for another year before doing something for the men who need help.


Lucien Cannon: As the mover of the amendment has
stated, this is in no way a political matter, and should not be treated as such by -the House. Every member, no matter on which side he sits, is of one mind on the question at issue, and that is to treat the returned man in the best possible way. I have listened to speeches which have been made in the course of this

Pension Act-Mr. Cannon
debate by members who are more conversant, it may be, with the condition of the returned man than I am, perhaps myself. My contribution to this debate will have no reference to the technical side of the subject; I wish to state in a very brief way what the real meaning of the amendment suggested by the hon. member for West Calgary is, in so far as the law is concerned.
The hon. member suggests that the bill should be referred back to committee and that then we should insert in it three amendments. The first amendment may be summed up as meaning, that whenever a reasonable doubt exists it should be resolved in favour of the applicant, that is in favour of the soldier who is before the board seeking a pension. Everyone will admit that whenever a reasonable doubt exists the soldier should be given the benefit of it, so that the only question is whether the amendment proposed by my hon. friend is necessary or not. If I vote against the amendment proposed by the hon. member for West Calgary I do not wish my vote to be construed as meaning that I am against the principle of the amendment, but if I find that that amendment is useless under the existing law I think we should not insert it in the bill. What is the law as it actually exists? It is that the commissioners who are called upon to decide a case shall weigh the evidence to the best of their ability; and I need not recall to the House that the members of the board as at present constituted are competent in such matters. When a doubt exists there is absolutely nothing in the law as it is to-day which prevents that doubt from being resolved in favour of the applicant. The commissioners can take that course now.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: But they do not.


Lucien Cannon: And moreover not only is
there nothing in the law which prevents the applicant from being given the benefit of that doubt, but there are the provisions of section 15 of the Interpretation Act, which deals with all legislation that we have on our statute books, and which applies consequently to the Pension Act. My hon. friend from West Calgary says that clause 15 only mentions "interpretation" but that clause mentions "interpretation" when the law is to be applied.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It does not deal with administration.


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend will
allow me, section 15 says that every act, and every provision and enactment thereof, shall be deemed remedial. There is no practical
object in inserting in an act what is actually -the law at the present time. My hon. friend in his amendment says:
It is hereby declared that the Pension Act shall be construed and administered-


Richard Bedford Bennett: "And administered."


Lucien Cannon: -
-as remedial legislation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: "And administered." That is not in section 15.


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend will
allow me, I am making my argument. It says:
It is hereby declared that the Pension Act shall be construed and administered as remedial legislation.
Now our law in our statute says:
Every act and every provision and enactment thereof, shall be deemed remedial, whether its immediate purport is to direct the doing of any thing which parliament deems to be for the public good, or to prevent or punish the doing of any thing which it deems contrary to the public good.
Therefore, the general rule is laid down that every piece of legislation is remedial. Let us now read the last part' of section 15, and here we come to what divides my hon. friend and myself:
-and shall accordingly-
These are instructions contained in our law:
*-and shall accordingly receive such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as will best ensure the attainment of the object of the act.
How can you attain the object of an act when you do not administer it? Therefore, I say that this section 15 applies to administration or it has no sense at all, and then I conclude that the first part of my hon. friend's amendment is useless because it is in the law already.
Coming to the second part, when he says that the benefit of a reasonable doubt must be given to the soldier, he is simply stating what the commissioners can do already. The only objection that can meet this point in my argument is the objection that has been raised by my hon. friend opposite when they say: But' they do not do it. My answer to that is very simple. If a judge does not interpret the law as it should be interpreted, and t'he way to interpret and administer the law is laid down in section 15 which I have just read, the remedy is not to amend the law in order to supply the defects in the mind of the judge, but to improve the judge and see that he interprets the law as it should be interpreted or else remove him. That is the sensible way of looking at things.
Pension Act-Mr. Cannon


Peter McGibbon: Would the minister advocate removing the board?


Lucien Cannon: I do not advocate that.
I am simply answering the argument. I am saying that gentlemen on the other side wish to put in our law an amendment which has absolutely no practical meaning, which does not add in any way to the existing law, and the reason which they give is that the commissioners in certain cases have not given t'he decisions they should have given. My answer is this: Suppose a judge is on the bench dealing with a criminal case, and for some reason or other his decisions are not in conformity with the law; are we to amend our criminal code in order to correct the misjudgment of the judge, or are we to see to if that the judge himself improves his decisions, either by removing him or by giving him directions that will guide him in his future decisions? I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the debate which has taken place will show to the board the mind of the representatives sitting in parliament, and that the commissioners, being apprised of what the members wish, will certainly follow the instructions of parliament; and as I say, they have in the law as it exists to-day everything needed to meet the objections which have been pointed out in debate in this House.
Coming to the second amendment, it deals with the case where there is a conflict between the pension board and the appeal board. This conflict arises-I ask my hon. friend from West Calgary to follow me in this and correct me if I am not right-simply over one point, naimely, when the pension board deems that the appeal board has rendered a judgment in matters which are outside their jurisdiction. That is the only point over which conflict arises between the two bodies to-day. It is a conflict as to their respective jurisdictions. Would we be removing that conflict by adopting this amendment, if it is adopted? Not at all. I call the attention of hon. members to the wording of this amendment:
If a decision of the Board of Pension Commissioners of Canada is reversed by the federal appeal	board acting within its
statutory jurisdiction-
So this amendment simply says this: When the federal appeal board gives a decision, if that decision has been given by the board acting within its statutory jurisdiction, then the judgment of the federal appeal board is final. But nothing is added by this amendment; the law says that already. Whenever the federal appeal board gives a decision within its jurisdiction, the law now says that

that decision is final; and whenever it gives a decision outside its jurisdiction, why should that decision be acted upon?


Peter McGibbon: Is it not a fact that there are cases where the federal appeal board gives decisions favourable to the applicant for a pension, and yet he gets none.


Lucien Cannon: Certainly, and I say that that is a state of affairs which ought to be remedied, but I add that the amendment introduced by my hon. friend would not remedy it.


Peter McGibbon: Sure it would.


Lucien Cannon: Perhaps my hon. friend will follow my argument before jumping at conclusions; that is all I ask him to do. The conflict between the two boards i3 a conflict which arises out of the fact that the jurisdiction of the appeal board is contested by the pension board. Now this amendment says that only decisions given by the federal appeal board which are within their jurisdiction shall be final. But the law says that already; this amendment does not improve things in any way; things remain exactly the way they are. The proper remedy would be to define that jurisdiction. The proper remedy would be, if we wish to extend the powers of the federal appeal board, to extend them, but the moment those powers are extended we should define their jurisdiction in such a way that there can be no possible ambiguity as to the extent of the board's jurisdiction. My hon. friend does not do that by his amendment. The first amendment has no meaning in law; the second amendment has no object in law; but this amendment, if I may say so, has another object, and the members of this House, if they do not examine carefully these amendments, will be placed under the impression, like some hon. members who have already spoken, that in voting against them they are voting against the soldiers and putting them in a more unfavourable position than they are in to-day. If these amendments improved the condition of the soldiers in any way I would support them, but I say it is useless to adopt these amendments because we would only be putting in the bill something that does not mean anything.
Coming to the third amendment, it seeks to change altogether the basis upon which pensions are to be granted. We may do that; we have the authority to do it, but should we not pause before doing it and ask ourselves this question. This bill is now up for its third reading. We are at a stage of our

Pension Act-Mr. Cannon
proceedings where there is very little opportunity to study the real consequences and meaning of this amendment. Is this the time to introduce in our legislation such a radical change? Why not follow the suggestion of the hon. minister, which is very fair? The hon. minister does not bar the door to any amendments. He does not refuse to the soldiers any improvement in the situation. He does not bind the government or this House to refuse any amendment in the future. On the contrary, he admits the situation offers features of such a nature that parliament should intervene and change the law. But he says, we must have time to consider these amendments. He says, "Let us see to it that the amendments which are adopted will be the result of mature consideration and not of hasty drafting of sections the significance of which is uncertain and indefinite. This is the stand we take. Is that not fair and reasonable?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the minister suggest that we stay here until the question of pensions to the soldiers has been properly arranged?


