1927-04-14

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGE W. McPHEE (Yorkton): By leave of the House I move that Bill No. 337 for the relief of Joseph Albert Georges Lachance ibe read a third time.
Mr. SPEAKER:: I understand this measure is not opposed. It came up from the Senate last night and was given first and second readings.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I beg to move, seconded by the hon. leader of the opposition, the motion which I presented to the House on April 12, and which reads:
That, in conformity with the provisions of Bill No. 260, An Act to amend the Dominion Elections Act which was passed by both Houses of Parliament, Jules Castonguay be designated as the successor of Oliver Mowat Biggar as Chief Electoral Officer.
I may say that I have spoken with my hon. friend, the leader of the Progressive party concerning the motion and I am now in a position to state that it appears to meet with the cordial approval of all parties in the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Railway Belt Water Act

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Resolved that as Canada is approaching the sixtieth anniversary of her founding as a Dominion, the parliament of Canada place on record its deep appreciation of the achievements of the fathers of confederation, and with united voice express its faith and confidence in the future of this our country, and its development as a member of the British commonwealth of nations, owing allegiance to His Majesty the King.
It is the earnest wish of parliament that the diamond jubilee celebration, for which plans are now being rapidly matured, shall commemorate appropriately and enthusiastically the accomplishment of confederation and the subsequent progress of the Dominion. We trust that this commemoration will lend added inspiration to the patriotic fervour of our people, and afford a clearer vision of our aspirations and ideals, to the end that from sea to_ sea there may be developed a robust Canadian spirit, and in all things Canadian profounder national unity.
Yesterday I handed a copy of this resolution to my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) and to my hon. friend the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Gardiner). The leader of the opposition was kind enough to say that he would be pleased to second the motion. I know from the leader of the Progressive party that he would be equally ready to do so. The resolution requires nothing in the way of explanation or amplification. It speaks for itself. A similar motion will be presented in the other chamber to-day. We may, I think, count upon the voice of parliament being unanimously expressed with respect to its representations and the .patriotic purpose the resolution is intended to serve.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 339 to amend the Railway Belt Water Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. STEWART moved the second reading of the bill.
Mr. GUTHRIE:: What is this bill?


Mr. STEWART:: It came over from the Senate.


Hugh Guthrie: That does not help it.


Charles A. Stewart: Some years age the right of issuing water licenses in the railway belt of British Columbia was delegated to the provincial controller. Last session we passed an amending act providing that before 
.any licenses were granted we must be coir-suited. This legislation was introduced1 by us largely on account of complaints made by some of the residents in the water belt with respect to the manner in which such licenses were being issued.. As a result about sixty licenses have been held up. The matter was of interest to the Speaker of the Senate and others who were affected and a mutual agreement was reached between the parties interested. This bill is for the purpose of suspending our rights under the amending act in order that the licenses may be issued. The bill was introduced in the Senate.


Hugh Guthrie: We cannot agree to it,
anyway. It is a very controversial measure.


Charles A. Stewart: I admit it.
The difficulty is that, as hon. members from British Columbia are aware, licenses are being held up. It was in order to overcome the difficulty that we were anxious to pass this legislation. However, if hon. gentlemen object I am not going to press the matter. The measure is entirely in the interests of residents in the railway belt of British Columbia; it does not affect any other part of the province.


Hewitt Bostock: Next sitting of the House.
Motion stands.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
^DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR-MEDIATION WORK
["My reference to protection was not in the sense that pefhaps my hon. friend understands it. What I was referring to was the protection o'f our newspaper publishers and dealers against the influx o'f American newspapers and periodicals of a nature such as was discussed on that occasion-that is, detrimental to the morals of our youth."]
Mr. MEBCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: In how many disputes was the intervention of the Department of Labour sought and mediation work done,

	1
(a)	Under the provisions of the Conciliation Act, from 1900 to date?
(b)	Under the provisions of the Railway Labour Disputes Act, from 1903 to date?


Hon. Mr. RINFRET:: No. 1 was dropped
yesterday.