Lucien Cannon: My answer is very simple. I have no objection to staying, and those who wish at this time really to improve the legislation which exists should not adopt the means of moving amendments to the third reading; the amendments should be submitted to a committee which would have time to consider them maturely.


William Irvine: Were those amendments
not submitted to the committee?


Lucien Cannon: No.


William Irvine: Not discussed?


Lucien Cannon: No, these amendments are the result of a general discussion which took place in this House, but they are drafted in such a way that two of them mean nothing, and the last one introduces in our system a new basis. Are we willing to accept that basis?


William Irvine: What is that?


Lucien Cannon: The new basis, as far as the medical evidence is concerned, if I understand it, means that if a man has given his service at the front, the fact that he has enlisted and given that service will be sufficient to prove that any disability is attributable to his war condition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is on discharge.


Lucien Cannon: Yes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Has the government any alternative to meet the situation for this year?


Lucien Cannon: Yes. First, when it comes to improving the law and amending it, we wish to have a committee composed of the most competent members on both sides of the House to examine the question, go into it to the fullest extent, and then bring to the House, to those who are less conversant with the matter, reports which will enable us to have the law as perfect as the human mind can make it. This is one suggestion made by the minister. Our second suggestion is that if there are really needy cases there is a clause already in our law, the meritorious clause, which enables the board to deal with them immediately. This is not a political matter in any way. All members of the House are of one mind. The principles that have been expounded by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) and others in the House are principles in which we all join. Our only differences in views are as to the means and methods to be adopted to attain the object. These proposed amendments would not meet this object. They have been drawn up in such a way that they certainly do not mean what the hon. member for West Calgary intended them to mean.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will take a chance on
that.


Lucien Cannon: This is not a matter in
which we should take chances.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will take a chance
that they mean what I intended them to mean.


Lucien Cannon: We are dealing now with
the serious question of pensions. Are the members willing to take a chance on an amendment? Will they vote on an amendment, the meaning of which they are not sure of?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Then what chance have
the men who are in need of and entitled to pension of obtaining that pension before parliament meets again?


Lucien Cannon: There is a meritorious
clause in the act.


James Shaver Woodsworth: How many cases
have been dealt with under that meritorious clause?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand
thirteen cases have been taken up, and others are under consideration. It is only recently that it has been made effectual.

Pension Act-Mr. Cannon


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does that fact not show that it has not been effective?


John Franklin White: How long has that clause been in the act?


Lucien Cannon: That would not matter.
I suppose the soldiers understand that if they apply to the board and their application is refused, it is final.
Mr, WOODSWORTH:	Would the hon.
member deny that the adjustment bureau has again and again tried to take advantage of that clause and finds it impossible to do so?


Lucien Cannon: We are coming to the
same point. We admit we have in our law all the remedies which we need. For instance, if there is a needy case we have the meritorious clause. But the objections are that the board does not apply the law as it should be applied.


William Irvine: Change the law.


Lucien Cannon: Again I come to the first
question I put to the House. If the law is badly interpreted by any tribunal in the land, are we to amend the law to meet the interpretation, or are we to improve the tribunal? We are going to have a vote on this question, and if the vote has any meaning, after examining these amendments as I have examined them, it is simply this: even if the two first amendments were adopted the condition of the soldier would not be improved. Are we going to make this a party question and divide the House when we have no practical object in doing so? Or are we going to say: "Here is a question that has to be settled. People are not satisfied, as they should be." Let us assume that during the recess this question is taken up by people -who are qualified to deal with it and competent to solve it, and at the opening of the next session a committee composed of the most competent members on all sides of the House will sit, examine the question and make a report. We will then be in a position to amend our law in order to meet the just demands made upon us, whereas if we try to introduce these amendments now we are simply confusing the issue.


Mr. BARBER:: I may say, Mr. Speaker,
that I waited on the board this morning and was informed that the minister acts under the meritorious clause.


George Gibson Coote: The minister deprecated
dividing the House on party lines. Why is it necessary to do so? Why not let every member vote according to his judgment?


Eugène Fiset: I was paired with the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. MaeLaren). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Eccles James Gott: I was paired with the hon.
member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Rheaume). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: I was paired with the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn). Had I voted I should have voted against the amendment.


Mr. KAY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


John Franklin White: I was paired with the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was paired with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

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


Charles A. Stewart: I move that the committee rise and report progress.


Hugh Guthrie: What estimates shall we take up to-night?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Indian Affairs.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at 8 o'clock.



INDIAN AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
Indians-Nova Scotia, $76,840.
Hugh Guthrie: There is a little increase here; what is the matter?


Charles A. Stewart: There are
two items of increase, one of $315 to provide
Supply-Indian Affairs

for the statutory increases and the other of $3,000 for medical attendance. We find that we are having considerable difficulty in satisfying the communities near these reserves, and we have to spend more money from time to time for medical attention. As my hon. friend will notice in running down the list, there are several increases which are largely for medical attention and for other things of that kind.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indians-Prince Edward Island, $6,035.
Hugh Guthrie: Is this increase due to
the same reason?


Charles A. Stewart: In one case
this is for relief and seed grain and in the other for medical attention, $300 additional.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indians-Ontario and Quebec, $274,003.02.
Arthur Edward Ross: There is a decrease of $12,745 here; the Indians must be more healthy in Ontario and Quebec.


Charles A. Stewart: We are
asking for an additional amount in the supplementary estimates.


Hugh Guthrie: This decrease of $12,745
is more apparent than real, then?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. We
have an increase of about $19,000 for medical attention and hospitals in Ontario and an increase of $26,725 on repairs to roads, bridges, and drainage. We have a considerable increase for medical attention, but as frequently happens when the provincial highways are being built through the reserves, we have to spend a considerable amount of money to supplement the provincial vote, which is not so high this year.


Mr. PETTIT:: How is that vote divided
between Ontario and Quebec?


Charles A. Stewart: There is
$183,358 devoted to Ontario and $91,645 to Quebec.


Arthur Edward Ross: How much is to
be expended on the reservation at Deseronto?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
know that I can give that to my hon. friend. We have not the totals for the individual reserves.


Peter McGibbon: If the minister has the
information available, will he tell me how .much money the government hold in trust for the Indians in Rama?


Charles A. Stewart: We have
not the exact figures, but it is in the

neighbourhood of about $160,000 of band funds.


Peter McGibbon: Is that all the money?


Charles A. Stewart: I did not
know we would be asked for that, but I will get it for my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indians-Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Northwest Territories, $775,657.
Herbert Bealey Adshead: Would the minister be
good enough to separate these provinces?


Charles A. Stewart: Manitoba,
$192,578; Saskatchewan $280,828; Alberta $204,640; Northwest Territories $97,611.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indians-British Columbia, $350,970.
Hugh Guthrie: I understand from the
report that went through the other day that the $100,000 recommended by that committee is in addition to that amount?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, that
is true. The recommendation in the report is that the government should spend on increased services for hospitals, education, and the like, an additional $100,000, which .it has been suggested, will appear next year as segregated from the regular vote of the department.


Hugh Guthrie: That $100,000 is out of
the money that belongs to the Indian band themselves?


Charles A. Stewart: No, but it
will be voted by parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indians-general, $231,500.
Hugh Guthrie: How is this money spent?


Charles A. Stewart: The details
are as follows:
Payments to Indians surrendering their ' lands under provisions of section 89 of the Indian Act, which will afterwards be repaid from the avails of
the land	$ 50,000
Relief to destitute Indians and Eskimo
in. remote districts	 100,000
To prevent the spread of tuberculosis.	50,000
Printing and stationery	 5,000
Grant to assist Indian Trust Fund
Account 310 suppression of liquor.	3,000
Surveys, Ontario, Quebec and Maritime
provinces	 [DOT]	6,000
To provide for expenses in connection with epidemic of smallpox and
other diseases	 10,000
To provide an amount to pay agents' fees in connection with registration of births, deaths and marriages.	500
General legal expenses	 7,000
Total	$231,500

Supply-Indian Affairs


John Anderson Fraser: Are there any amounts for
survey in British Columbia under this vote?


Charles A. Stewart: A considerable amount of survey work is done in British Columbia in connection with the laying out and surveying of reserves.


John Anderson Fraser: Does that come under this vote?


Charles A. Stewart: No, it appears in the British Columbia vote.


Peter McGibbon: Is there any way in which an Indian may become enfranchised? I am asked that question by Indians very often. They would like to become fellow British subjects, and to be able to exercise the franchise.


Charles A. Stewart: Generally
the difficulty about the enfranchisement of an Indian is that when he leaves the reserve he is regarded as a white man. He takes his share of the band funds and is enfranchised; he is no longer a resident of the reserve. There is another system whereby he can be enfranchised in an allotted portion of the reserve, but that is very seldom resorted to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: By order in council.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Peter McGibbon: The band as a whole
cannot be enfranchised?


Charles A. Stewart: They can be as individuals.


Peter McGibbon: And still retain their
property rights?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, if they so desire, and havp their allotment on the reserve.


Hugh Guthrie: But they canDot vote.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: How many acres of land are there in the Caughnawaga reserve?'


Charles A. Stewart: I am told there are approximately 25,000 acres.


John Wesley Edwards: Are any of the lands on that reserve leased, occupied, or operated by white men?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


John Wesley Edwards: To whom are the rents paid?


Charles A. Stewart: They are
paid in through the Indian agent to the band fund in all cases.


John Wesley Edwards: Are any of the lands on that reserve occupied by members of this House?


Charles A. Stewart: I am not aware of it, if there are.


John Wesley Edwards: Does a gentleman by the name of Lanctot occupy any of these lands?


Charles A. Stewart: The member? Not that I am aware of.


John Wesley Edwards: I do not
know that he is a member. My information was that his name was spelt the same way Roch Lanctot.


Charles A. Stewart: We would be glad to get that information. There are a number of leases, but I have no knowledge of that name.


John Wesley Edwards: I wish to ask another question, and the minister can get this information probably at his leisure. My information is-I am not giving it as correct; I am trying to find out whether or not it is correct, and I am sure the minister will wish to find out also-that parts of the land on this reserve are occupied by or leased to white men. My information, whether correct or not, is that some of these white men who have occupied these lands have for years absolutely refused to pay one cent of rent. They are years in arrears for the rental, and absolutely refuse to pay a cent. That is something which I think ought to be looked into. And since I have mentioned a name, which happens to be the same as that of a member of this House, perhaps the minister would also look into the matter and find out whether that particular gentleman, or a man of that name, does lease any land from the department, whether he is years in arrears for rent, and whether he has absolutely refused for years to pay one cent of rent.


Charles A. Stewart: I shall be very glad to look that up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was struck with the
statement made in committee the other day of the very rapid decrease in the number of Indians in British Columbia, and it led me to make certain investigations with respect to the conditions in my own province. I cannot think that the medical service given to the Indians is all that it should bet, and I strongly urge the desirability of having better medical service for the Indians in Alberta. They have very valuable property which they occupy, they have substantial funds, and I feel that it is not very creditable to us that they should
Supply-Indian Affairs

be disappearing as rapidly as they are. It is not, to say the least, creditable to ns that so many of them have passed away so quickly, and I refer particularly to the children and to the younger men and women. I think that a better nursing service could be established in some of the reserves in Alberta, and more frequent medical attention given. The Indian is not always amenable to our methods of medical care, but I should like to ask the minister if he would have the matter looked into, and see what can be done to improve conditions. On the Sarcee reserve there has been very considerable improvement. I will not go into the details to-night, but I cannot urge too strongly the desirability of more careful supervision and better attention being given to the Indians than they now receive.


Charles A. Stewart: I may' say
for the information of the committee that in my short connection with the Indian Department I have discovered that there is a great deal of tuberculosis amongst the Indians, and we have adopted inspectional work by nurses and strengthened the medical staff. I think the work being done amongst the children will have a very beneficial effect; but undoubtedly if we are going to stamp out the plague of tuberculosis, it will require a great deal more money than we are spending on that work at the present time. However, I hope to get the service strengthened, and see if it is not possible to stamp out, in very large degree, this plague amongst the Indians of Canada.


Peter McGibbon: Would the minister be
good enough to tell me what steps are taken to cope with this disease when it breaks out? Has the medical man authority to send them to a sanatorium?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


John Wesley Edwards: In regard
to the reserve I mentioned a moment ago, perhaps the minister can tell us whether or not there was some trouble down there over the obstruction of a right of wray which resulted in the shooting of one of the Indians?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, there
has been a rather serious dispute, but the matter is now in the court; I do not know what the outcome will be. It threatened to be rather serious at one time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indian education, including the construction of school buildings, $1,990,080.
Mr. MILLAR:: Is this for establishing new schools or renewing old ones, and where are they located?


Charles A. Stewart: It includes both. We have constructed quite a number of new schools in the past five years, and have purchased some which were in a good state of repair from the church organizations. Wrhat we are trying to do in the matter of Indian education is to provide the plant for the residential schools, and the various churches are carrying on the educational work under a system of grants.


Mr. LANCTOT:: I have been informed
that in my absence the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington stated that I had leased lands from the Indians. Is that a fact?


John Wesley Edwards: I did not
say it was a fact. I was asking whether it was a fact or not. I am glad the hon. gentleman is here; he can say whether it is a fact or not.


Roch Lanctôt: I may say to my hon.
friend that I have enough land in my parish not to w'ant to lease land from the Indians * at the present time.


John Wesley Edwards: I have no
doubt that that is correct, but, of course, it does not answ'er the question whether the hon. gentleman has leased land from the Indians. He says that he does not now, but he did not say that he had not leased land from them in the past. Perhaps he might make the matter quite clear.


Roch Lanctôt: I have never leased any
land in the Caughnawaga reserve. I am sixty-one, and neither I nor my father before me have ever leased land in the Caughnawaga reserve.


John Wesley Edwards: I did not
make the statement that the hon. gentleman had, but I said the name given to me was exactly the same as the hon. gentleman's, and I asked the minister whether it was the member of the House. I am very glad to have the hon. gentleman's statement-


Roch Lanctôt: It may have been some
other Lanctot, no relation of mine, because none of my relations has leased land from the Indians. If there is a man by the name of Lanctot leasing land in the reserve at the present tame, and I do not think there is, I cannot say who he is.


Mr. SMOKE:: Is any part of the cost of
construction of new school buildings on the Six Nations reserve at Tuscarora borne out of , the funds held in trust for the Indians, or is the cost met out of moneys voted by parliament?

Supply-Indian Affairs


Charles A. Stewart: They were
day schools built by the funds of the band themselves on the Six Nations reserve.


Franklin Smoke: No portion of this vote is
for that purpose?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Franklin Smoke: Why should not the Six
Nations Indians participate in the funds this government expends in building schools for the Indians? Why are they excepted from the benefit of this vote?


Charles A. Stewart: In a great
many instances where there are day schools, they are erected by the religious organizations who are carrying on the work, sometimes out of the funds of the band, frequently assisted by the department. In the case under discussion the schools 'were constructed from the band funds of the Six Nations, but the usual assistance is given to the teachers such as is given to any other Indian school in Canada. But the residential schools are all constructed and paid for by the government.


Franklin Smoke: I think there is some discrimination being shown in this matter against the Six Nations Indians. The fund which is in the hands of the government in trust for the Six Nations Indians was derived from the sale of Indian lands belonging to the Six Nations Indians. I do not think it is fair to the Six Nations Indians that the whole cost of their edcuational facilities should be borne by the band, when other Indians throughout the Dominion receive grants for education.


Charles A. Stewart: There is
really no difference between the system in vogue on the Six Nations reserve and that prevailing on many other of the reserves throughout Canada. In addition to that, the institution in Brantford called the Mohawk institute is maintained altogether by the government for the benefit of the Indians.


Franklin Smoke: But the Mohaw'k institute
is not on the reserve.


Charles A. Stewart: No, and
many of these residential schools are not on the reserve they are serving. The children are brought from the reserve to the school.