Hewitt Bostock: Dropped:.



Mr. CANTLEY:: 1.	Is the so-called interim report of the reparations commissioner final in respect to the 1,497 awards mentioned therein?
2.	Does the reparations commissioner agree with a statement made in the House of Commons that the so-called interim report was subject to revision in the final report on the 13 remaining claims?
3.	Has the final report of the reparations commissioner on the 13 remaining claims been delivered to the Secretary of State or to his department?
4.	Has the commissioner advised when the final or supplementary report will be ready?
5.	Is the government aware of the fact that a great number of these claimants are in impoverished circumstances?

Questions


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That was replied to on Monday.


Hewitt Bostock: Answered.


WALTER H. KIRCHNER
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What reason was given by the Vancouver harbour commission for the dismissal of Walter H. Kirehner, accountant, Ballantyne pier, Vancouver, British Columbia?
2.	Was he an efficient worker?
3.	How long was he in the service of the Vancouver harbour commission?
4.	Is he a war veteran?
5.	Was his successor a returned soldier? _
6.	What salary did the accountant preceding
Mr. Kirehner receive?	_
7.	What salary did Mr. Kirehner receive for performing similar duties?
8.	What salary did Mr. Kirehner receive before asking for an investigation of his charge against the Vancouver harbour commission of exploiting the labour of non-political returned soldier employees?
9.	What reason was given by the Vancouver harbour commission for temporarily withholding twenty-five dollars ($25) per month for eight (8) months from Mr. Kirchner's salary?
10.	Have portions of salaries earned by other employees of the Vancouver harbour commission been similarly withheld?
11.	Was any recompense made or suggested
to Mr. Kirehner by the Vancouver harbour commission for their action in withholding a portion of his salary for eight months?	.
12.	When Mr. Kirehner assumed the duties of accountant, Ballantyne pier, why was the title of "accountant" added to the employee performing the junior duties of cashier?
13.	Did the cashier who was given the additional title of "accountant" perform any of the accounting duties of the Ballantyne pier?
14.	Was the cashier of Ballantyne pier capable of performing the duties of accountant of the Ballantyne pier?
15.	What is the title of the cashier of the Ballantyne pier to-day?
16.	Was the salary of the cashier of the Ballantyne pier increased from one hundred and sixty dollars to one hundred and eighty dollars per month at the time he received the additional title of "accountant"?
17.	Was the increase of twenty dollars per month given to the cashier as extra remuneration for supposedly performing accounting duties in addition to his duties of cashier?
18.	Were the duties for which the cashier received additional remuneration performed by Mr. Kirehner?
19.	What authority have the Vancouver habour commissioners to turn over portions of a salary earned by one employee to another?
20.	Is the position of accountant senior to that of cashier in the Vancouver harbour commission?
21.	Has it been the general practice of the Vancouver harbour commissioners for employees performing senior duties to come under the jurisdiction of men doing junior work?
22.	Why were such conditions imposed upon Walter H. Kirehner?
23.	Were such conditions imposed upon his predecessor or his successor?
24.	On or about the 10th September was the comptroller of the Vancouver harbour
commission instructed by the commissioners to draw up a recommendation covering Mr. Kirchner's case, and what was that recommendation?
25.	Was the recommendation by the comptroller minuted?
26.	Has the government of Canada no jurisdiction over the actions of the Vancouver harbour commissioners against returned soldiers?
27.	Did Walter H. Kirehner appeal to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for justice?
28.	Is the action of the late Vancouver harbour commissioners against Walter H. Kirehner endorsed by the government of Canada ?


Mr. SPENCER:: As this will probably be
the last day of the session, I trust the answer to this question will be sent to me at my home address.


OTTAWA JOURNAL
Hon. Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Addington) :: 1.	What amounts were paid to the paper now known as the Ottawa Journal, by the several departments of the government, during the calendar years 1911 to 1926?
2.	What amounts have been paid to the Ottawa Journal by the government during the years 1911 to 1921, for space leased for government purposes in the Ottawa Journal building?
3.	What was the floor space rate paid by the government to the Journal in the years mentioned, and what was the average floor space rate paid for the use of other privately owned buildings?
4.	Is the government at present leasing any part of the Journal building, and, if so, what is the jmarly rental?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Auditor General's Department:
1.	The amount paid by this office, out of Legislation-Elections, to the Ottawa Journal during the calendar years 1911 to 1926 was $209.25.
2,	3 and 4. No information. Department of t'he Interior:
1.	1911.. ..		$ 452 40
	1912.. ..		 1,175 00
	1913.. ..		 962 40
	1914.. ..		 1,260 80
	1915.. ..	
	1916.. ..	
	1917.. ..	
	1918.. ..		 345 96
	1919.. ..	
	1920.. ..	
	1921.. ..	
	1922..	
	1923.. ..	
	1924.. ..	
	1925.. ..	
	1926.. ..	
		$8,121 69
2,	3 and 4.	No information.

Questions

Department of Marine and Fisheries:
1. 1911.. ..	Advertising	Subscriptions $10 80
1912.. ..		10 80
1913.. ..		10 80
1914.. ..	.. $63 00	10 80
1915.. ..		10 80
1916.. ..	.. 5 00	30 72
1917.. ..		24 48
1918.. ..		24 48
1919.. ..		24 48
1920.. ..		24 48
1921.. ..		24 48
1922.. ..		24 48
1923.. ..		24 48
1924.. ..	.. 10 60	24 48
1925.. ..		24 48
1926.. ..	.. 55 60	24 48Total.. .,	134 20 	$463 72	329 522,	3 and 4. No information.
Public Archives:
From 1917 to 1926 $218.16 for subscriptions to the Journal.
Department of Indian Affairs:
1.	$146.40.
2,	3 and 4. No information.
Department of Justice:
1.	For subscriptions $745.53.
2,	3 and 4. No information.
Department of Mines:
1.	1914-15 advertising in Greater Ottawa
Number, Journal Printing Co. $200.	1920-21
advertising Peat committee $56.70.
2,	3 and 4. No information.
Department of the Post Office:
1. 1911		..$ 6 60
1912		.. 51 20
1913		
1914		
1915		
1916		
1917		
1918		
1919		
1920		
1921		
1922		
1923		
1924		
1925		
1926		
2, 3 and 4. No information.	
	
Civil Service Commission:
1. 1911 to 1917 inclusive-nil.
1918	$ 96 44
1919	
72	961920	
235	001921	
38	411922	1923	
54	671924	
48	601925	
55	291926	
64	41
2, 3 and 4. No information.
Department of Immigration and Colonization:
1.	$985.12.
2,	3 and 4. No information.
Privy Council.-Subscription to Morning Journal:
1924		$ 9 00
1925	 9 00
1926	 9 00
Total	$27 00
Department of Health:
1.	1919		
	1920		
	1921		
	1922		
	1923		
	1924			 9 00
	1925		
	1926		
2.	1919		
	1920		
	1921			 Nil
3.	1919		
	1920		
	1921			 Nil
4.	No.	
The Act respecting the Department of
Health assented to the 6th June,	, 1919.	
Department of Soldiers' Civil	Re-establish-	
ment:		
1. 1920			00
1921			00
1922			80
1923			40
1924			00
1925	.. 22	851926	.. 24	12Total	17
2, 3 and 4. No information.