Franklin Smoke: As I understand it, the
department is taking care of the education of all Indians throughout the country except the Six Nations band. They happen to have been fortunate enough in the early days because of the part they took in the revolutionary war, to have had a certain section of
land in western Ontario set aside for their use. Certain portions of that land were afterwards surrendered to the government in consideration of a certain sum of money. That money has been held in trust by the government for the Six Nations, except to the extent that it has been encroached upon by expenses paid out of it, and I say the Indians of the Six Nations reserve are entitled to be educated at the cost of the general public of Canada just as much as the Indians in any other portion of the Dominion.


Charles A. Stewart: I am informed that they have never made any demand other than for the grant that is paid them. This is one of the oldest reserves, and perhaps one of the most highly civilized, and certainly one of the best cultivated reserves in Canada, and they have been pretty well taking care of themselves not only in an educational way but in an agricultural way as well. I think it is well that they should be encouraged to do so. I hope the day will come when all the Indians will be in a position to take care of themselves. As the days go by, and the effects of education are felt among the Indians there is no reason in the world why they should not take their place along with the white man and bear the same burden.


Franklin Smoke: If, as the minister says, no
complaint has been lodged hitherto, I am lodging a complaint now on behalf of the Six Nations. It is time that there was a complaint lodged. These funds have been set aside for the benefit of the Indians, and the money belongs to the Six Nations; it does not belong to this Dominion. The people on the reserve in the township of Tusearora are paying, as I understand from the minister, the whole cost of their local education, the Mohawk institute at Brantford being maintained by a New England society formed in the old country many years ago. The Mohawk institute is not on the reserve, and I do not know to what extent the government assists in that, nor am I concerned with that at present, but I do say that if the Indians in other parts of the Dominion are educated entirely at the expense of this country the Indians of the Six Nations should to some extent at least derive assistance from the government.


John Wesley Edwards: Has any
application been made to the government from the Caughnawaga reserve for the building of a Protestant school in that reserve, and if so, what action, if any, has been taken?
Supply-Indian Affairs


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, we are making arrangements for a Protestant school on this reserve.


John Wesley Edwards: The minister informed me that this reservation included about 25,000 acres. Has the Indians' title to ownership of any part of that been at any time questioned, or is it being questioned now?	[DOT]


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
very familiar with this particular case, but I am informed by the deputy superintendent that the claim is that' the title to the property rests in the province of Quebec rather than in the Dominion of Canada, for the benefit of the Indians, and we are fighting the case.


John Wesley Edwards: The title
goes back to 1758 or 1760?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, so I am told.


John Anderson Fraser: Are there any appropriations in this vote for new schools in British Columbia?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, at
Lytton.


John Anderson Fraser: Is that for a new building?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. The
old building is a frame structure entirely unsuited to the purpose.


John Anderson Fraser: Will tenders be called for?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: Will the minister
give us a a list of the structures being erected and where they are?


Charles A. Stewart: These are
residential schools. In Nova Scotia we are spending $35,000 on a new school. At St. Philips, Saskatchewan, we are spending $75,000; Onion lake, $115,000 Lytton, $174,000, and Alert Bay, British Columbia, $1,950. We are renovating the school at Sydney and at To-bique at a cost of $3,000. At Spanish River we are spending $35,000. At Little Saskatchewan, Manitoba, we are spending $2,500 on teachers' residences. At Hollow Water River, Manitoba, we are spending $3,500; Split Lake, $2,000; Bale Verte, $2,000; Point'e au Pic, Quebec, $5,400; Ebb and Flow, Manitoba, $2,440; Mohawk, to erect a dairy building $600. These are the additions.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is that the Mohawk reservation?


Charles A. Stewart: Mohawk
reservation.


Mr. HANSON:: It is not so long ago that a new school was erected at' Tobique.


Charles A. Stewart: This is to
erect a new building.


Franklin Smoke: Is the band growing?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, they require more accommodation.


Mr. DICKIE:: Has provision been made
for the furnishing of motor cars to nurses in the district which I represent, in the district' of the Saanich and the Cowichan?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, where
it is necessary for the nurses to have a car we are furnishing it, but it comes out of the general fund.


Charles Herbert Dickie: Am I to understand they
are to have a car this year? I know the conditions out there. They must have a car to perform efficient service.


Charles A. Stewart: Wherever it is necessary we furnish the nurses with cars. In some oases they are asking for cars where they are hardly the best kind of conveyance for getting about.	.


John Anderson Fraser: How do you call for the
tenders for the schools?	.


Charles A. Stewart: By public
advertisement.


John Anderson Fraser: You advertise in the public
press?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I see an item for "repairs to roads and bridges and drainage" in Ontario and Quebec, $43,400. I would like to know if there are any amounts that are especially mentioned for improvements to roads in the Bersimis reserve on the north shore of the river St. Lawrence.


Charles A. Stewart: We have an understanding with the province of Quebec that as soon as they reach this reserve we will continue the road. Our information is that they do not intend this year to build the road and we did not provide an item for it. But the moment they reach the reserve we will do it.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Have you considered the proposition of renewing the road?


Charles A. Stewart: With regard to this particular road?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: With reference to the churches connected with this reserve I remember that last year a request was made on behalf of certain authorities regarding contributions that might be offered by the govern-

Supply-Indian Affairs
ment as a contribution to these reserves. For instance at a place called Les Escoumains, which forms part of the reserve of Bersimis, some Indian bands reside in large numbers, and they want to know whether they will have a contribution for the erection of a church there on account of the fact that for nearly a generation the Indians have been loked after at that place by the church. I think I made a recommendation to the department last year in that behalf.


Mr. GEARY:: Are the Indian children
educated at the expense of the government?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


George Reginald Geary: Are the children of the
Mohawk reserve educated at the expense of the government, and if not, why not?


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend was not in his seat when I answered a similar question put by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Smoke) who represents the constituency contiguous to the reserve. The Indians of this particular reserve have always provided the funds for the erection of their own schools and have carried on their educational system with an annual grant from the government of $2,500. This is being done in other instances as well. My hon. friend said he thought it was only reasonable that the Six Nations should be given the same amount of assistance as other bands. I have visited the reserve on several occasions and have found them a very progressive band; they carry on their own affairs very well. We spent a considerable sum of money to assist them in road building.


George Reginald Geary: Why should they be penalized?


Charles A. Stewart: They are not penalized; they have never asked for anything more. I am informed that this has been the practice from the very inception of the reserve.


Franklin Smoke: There is a different form of government on the Six Nations reserve to what obtains on most of the other reserves. The Six Nations Indians are allowed to lease land, but they have no actual freehold title to any portion of the reserve. I do not think it is proper that any portion of the funds belonging to the band should be appropriated for eduoational purposes when the Dominion government takes care of the whole of such cost for the other Indian bands.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is not correct in stating that the government takes care of the whole cost of education on the other reserves.


Franklin Smoke: Well, there is a large sum of money devoted to that purpose, and I do not think the Six Nations Indians are getting their share.


George Hamilton Pettit: What do the items of miscellaneous and unforeseen under Nova Scotia and general expenses under Ontario and Quebec cover?


Charles A. Stewart: The first
item covers the weekly removal of refuse and garbage from the Sydney reserve and repairs to water system, $200; water rates, Sydney reserve, $200; travelling expenses and contingencies of Superintendent Boyd as well as the various agents' travelling expenses, postage and other contingencies, $6,000; removal and establishment of Indians on the new Sydney reserve, $20,000.


Mr. MacNUTT:: What is the vote of $75,000 under Nova Scotia to be used for?


Charles A. Stewart: Is my hon. friend asking in regard to the amount to be expended in Nova Scotia on the construction of buildings?


George Taylor MacNutt: Yes, where is the construction to take place?


Charles A. Stewart: I gave a list and it will appear in Hansard to-morrow. I can repeat the details if required.


George Hamilton Pettit: The hon. minister's explanation in regard to my question is satisfactory so far as it refers to Nova Scotia; but I also asked him what the item of general expenses under Ontario and Quebec covered. I do not want the details.


Charles A. Stewart: The items
my hon. friend has reference to cover the cost of management and general expenses in all the provinces.