Questions
Department of Public Printing and Stationery:
1. 1911	to	1915	inclusive	nothing
1916		$ 42 60
1917	to	1919	inclusive	nothing1920	
28	001921	nothing1922	
20	801923	
31	201924	
29	311925	
28	201926	
27	60Total	$207 71
2, 3 and 4. No information.
Department of Trade and Commerce:
1.	1911	$ 10 801912	
7	201913	
7	201914	
7	201915	
7	201916	
7	201917	
13	201918	
18	481919	
18	001920	
18	001921	
18	001922	
12	201923	
12	481924	
12	241925	
12	481926	
12	482,	3 and 4. No informtaion.
Department of Public Works:
1.	1911	$ 195 001912	
914	311913	1,013	201914	
1,306	101915	
810	001916	
514	181917	
922	331918	
473	211919	
978	511920	
1,040	121921	
921	871922	
36	481923	
42	961924	
42	961925	
42	961926	
170	222.	Year-Period-Amount: 1914, 12th January to 12th October, $9,424.26; 1915, 12th October, 1914 to 31st December, 1915, $15,297.31; 1916, 1st January to 31st December, 1916, $12,565.68; 1917, 1st January to 31st December, 1917, $12,565.68; 1918, 1st January to 12th January, 1919, $12,975.53; 1919, 12th January to 31st December, 1919, $13,320 83;1920,	1st January to 31st December, 1920, $13,740.68; 1921, 1st January to 31st December,1921,	$13,740.68.3.	(a) January 12, 1914, to January 12, 1919, 70 cents per square foot; January 12, 1919, to January 12, 1924, 78 cents per square foot; January 12, 1924, to June 30, 1925, 96 cents per square foot, (monthly tenancy).
(b) Average floor space rate paid for space in building of a similar nature, 75 cents per square foot.
4.	No.
Department of the Secretary of State:
1.	$595.46.
2,	3 and 4. No information.
Soldiers' Settlement Board:
1.	$ 37 SO
119 20

2, 3 and 4. No information. Royal Canadian Mounted Police:
1911		  nil
1912		 nil
1913		$ 8 60
1914		 nil
1915		 nil
1916		 nil
1917		 nil
1918		 nil
1919	
24	001920	
6	001921	
22	001922	
12	121923	
9	001924	
9	001925	
16	501926	
9	00

Questions

Department of Railways and Canals:
Fiscal year	Advertising	Subscriptions	Total	1911	$ 3	60	$ 3	601912	3	60	3	601913	3	60	3	601914	3	60	3	601915	3	60	3	601916	3	60	3	601917	30	00	30	001918	6	24	6	241919	59	81	59	811920	50	21	50	211921	42	96	42	961922	55	94	319	141923	55	95	55	951924	49	72	121	321925	61	08	196	081926	71	22	241	62Total	$504	73	$1,144	93
Note-The above does not include the Canadian Government Railways.
Department of External Affairs:
1. 1911		
1912			 $10 80
1913			 3 60
1914		
1915		
1916			 10 80
1917			 17 50
1918			 69 45
1919			 75 90
1920			 53 16
1921			 35 92
1922			 88 44
1923			 73 46
1924			 11 50
1925			 78 70
1926			 62 98
2. Nothing paid by the Department of External Affairs.
3 and 4. No information in connection with the Department of External Affairs.


TOBACCO PRODUCTION
Mr. HEPBURN:: 1.	What is the present production of tobacco
in	*
A.	Canada,
B.	Ontario,
C.	Quebec?
2.	What is the farm value of annual tobacco crop?
3.	What is the growth and present status of export trade?
4.	What commercial types of tobacco are grown in Canada?
5.	Is Canadian grown leaf used in domestic manufacture? If so, to what extent?
	.
6.	Are there any districts in Canada not growing tobacco which may be suitable, in view of the increasing export trade?
7.	What steps are being taken to increase our export trade?
8.	Through what channels has the work of the department been instrumental in forwarding the tobacco industry to date?
9.	What are the possibilities of increasing our export trade?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	A. For all Canada about 28,000,000 to 35,000,000 pounds.
B.	Ontario-20,000,000 to 25,000,000 pounds.
C.	Quebec-8,000,000 to 10,000,000 pounds.
2.	Slightly over $7,000,000 in each of the last two years, to the growers.
3.	The export is practically all in raw leaf form and has increased very rapidly during the last five years, from 200,000 pounds in 1921 to more than 5,000,000 pounds in 1926.
4.	A. Ontario-Burley, flue cured, Green River, dark fire cured.
B. Quebec-Cigar binders, cigar fillers, rough cut pipe smoking.
5.	At the present time more than half of the leaf used in manufacture is grown in Canada. Adding to this that portion smoked in the raw leaf state it is estimated that 70 per cent of the tobacco consumed in Canada is grown in Canada.
6.	Two years experimental results indicate that the C'kanagan valley, B.C., may be able to produce export leaf of superior quality.
7.	A. Improving the quality and increasing the quantity of export types in established growing districts.

Customs Regulations-Toronto
B.	Testing out export types in districts not now growing tobacco commercially.
C.	Publicity through exhibits, etc., to acquaint the British trade with the merits of Canadian leaf.
8.	Introducing and acclimatizing superior varieties suitable to Canada and Canadian trade.	.
B.	Selecting and improving varieties for Canadian conditions.
C.	Testing commonly used varieties and eliminating sorts of inferior commercial value, thus assisting in raising the types and standards of Canadian leaf.
D.	Raising large quantities of high quality seed of approved types.
E.	Cultural methods in the production of plants and growing the crop as a result of experimental work have materially changed and enormously improved in Ontario and Quebec.
F.	Fertilizers. Results of experimental work on fertilization have given farmers reliable information on the proper mixtures and most economical application for different types and on different soils.
G.	Experiments and demonstrations in the most efficient and economical handling of tobacco crops in suckering, topping, harvesting, curing, stripping, sorting and packing have had, and are having, a marked influence towards improving the quality of Canadian leaf for domestic and export purposes.
H.	The. tobacco division during the past nine years has repeatedly demonstrated on the British and other foreign markets the quality and types of leaf produced in Canada. This has had a marked effect in creating interest and confidence in Canadian leaf by British buyers and to no small extent has been responsible for the rapid growth in our export trade and still greater growth in the demand for Canadian tobacco, from other countries.
9.	Of the countries importing tobacco the United Kingdom alone imports about 200,000,000 pounds of raw leaf annually. The British tariff gives colonial leaf a preference of 25 per cent of the import duty or approximately 50 cents per pound; hence the British market alone offers enormous possibilities.


OFFICIAL MOTOR CARS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Adding-ton):: I would remind the government that
some time ago I put on the order paper two questions, one relating to railway cars used by the various departments, and the other relating to official motor cars. I have received
an answer to the first question, but not to the second. I am very much interested in the kind of automobiles hon. gentlemen are using, and I hope the answer will be sent to me.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I will try to table
the answer this afternoon.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):: May -1 ask the Minister of Railways when the Canadian National Railways will! move into their new quarters at the corner of King and Yonge streets, Toronto?
lion. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways):	Mr. Speaker, I am not informed exactly as to the situation, but my impression is that a move is being made.


CANADIAN MERCHANT MARINE
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Victoria):: Mr
Speaker, I understand it is the intention of the government to make some additions to the Canadian Merchant Marine in order to look after the West Indies trade. I should like to know if the ships will be built in Canada, and, if so, whether an effort will be made to divide the work between shipyards on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING:	Mr. Speaker, at the moment I do not think I can add anything to the statements made during the progress o'f the debate in that regard. I think my hon. friend will find1 a full discussion there.


CUSTOMS REGULATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (East Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister what the government proposes to do in view of the statement on the 12th inst., of Chief Commissioner Brown to Collector of Customs Bertram at Toronto, that the collector Should enforce the customs regulations, and thereby put the port of Toronto "out of business" in two weeks' time.
Right Hon, W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):	I shall have to take time
to read the hon. gentleman's question in order to get the significance of it, Mr. Speeker
2506	COMMONS
Canadian Newspapers-Protection


CANADIAN NEWSPAPERS AND PBRIOD-ICALS-PROTECTION
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, I would call the attention of the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) to Hansard of Thursday, April 7. At page 2031 he is reported as saying :
During the recess a thorough investigation will be made with a view to devising some scheme by which we can give greater protection to our newspapers and periodicals in competition with American publications.
Was the hon. minister correctly reported? If so, how far will he be iprepared to go in that direction?