Franklin Smoke: How many Indians are there in Canada at the present time?


Charles A. Stewart: There are
104,000.


Franklin Smoke: There are between four and five thousand Indians on the reserve at Brantford,-one twenty-fifth of the whole number. Under item 282 nearly two million dollars is expended on Indian education. This sum divided by 25 would give the Indians of the Six Nations reserve $40,000 instead of $2,500 a year. Why are they receiving only the smaller sum?
Supply-Interior


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot Mr. DENNETT: But that is exactly what
give my non. friend any further answer.	happens. They take a man and put him in


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: What is the Indian temporarily and in that way get around the population of Nova Scotia?	Civil Service Act.


Charles A. Stewart: It is 1827.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Department of the Interior Scientific Institutions
Expenses connected with the Dominion Observatory at Ottawa, $57,900.
Expenses connected with the Dominion Astro-physical observatory at Victoria, B.C., $22,330.
To provide for a fellowship in astronomy, tenable for one year, at the Dominion observatory at Ottawa or the Dominion astrophysical observatory at Victoria, B.C. Appointments and payments may be made notwitstanding anything in the Civil Service Act or regulations thereunder, $2,500.
Hugh Guthrie: There is an increase of
$6,000. Why?


Charles A. Stewart: The explanation of the increase is as follows: Statutory increases:
2 at $60	 120
1 at $120	120
n	.	.	, ,	

 $	315
One engineering	clerk	1,380H. P. Racicot,	part	time.. ..	250
Less: Decrease effected in appointment of G.
Pryde	$1,200


Mr.   M@: Will the minister
explain why there occurs so often in these estimates the last sentence in this vote:
Appointments and payments will be made notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act or regulations thereunder.


Charles A. Stewart: This is not intended to remove any permanent appointments from the control of the Civil Service Commission.

. Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):	This vote
is to provide for the salary of some young astronomer from abroad. The appointment will be for one year and the intention is to have the office filled alternately at Victoria and Ottawa. The selection will be made each year by the department on the recommendation of the head of the astronomical branch.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why from abroad? Is
this a German?


Charles A. Stewart: We do not know yet who will be the appointee nor from what country he will come. There has been for some years a Belgian on the staff here. This is the system adopted by these men to broaden their knowledge and it is very much the same as that practised by teachers in the educational field, who exchange positions for temporary periods. The appointments are not permanent.


Peter McGibbon: Will the minister assure us that the appointee will not be a German?


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Eor a number of years
the minister has promised that the cost of the Topographical survey and the Geodetic survey would gradually become less, but according to the estimates they are growing every year.


Charles A. Stewart: There has
been a very considerable reduction in the staff since I have had charge of the department. I do not think my hon. friend is correct in saying there could be very much reduction in the Geodetic survey. The increase will be explained later on when we come to it.


James Dew Chaplin: Not one of these items
shows a decrease.


Arthur Edward Ross: I understand that
this country is going to give a fellowship to some person outside of Canada, the only condition being that the student or graduate in astronomy will come to our observatory. No such thing was ever done before, and I think we would do better to give scholarships to our own students. It is a common occurrence to grant amounts for fellowships to enable persons to go to universities abroad, but I never heard of a fellowship to enable some person to come to Canada.

Supply-Interior


Charles A. Stewart: The idea is not to confer some favour on the individual we are bringing from abroad, but rather to widen our own knowledge of what is taking place in other institutions outside of Canada.


Arthur Edward Ross: Then the proper
course is to send our young men abroad to get the information; that is the principle adopted in fellowships given by universities. I think you will have every university in Canada up in arms if they know you are bringing an astronomer here from abroad.


Charles A. Stewart: We do send our men abroad sometimes; they are abroad too much, if you ask me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some of them are, about election time.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
so much interested in elections as my hon. friend. I am bound to say that if it is a good idea to exchange teachers in order to broaden the knowledge which they may impart to their pupils, surely there can be no complaint when we bring in a young man from some other institution for one year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is any other country
giving one of our students $2,500?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
say.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If not, let us cut out the item.


Charles A. Stewart: The arrange- . ments are made for this year; if it is not agreeable to parliament I will see that it ceases, but I want to say frankly that I cannot see anything wrong about it.


George Reginald Geary: Is it an instructor fellowship?


Charles A. Stewart: The idea is
simply to bring an astronomer from outside of Canada for a period of one year to work with the staffs at Ottawa and at Victoria alternately. He may be from Germany this year, from England the following year and from Australia the succeeding year, but surely hon. gentlemen opposite will not claim that Canada possesses all the knowledge of astronomy and that there is nothing to be learned from other institutions.


Hugh Guthrie: Do other institutions
give these fellowships?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
know.


Richard Bedford Bennett: These matters should be
dealt with by our universities if $2,500 is to be offered some person to qualify in astronomy, which requires a knowledge of higher mathematics and the careful study of many subjects. Why should we give $2,500 to a foreigner, using the word in the broad sense, to come here and stay at Ottawa or Victoria for a year as astronomer, when we all know that $2,500 will not get a man worthy of being called an astronomer? What kind of man are you going to get for that amount? You will get a $2,500 man. The thing is wrong in principle; why should the money of the taxpayers go to pay an astronomer at $2,500, which will not secure a high class astronomer, while we lose an opportunity to offer a fellowship to a Canadian in one of our universities to go abroad and get a first-class working knowledge which we have not the facilities to give him. Isn't that the way to do it? More than that, what effect will it have upon the boys going to the universities in order to train themselves in astronomy? Should not this money go to some young man who desires to become a first-class astronomer, to permit him to go abroad and study at Greenwich or another of the great observatories? I submit the item should not pass.


Peter McGibbon: I think we are approaching this from the wrong end. Obviously if you bring a man here you are giving him $2,500 with which to educate himself, because it is impossible to get a man for that sum to give instruction in our institutions. He would benefit from it, I dare say, but on the other hand if you take one of our students and send him abroad, he would get the benefit of the knowledge of all the professors of that institution. I would like to impress upon the minister that we are starting at the wrong end, and I move that the item be struck out.


Arthur Edward Ross: Rather than strike
it out, if the minister is going to do something I would leave it there and let him go to McGill University and say, "We will give you a fellowship for one of your graduates in astronomy, to permit him to go abroad for a year and study and then come back to give us the benefit of his knowledge." Then go to Toronto and let Queen's be last, if you like. Remember our own Canadian universities, and give our students a chance to go abroad and gain this knowledge not only at one university, but in Germany this year, possibly England next year, and the United States the year after. I am not saying this for political reasons, but I am afraid that every astronomical student and professor in
Supply-Interior

Canada will be up in arms when he realizes that you are giving away this fellowship in the reverse order to that in which any other fellowship is given.


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
speak with knowledge of what is being done with these young scientific men in the observatories, but so far as the work in the mines branch, in geological investigation and other kindred studies is concerned, we do send the staff abroad for a year or two to perfect their knowledge of their various kinds of work. I cannot say whether that is done in this case or not, but I fail to see why this should be criticized so severely. In bringing an individual from an outside institution we are bound to receive some benefit from his presence here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not a $2,500 man.


Charles A. Stewart: That may
not be the total amount the young man may receive.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But we have no reciprocal arrangement; if another country was doing the same thing for us, I might understand it.


Charles A. Stewart: That may
be in effect, I do not know.


Peter McGibbon: In that case we should pay our own man and let the other country pay their man.


Charles A. Stewart: There may be such an exchange.


Hugh Guthrie: This is evidently a new
departure; the item was not in the estimates last year or the year before. May I ask the minister if this is done at his own suggestion, or if it is done at the suggestion of the chief astronomer, or some other official? If a suggestion of this kind is made it is based as a rule upon the faet that there is somebody in sight for the position. Now who is the man that the minister has in view?
Mr.	STEWART	(Edmonton):	I	cannot
tell.
Mr.	GUTHRIE:	Where are	we	to get
him from?
Mr.	STEWART	(Edmonton):	I	cannot
tell.
Mr.	GUTHRIE:	Where are	we	to get
him from?
Mr.	STEWART	(Edmonton):	I	cannot
give my hon. friend that information.