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):: My reference to protection was not in the sense that pefhaps my hon. friend understands it. What I was referring to was the protection o'f our newspaper publishers and dealers against the influx o'f American newspapers and periodicals of a nature such as was discussed on that occasion-that is, detrimental to the morals of our youth.



NORTH WEST TERRITORIES ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made 'by the Senate to Bill No. 123 to amend the North West Territories Act.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Miscellaneous-to provide for flat increases
±en£ivi1 Service, both inside and outside, $2,700,000.
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: When this item was called last night I proceeded to give an explanation of the proposed salary revision but I acceded to the request of one hon. member opposite that I defer until to-day any statement that I wished to make, in order that it might be presented to a full House. The points I made last night were these. In revising the salaries of civil servants we had to consider three aspects of the question: first, the total sum of money to 'be expended; secondly, the classification of the civil service as it now exists; and thirdly, previous increases that might have been granted since 1924 to different classes of the service. I reminded the com-

mittee that in 1924 the bonus that had been granted to meet the high cost of living was removed in certain cases, reduced in others, or simply prolonged on a gradual scale towards disappearance. The proposal now before the committee is based on the principle of a flat increase to the different classes of the service in receipt of salaries up to $5,100. I explained last night that other projects were submitted to us. Either through correspondence or otherwise the suggestion came that we should grant increases rather to the lower classes among whom the need apparently was greatest. Others, on the contrary, suggested that the increases should go to men of special knowledge, technical men, whose services we could not very well dispense with. They thought that the increase should be a recognition of merit. However, the Civil Service Association, who appeared before us, took the stand that the flat increase would be the best thing and would give most satisfaction. As I observed last night, the tendency is very much the same as in unions of labour men, to have uniform wages irrespective of the quantity or quality of the work performed within given classes of the union.
The proposal is of a dual nature. First it raises the minimum and maximum in every class of the service by the sum of $120 except in the case of the lowest minimum, that is, the entrant class. That has not been touched. Our reason for not increasing the lowest minimum was that entrants to the service are not affected and we thought we should not touch that minimum. This increase is not only for the present year but is a permanent addition; so that every civil servant not only receives immediate consideration but has an increased maximum at which he may hope to arrive in the future. The other aspect of the increase is the improvement in civil service salaries by the sum mentioned. We thought that we should have to make some exceptions in this regard but I will not deal with them. They may, however, be summed up in three classes. First, no increase will be given to temporary employees, that is to say, the temporary class whose salary is the minimum of grade 1 and which has not been increased.	We could not grant to any
temporary employee a salary higher than the minimum of the class in which he happens to be classified. The spirit of the law recognizes these temporary employees merely as help engaged for one or two months, or perhaps four months, and they are really not in the sendee. They are temporary in the strictest sense of the word. I suggest that if some of

the temporary clerks in that grade happen to have been in the service for a certain length of time the remedy would be rather to examine and consider whether they could not be blanketed in as permanent employees. According to the classification of the service as it is to-day, however, it was not found possible to increase that class until we had at the same time increased the minimum of grade 1, which it was not our intention to do.
Another class of exceptions to which the hon. member for Wetaskiwin referred is that group of civil servants who happen to be above the maximum of their class. That is a peculiar situation and I believe the committee will agree with me that it is an anomaly which should not be aggravated) by this revision. When the classification was made in 1021-1925 a certain number of civil servants were classified in grade 3, the senior clerk grade. It happened that some of them were already earning a higher salary than the maximum of the class in which they were put, and even after raising the maximum of that class to-day the salary is not as high as these employees are getting. We thought it would be unwise, by granting an increase to these civil servants, to prolong and aggravate the anomaly that already exists in the service in relation to them. My view of the matter is this. If these civil servants perform a work that is well within the class to which they belong then they are already getting a higher salary than they are entitled to and they should not be increased. If on the other hand they are performing a work, or are capable of performing a work, of a higher grade than the one to Which they belong, then the remedy is evidently at eveTy opportunity to reclassify them and grant them promotion. The committee will agree with me that it would have been unwise to grant an increase to any civil servant who happened to be already earning more than the new maximum of the class to which he belonged.