Hugh Guthrie: Has the minister no
plans in regard to the matter at all?


Charles A. Stewart: No, for this reason:	this is a proposal by the director
himself.


Hugh Guthrie: Of the Astronomical
survey?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: No doubt the director
has some man in view, or at all events some scientific institution from which such a man is to come. The committee is entitled to that information; we are entitled to know what we are doing. Therefore I should like to have these questions answered. Who is the man proposed, whence is he coming, who made the arrangement, and is it a reciprocal arrangement? Why is it introduced as a novelty?


Charles A. Stewart: All I can
say is that I should be very glad to let the item stand and get the information.


Hugh Guthrie: Very well, let it stand.


George Reginald Geary: Will the minister also
consider the advisability of establishing a travelling scholarship in connection with one of the universities having a course in astronomy? The winner of the scholarship could travel abroad and study this science in the universities on the other side. Then he would come back to Canada with his knowledge and we could keep it here.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Topographical and aerial surveys for the development of hydro-electric forested and mineralized areas and for aerial fire patrol; expenses of Geographic Board of Canada; classification of lands for settlement and forest reserves; traverse of northern rivers and lakes for administration of Northwest Territories; surveys for administration of Dominion park and game reserves; miscellaneous legal surveys of Dominion lands; testing of standard measures and instrument repairs; plotting and printing of plans, etc., $375,000.
George Gibson Coote: I brought to the attention of the minister on Monday the position of the holder of surface rights on lands in Alber.ta on which drilling for oil has been carried on, and the minister promised to make a statement when the estimates were before the House. I wonder if he would care to do it under this vote?


Charles A. Stewart: The matter was brought up at six o'clock on Monday and I did not have an opportunity of replying. The administration of the crown lands in regard to both surface rights and subsurface

Supply-Interior
rights is a rather complicated affair. On the crown lands we give free homesteads. The individual gets the lands free for living on them for six months in the course of three years, paying a fee of $10, and performing certain other obligations. He then gets the ownership title in fee simple to the surface rights. Up to 1887 the base mineral rights went with the crown lands. In that year the system was changed and the mineral rights were retained for the crown and sold and subsequently leased to anyone making application for them. I want to say that as regards doing injury to the surface every precaution is taken to protect the owner of the surface rights. He cannot, of course, prevent mining operations upon the land by the individual who takes the lease, but his interest is protected and, of course, he has the same right as any other individual to file on the mineral rights if he desires to do so. My hon. friend pointed out that he does not always know when applications are being made, or when a certain district is liable to produce minerals, he does not know perhaps until the rights are gone. But in our own province, with one or two exceptions,
I have not heard of any very serious hardship. I would be prepared to say at once that I would go the full length of protecting the owner of the surface rights, but as we only collect now the royalties between 2i and 5 per cent, there is not very much hope of giving anything to the owner of the surface rights in the way of royalties. In the period of seven or eight years in which I have been dealing with the leasing of lands, both surface and under-surface, particularly in the search for oil, there have been millions and millions of dollars expended, not uselessly but in development work to locate oil. The locating of oil is a pretty expensive proposition at best, and as my hon. friend knows there are only two localities in the province of Alberta that give promise of being oil fields at the present. One is very close to his own home in the Turner valley. An immense amount of money has been spent in attempts to obtain oil and gas in the province of Alberta. The securing of gas has been fairly successful, but it cannot be said that .the securing of oil, considering the amount of money that has been spent upon it, has been entirely successful. So far as I am concerned I am willing to enact regulations that will give full protection to the owner of the surface rights, and if he suffers injury as my hon. friend has pointed out on account of the odour arising from the natural gas, that flows from these wells, assuredly in the event of any injury being done to his land he should secure full
compensation for the same. If the regulations are not sufficiently wide to do that, I would be quite prepared to make them wide enough to cover any injury of that character.
Mr. CO'OTE: I am very glad that the minister is sympathetic enough to say -that he will change the regulations to protect these men. May I point out to him that all that is necessary to secure these men is simply to make a change in the regulations? If is possibly true that not a great many people are as yet affected by this matter which I have brought to the minister's attention, but I do think there is no doubt that in the years to come hundreds of thousands of acres of land are going to be filed on for oil leases, and this trouble is going to grow all the time. No doubt there will be in the future many cases of hardship just in line with the one I pointed out the other day. I do not think it will hinder the development of the oil fields of Alberta if a change were made requiring 5 per cent royalty to be paid to the owner of the surface rights. On the Stony Indian reserve, quite close to the Turner valley, the holder of an oil 'lease must pay 10 per cent royalty to the Indian department out of all the oil that he gets, as well as pay a dollar a year per acre rental. Now that is not stopping development on the Stony reserve because I am told there are several wells being drilled there. I cannot see how 5 per cent royalty for the owner of the surface rights would hold up development of lands outside of the reserve. Some of these oil wells are great wealth producers. The Royalite well is, I am informed, producing annually to the value of one and a quarter millions; it is one of the greatest wealth producing wells in the world. It is true that the others are not quite as large producers, but they are giving handsome returns to the companies that have drilled the wells. I do not want to delay the minister's estimates at all but I should like him to give very careful consideration to this matter. I am sure that the owners of the surface rights are entitled to more protection than they are getting to-day, and I think the most satisfactory manner of protecting them would be to give them a small royalty of five per cent. That is a very small royalty. Most of the men who secured these leases are speculators who came in between the government and the oil companies, and they are the ones who are getting a royalty in almost every case. I think it would be much better to have a small royalty go to the holder of the surface rights, and less go to the speculator who comes in between the government and the oil companies that do the drilling.
Supply-Interior


Mr. OHAPLIN:: Who owns the oil under
the land in the province of Ontario?


Charles A. Stewart: I am
speaking only of federal crown lands.


James Dew Chaplin: The question I was
coming to was this:	If the people in
Ontario who own the land and got it from the government also own the oil, why should not the same apply to the people in the northwest? Why should the government retain the oil for themselves out there? It seems to me an absurdity. The people who own the land are entitled to the oil. I am quite content to leave the metals to the crown, because they belong to the crown, but the oil should belong to the people who own the land.


Charles A. Stewart: The
Hudson's Bay Company when they sold their rights to Canada reserved in the area which the company retained, the base metals, which, of course, include oil. The Canadian Pacific Railway got large tracts of land to assist in the building of their railway and they own the oil rights. Up until 1898 the homesteader who homesteaded these lands owned the base metals under his lands.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Until 18S7.


James Dew Chaplin: In Ontario the Canada
Land Company-


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon. friend will sit down and calm himself I will give him an answer.


James Dew Chaplin: If you will only come to an answer.


Charles A. Stewart: I will come to it at. once. I still think if we are to have oil development in the northwest and in the Northwest Territories some assistance will have to be given, and it has been given, to encourage development work for the purpose of discovering oil. I am free to say that very little has been done by the government in that respect, but if these oil rights were owned by the individuals owning the land I am bound to think that development would be retarded to a very great degree.


James Dew Chaplin: No.


Charles A. Stewart: Then we
differ, but that is my opinion, and I have been dealing with this matter for five years.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister may have
full information on the subject, but how do they do in the United States? Is there any lack of development there? The people who

develop oil take leases from the owners of the land. We have the development of gas and oil in Ontario, and I can tell the minister that in Ontario the oil fields do not pay nearly as well as those in the northwest. The wells are much shallower in Ontario, and they are not as good producers. Out west when you get a well, you get something, but with us it is different. In Pennsylvania, right opposite from Ontario, the oil goes with the land. There is no doubt about that, and it should go with it.


George Gibson Coote: I do not want to delay
the committee but I would point out that in the state of Montana right across the line from us there is far more oil development than there is in Alberta. There is a reason for that. Most of the -wells in Montana are much shallower than those in Alberta. I do not think it would have retarded development if the owners of the land had been given the oil along with the surface rights. I do not think that at this time we can give the oil to the owners of the land, because in so many cases where the oil has been withheld from the owner of the surface rights, it has been leased by the government to speculators or to the oil companies. Under the regulations now in force an oil company can hold thousands of acres under lease by just drilling one well, and the amount they spend in drilling can be credited up against the rent they owe the government on account of the lease.


Charles A. Stewart: Only in the development stage, only until they strike oil.


George Gibson Coote: I think if the owners had
been given the oil rights these oil companies would have gone in and made an agreement With a number of farmers or owners of land m a certain district until they had got all the oil leases they wanted. That is the way it is done in the United States, on a straight royalty Dasis, and as a rule the men in a certain neighbourhood are willing to sign up with the company on a royalty of probably ten per cent. The company then know just what they must pay to secure the oil, but under our system the government leaves it largely in the hands of the company to say what royalty they will pay, and they can change it from time to time. I would ask the minister how many acres a company may hold and how far apart the different leases may be that a company acquires and controls simply by the drilling of one well.


Charles A. Stewart: I have not the regulations with me, but the most they are credited with is only 50 per cent of the cost of the development work, to be applied

Supply-Interior
against the rental. There have been amalgamations of leases, but one individual is entitled to hold only 1,920 acres. I have forgotten the restricted area to which the leases are limited, but it is not a very large area.


George Gibson Coote: To interest the rest of the
committee in this case, I might say that the Hudsons' Bay Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company were granted all the mineral rights in connection with their lands, except as regards gold and silver. I hope the committee will see what an unfair position the rest of us were placed in, because we were given only the surface rights, while these two great corporations get the surface rights and everything underneath as far down as they care to go. I do not think we have used our pioneers fairly, and all I am asking is, not that you give them the mineral rights underneath the land, but that you say when any company or owner or lessee of the mineral rights is going to go in and drill, the 'owner of the land shall be given a royalty of five per cent; that is only one-twentieth of the oil that might be found, and if no oil is found the holders of the lease will not be required to pay anything. If, on the other hand, they secure a good well, the owner of the surface rights gets a royalty of five per cent. It is true that most of these men when they got their patent did not know that the oil rights were being withheld from them, and some of them are anxious to fight the case in the courts, because they hold that oil is not a mineral. I am not a lawyer and would hesitate to express an opinion on that point, but the Department of the Interior could easily settle the dissatisfaction that exists out there by giving these men a royalty of say five per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member from Macleod labours under a misapprehension with respect to part of the situation. When the lands in the west were homesteaded, the original patents issued by the crown conveyed to the patentee all the oil, all the gas, and all the minerals under the land except gold, silver and copper. The grants to the railways also conveyed to them all the minerals under the land except the precious metals. The land grant to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company carried with it oil and gas rights, and the rights to other minerals except th* precious metals. The grant to the Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company also carried with it all the minerals except the precious metals. It was thought by the government of the day between 1896 and 1911 that there
was good reason for contesting the right of the Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company to the mines and minerals under the land. Litigation followed. The case went to the Privy Council and it was decided that the railway company had the right to the mines and minerals; that included oil and the natural gas. When the Hudson's Bay Company, whose patents also gave them mines and minerals, except precious metals, sold lands; when the Canadian Pacific Railway sold lands; when the Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company sold lands, they reserved to themselves the mines and minerals, the coal, the oil, the natural gas, but not, however, the gold and silver, which still belong to the crown. In 1887 a regulation was passed following a statute by which thereafter the crown reserved in all patents the mines and minerals. The pioneers have patents that convey to them the oil and natural gas. Such patents the minister encounters every day. Hence it is that we find in one part of Alberta a man who owns a quarter-section owning the natural gas and the oil, because his right to the patent accrued before the change in the law. What happens now is that the whole of southern Alberta is blanketed by leases issued by the crown conveying to the lessee the right to the oil and natural gas, and in some instances the coal beneath the surface of lands which have been patented with these reservations. It seems strange, but the fact is that the railway companies are receiving substantial sums of money from royalties on oil and natural gas, and this country, within the next few years, if the oil development in Alberta is worth anything near as much as is probable, will be receiving not less than $1,000,000 for royalties. This parliament forgets that. The reservation made in favour of the crown in right of the Dominion, which will one day pass to the provinces when they obtain their natural resources, will bring in a million dollars a year if the development is anything like it is expected to be. The difficulties referred to by my hon. friend from Macleod are real ones. They arise out of the past legislation. The minister can do nothing now for t'he obvious reason that leases are outstanding blanketing the whole territory from almost the northern part of Alberta to the boundary line, and those leases carry with them a rental, but that rental may be absorbed to the extent of fifty per cent if the owner of the lease will go upon the land and drill for oil. The minister is not entirely responsible for that regulation. It was almost the last act done, I think, by the government of 1921.
Supply-Interior

Oil drilling operations were being carried on m Alberta, and a revolving credit was established in order that there might be some measure of development in that province, and the cost of the development to the extent of fifty per cent thereof was applied to payment of rentals to the crown. Those who did not develop lost their leases, and those who did develop paid rentals by work. Over four millions have been spent by one company in development in Alberta. That expenditure has produced nothing in the way of results, except at the Royalite well which has been profitable. That position is well known to all of us who reside in Alberta. The efforts the government made might have been made in another way by expending public money in development, but instead of spending public money they expressed a willingness that fifty per cent of the money expended by oil operations should go to pay rent, thereby ensuring that over given areas holes were to be sunk t'o ascertain whether a profitable oil field can be developed in that province. Up to the present there is no conclusive evidence that we have a commercial oil area in Alberta. In Montana south of Alberta they have t'he Sunburst field, but the structure apparently does not extend north of the forty-ninth parallel, and up to this moment' we have no substantial quantities of crude oil in that locality. We have crude naphtha, which has been extracted from natural gas, but we have not been able to secure any quantity of petroleum. We have one place in that' district where the well produces about fifty barrels of crude oil per day. It is not the class of crude oil they are seeking, but it is an indication that there may be an oil pool under the surface. One well is a mile deep. Another well went down five thousand feet, and t'hey have not secured results that warrant the assumption that they will be able to find oil at less than four thousand feet. The minister is powerless t'o break the outstanding leases. He could not pay a royalty to the farmer who owns the surface. When he bought his land his contract did not give to him subsurface rights to oil and gas. He has a right' under his contract with the railway or under his patent to demand a reasonable compensataion for the surface used and occupied in sinking an oil well, but the operator is not subject to the caprice of the owner in that regard. If the land owner and operator do not' agree upon the amount to be paid it is settled by arbitration. It is natural that when natural gas is found beneath a homestead the homesteader should expect to receive some benefit' from it, but when he looks at his patent he finds he is only entitled to the surface subject to the right of the 
crown, or company or lessee to the subsurface rights, and the government or company will receive the royalties if gas or oil is found there. The oil leases up to 1930 do not provide for the payment to the crown of a royalty. The right to seek for and to discover oil and market it without payment of royalty was supposed to be an incentive to carry on such operations. But after 1930 royalty is payable, which roy-alt.y, with respect to natural gas and naphtha in the case of one of the railways, already amounts to approximately $90,000 per annum. If operations are successful the money the province will obtain in the way of royalties, will compensate the province of Alberta when they secure their rights for the loss sustained by the pioneers and owners of the surface by reason of their not being the owners of the subsurface rights. But this advantage is more apparent than real until they succeed in discovering oil. Until that time there is no benefit. But when 1930 is reached, and the resources pass to the province of Alberta, that province in a very short time will be receiving as a minimum, outside of taxes-and the taxes are considerable-at least a million in a year as royalties, which will mount to five million a year or more if the developments materialize as we hope.
I do not know how the minister can deal with the situation. I have had occasion to look into the matter many times, I quite agree with my hon. friend from Macleod, but there is no method other than for the government to compensate those who have obtained leases in good faith for the losses they have sustained by reason of being placed in the position they occupy. But there is no reason to adopt that course, because the government is holding these resources as trustees, as one day they will pass to the western provinces. There will be no change in respect of that. It will be the crown in the right of the province rather than the crown in the right of the Dominion. We all hope that that day may be not long distant, even though it may result in depriving the Minister of the Interior of any work in his department.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The hon. member stated that there is only one oil field in southern Alberta. Surely he does not claim that there is no oil in the Wainwright field?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad my friend from Battle River has made that observation. From the standpoint of commercial success there is not yet a producing oil field in Alberta, but there has been a very valuable natural gas field, the most valuable except one in the world, and crude naphtha has been successfully abstracted in very profitable quantities

Supply-Interior
from the original Royalite well in the Turner valley. According to reports that appear *in the newspapers from time to time the yield represents a value of about a million dollars a year. Outside of that, every person who has put any money in oil has experienced not dividends but losses. As to what my hon. friend from Lincoln says, the question is entirely different in Ontario from what it is in our territory. My friend from Macleod put the issue very clearly when he said that it is contended that perhaps oil is not a mineral. I will merely put it to my friend in the way it was put by a very eminent judge not long since. All substances taken from the soil must be animal, mineral or vegetable; oil is neither a vegetable nor an animal substance; therefore it must be a mineral. In those few short sentences that eminent judge in an older civilization than this dismissed the claim that oil is not a mineral. I cannot add anything to his observation.