Mr. BENNETT:: About how many of these would there be?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Approximately 400. The
main exception to this revision, with which all these telegrams, delegations and representations have dealt, is the case of the postal clerks, the railway mail clerks and others of that description.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Letter carriers.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Yes. I am taking no exception to what these organizations have done with regard to this revision, because I think it is very human even when granted some
14, 1927	.
Supply-Civil Service Salaries
increase to ask for more. I repeat that on that ground I am not taking any exception to what has taken place, although I do think that in some cases the telegrams might have been phrased in a different way. I am in full sympathy with these men, and would not want to say one word which would lead them to believe to the contrary. But I want to remind the committee that in 1924, when the bonuses applying to these classes were removed as they were in the rest of the service, or reduced, adjustments were made with reference to these railway mail clerks, letter carriers, postal clerks and customs clerks, because although we did not hear from the latter class they are in the same position. In that year these classes were granted an increase of $180 to partially compensate for the loss of the bonus.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did that apply to any other class?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: No, and that is the point I want to make. This year, according to the recommendations of the Civil Service Commission and also of the Post Office Department, we propose to increase that amount by $60, to bring it up to a total of $240. These organizations have taken the ground that we should not take into consideration the $180 granted them in 1924, because that was a matter of adjustment, but I want to direct the attention of the committee to the fact that in no class of the service are we proposing to grant an increase in salary without giving consideration to any adjustments which have been made since 1924. It may be that these employees deserve more consideration than others, but there is one point which cannot be denied; they are getting that consideration by this revision of salary. If you take into consideration the adjustment made three years ago, they are getting twice au much as any other class in the civil service, and I want to make that very plain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Have they not very much harder work?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am not discussing
whether this will fully meet their requirements, and I do not wish to create the impression that they do not deserve great consideration ; I am only standing by this revision, in preparing which we had to consider the total amount that would be expended on adjustments which have already taken place. I say that the postal clerks, the railway mail clerks and the letter carriers will receive in the aggregate an increase double that which we are
25C8

Sup-ply-Civil Service Salaries
granting any other class of the service, and in any case where the increase of $120 is proposed, there will be deducted from that amount any partial consideration received by any class since 1924.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The actual increase in
those classes would be $5 a month?
. Mr- RINFRET: This year, but $20 a month since we began adjusting the salaries in 1924 or twice as much as any other class in the service will get. I cannot stress this point too much because it has been stated in some telegrams that the increase would only amount to $42, which I do not think is a fair statement at all. Last year these men were granted a special consideration of $18 which they would not have received this year, and therefore the amount added to their salaries is fully $60, because the $18 would not have been available anyway; it was the remnant of the bonus and would have disappeared. Again
take the stand that whatever consideration these men deserve and however hard their work, standing by this revision alone I claim that there is no class in the service getting more consideration than these very classes which complain.


Hugh Guthrie: 
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister-


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I have not finished my
statement yet. When I made the announcement to the House I gave a list of the exceptions, and exception (d) referred to those classes which were increased by $180 per annum or more in the salary revision of 1924.
I wish to point out to the leader of the opposition that they were so well aware of the fact that they were in that excepted class that wires were immediately received with reference to that paragraph. They may have expected $120, but they certainly could not expect it from the statement I made in the House.


Hugh Guthrie: The statement was misunderstood, I grant that.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: This is only a technical
point anyway. I was just going to say when my hon. friend got up that we could not consider separately the increase that was granted these classes this year. We had to consider the cumulative increases that have been granted since 1924; and I insist again that in any other class where an increase has been granted, this will: have to (be deducted from the $120 flat increase this year. So there is no discrimination at all in that respect, only to the extent that these special employees are getting twice as much through this revision as any other class in the service. May I point out, as I did in the case of the preceding class that there are other ways of improving the position of the men. Some may be reclassified, others may be promoted1; there is no finality in adjustments of this kind. But as Secretary of State, having studied the prob-

Supply-Civil Service Salaries
lem very full}', unless special consideration is given to the class of work that these men perform, I am going to take the stand to-day, that it would not be fair to the rest of the service to grant an additional increase to this group and not grant it at the same time to civil servants at large, because under this revision these particular men are already getting more relatively than any other civil servant in the employ of the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the minister say what the maximum is?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Yes, $1,500.