George Gibson Coote: I should like to make it clear that I am not objecting to the policy the department has adopted of allowing development work to apply on rentals due under a lease, but I would say that the holder of such lease so far as I can see has no right to the surface except under regulations which are made by the crown-the Department of the Interior in this case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the patent issued to the owner of the soil the reservation is made that it is subject to a grant being made by the crown to any lessee to enable him to mine minerals owned by the crown. That is the basis of the whole matter.


George Gibson Coote: Admitting that that is so, I still hold that the terms upon which he can enter on the land must be determined by the regulations-made by the Minister of the Interior. All I am asking is that the minister should insert in the regulations a condition that the compensation to be given to the owner of the surface rights shall be a royalty of five per cent on any oil or gas taken from the property. It seems to me there is nothing impossible about it. It is the most feasible way of giving the owner of the surface rights some equitable protection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no doubt that it might be done, but it could not be done with
respect to existing leases.


George Gibson Coote: The longer the matter is neglected the more difficult it will be to deal with it.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: In 1914 when we first had the oil craze in Alberta a number of companies were floated, but since then nothing has been heard of them. Since the new oil boom started a number of shareholders in those old companies have tried to get information from the department as to what happened to the leases they held, how they were transferred, and so on. On behalf of a large number of such shareholders I applied to the department for information regarding certain affidavits that had been made for transfers of leases, as we had good reason to believe that those affidavits were not true, but the department would not give us any information.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not understand why my hon. friend should not get full information. In all probability the leases were cancelled, but he should have been furnished with the fullest information.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Let me give the minister an instance. The regulations require that the head office of the company shall be in His Majesty's dominions; and at one time all the directors were required to be British subjects, but this requirement has since been changed. Now, somebody made an affidavit that the head office of a certain company was in His Majesty's dominions, when as a matter of fact it was not. We tried to find out who made the affidavit, but the department refused to give us any information.


Charles A. Stewart: I know of no reason for withholding such information. If my hon. friend still desires to get it I will see that it is furnished to him.


William John Ward: Mr. Chairman, Alberta is not the only place on the face of the earth where there are oil fields to-day. Probably the most active oil prospect in western Canada at the present time is in the district of Grand View in Manitoba. Last summer an American oil prospector located in that district, shipped in a drilling outfit, and is supposed to have discovered oil. The greater portion of the district was originally homestead lands. A short time ago a very small area there changed hands for $132,000. I think this shows that the suggestion of the member for Macleod should be given very serious consideration. Oil promoters from Winnipeg and other points come in and buy up leases at fifty cents an acre and sell them to an oil company at a greatly enhanced price, while the original owners of the land get no royalties whatever upon any oil that may be found under their property. They are not even given an opportunity of leasing the land that they have been farming for the last thirty years. Upon my word, I cannot un-



Supply-Interior
derstand the reasoning of the member for West Calgary. Why cannot this parliament enact a law requiring any oil promoter to pay to those owning the surface rights a royalty on any oil that may be produced? I am not a lawyer, but my common sense makes me believe that this parliament could pass a law to that effect. Morally I think it should be done. I hope the minister will give this matter his very serious consideration.


Robert Gardiner: Two or three years ago I brought the question of the transfer of oil leases to the attention of the minister. In the city of Calgary to-day he will find oil leases being peddled on the street and advertised for sale. Is it the practice of the department to allow these speculative ventures to proceed when transfers are asked for? Perhaps the minister will explain how the transfers are made.


Charles A. Stewart: It was about the year 1922 that certain changes were made in the regulations by which a lessee might transfer a divided portion of his location. Formerly there could be no transference except for the whole of the lease of 1920 acres, but in order to encourage the small investor to take advantage of his opportunity, and not to shut him out altogether and create a monopoly for the rich companies, we made the reduction. As hon. gentlemen will know, many of the small companies were made up of stockholders of quite limited means.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Many of them with five or ten dollars.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
know about that. At any rate we tried to enable the small investor to cooperate with others and so reap some advantage. Otherwise there would be no development except by the large companies who would entirely exclude the small men. There is of course the other evil of investors taking leases and waiting for other people to do the developing. Altogether it is a difficult matter to devise regulations that will cure all evils. The plea put up to me was that the regulations shut out the small men altogether. They were squeezed out and eventually lost their money, and it was to help them that we cut down the lease and allowed [DOT] its transference in the event of all rentals having been paid up beforehand. That explains why the leases were allowed to be subdivided. It is useless to begin sinking a well with less than $30,000 or $40,000.


Robert Gardiner: What is the maximum
acreage which anyone is allowed to hold.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not sure. A number of the companies sometimes get together and drill one well, then apply 50 per cent of the amount expended on the well in the payment of rentals for the whole of the property.


Robert Gardiner: The government should not allow speculators to get control of a lease merely to wait until someone desires to obtain it and then proceed to develop the property.


Charles A. Stewart: There are
development clauses in the regulations.


Robert Gardiner: I do not know of anything that, discourages development more than the speculator who waits for somebody to come and purchase the lease. The department should be more active in looking after this phase of the business. In Calgary to-day you will find dozens of oil leases advertised in store windows and in the newspapers. These leases can be secured for a consideration. Speculation has been the curse of the west and the department is not doing anything to relieve the situation. Not very far from where I live a certain company a few years ago drilled two or three wells, and in order that they might get hold of a large block of leases they usually got returned men in Calgary or Edmonton, to whom they gave the necessary funds, to secure the leases which were afterwards transferred back to the company. They gave $10 for the time the returned men spent securing the leases. In the particular area I have in mind the company had carried on a certain amount of development work, but for some mysterious reason they ceased drilling and instead capped their wells.


Charles A. Stewart: What company?


Robert Gardiner: It was in the Monitor field. The committee would like to know what is in these wells. After a certain amount of development has taken place, and before the companies are allowed to cap the wells, the department should ascertain what is in them. Knowledge is what is needed in this matter and I suggest that some steps be taken to find out what the wells contain. I do not want to deprive any company of the fruits of its labour, but at the same time any knowledge derived as the result of the granting of a lease from the crown should be regarded as the property of the department.

Supply-Interior


Charles A. Stewart: We have
full authority in the case of crown lands to make an examination, and we have a staff in Calgary kept doing that work; but we are prohibited from entering private lands.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Salaries and expenses connected with the administration of the territories, including the erection of buildings, investigation work, schools, relief to destitutes, maintenance of prisoners and insane patients, administration of the North West Game Act and
the Wood Buffalo park, etc	$190,000
Exporations-salaries and contingencies, equipment and supplies, etc....	75,000


[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGE W. McPHEE (Yorkton) moved that Bill No. 337 (from the Senate),
for the relief of Joseph Albert Georges Lachance, be read the first and second time.
Motion agreed to, and bill read the first and second time.
Mr. McPHEE moved the third reading of the bill.
Mr. DENIS (Joliette):: I object to the
motion for third reading at this stage.


Mr. PARENT:: If this bill stands it has
no chance to come back again.


Hugh Guthrie: But it stands.


Hewitt Bostock: It must be by unanimous consent.
Motion stands.
On motion of Mr. Robb the House adjourned at 3.40 a.m., Thursday.
Thursday, April 14, 1927