Peter John Veniot: That is under the classification they are getting more in proportion than any other class.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I believe that if the committee would only agree to this revision as it stands, and leave it to the Postmaster General -who I am sure is a generous hearted and well intentioned minister-he could be depended upon to look after the welfare of these men.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: He would dismiss them
all.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Their positions can be
improved by reclassification, by promotion; it can be improved in many other ways than by disrupting, if I may use the word, the general equilibrium of the revision which has been adopted.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Is it intended to improve the status of the letter carriers later on?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: We are to have a new
class of senior letter carriers. My hon. friend has suggested that it would not need a very large amount to grant the official increase. Let me tell him it would mean for these classes only pretty nearly $700,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For the three classes?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: For all these employees.


Hugh Guthrie: How many letter carriers have we in 'Canada?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: About three thousand. I 'believe there are 11,000 affected' 'by this revision.


Hugh Guthrie: But the letter carriers
number about 3,000?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Yes.


Air. LADNER:: Is it not a fact that in
some cases there is an actual decrease in salary? I have received complaints in which it is stated the revision constitutes a decrease?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Before I am through I
may point out, perhaps, as the Minister of Finance did the other day, that there is another side to this question, and that is the taxpayers' side. We have had also representations, through members of parliament or otherwise, that we were going a long distance in increasing the salaries of the civil servants. I may tell the House that I have been a civil servant myself, and I doubt if there has ever been in the ministry one more fully in sympathy with the service than I am. I know the conditions of the service. I know its shortcomings and also some of the advantages-in the matter of security and otherwise. I will not insist on this point, but I can assure my hon. friend that we have given the fullest consideration to this matter, and everything that we propose to do is in the fullest sympathy with the service at large. I am only too grieved to find out that quite a large body of civil servants have not found satisfaction in this revision. I believe that is due to the fact that they have pondered too much over the flat increase that goes to the rest of the service, and have lost sight of the fact that an equivalent amount and more has been given to them already. I would suggest that we might all be animated by the same sentiment regarding this revision. I have said that some people have made representations to us that the amount of increase was very large. To those I would say that the amount is smaller, by one-half or more, than that requested by the civil servants themselves. In the revision decided upon we have about met them half way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How many will be
affected?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Altogether I believe
33,000, of whom 22,000 are in the civil service at large.


John Wesley Edwards: Will the
fourth class, the "notwithstanding" class be included? That is the class who are being appointed because they are favourites of this or that minister or department "notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act?"


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am glad to relieve my
hon. friend's anxiety about that. The provision will include all civil servants in the service nowT, whether they have been appointed by the preceding government or have been appointed "notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act." There are quite a number in both classes.

Supply-Civil Service Salaries


Mr. HANSON:: Will the minister tell us
how many railway mail clerks there are in the employ of the government?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Seventeoen hundred.


Mr. EDWARDS (Waterloo):: How does
this adjustment fit in with the promise made to those postal employees who went on strike?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I understand the recommendation of the department at the time had reference to $240, and that is what we are meeting.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I do not think the minister answered my question as to the classes where the employee thinks there has been a decrease in his salary and not an increase. The minister keeps speaking about the increase, but I would ask him what about these decreases?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: There has been no decrease in the real sense of the word. The bonus was removed. Now I take it for granted that bonus was to meet special conditions and1 was a temporary consideration. The bonus was removed in 1924. I believe I can safely say that by this revision the civil servants are restored to the salaries they were getting plus the bonus, with a dlight difference one way or the other. But I would1 point this out:	That while the bonus was a temporary consideration they are now getting this as a salary assured to them, and the same applies to other positions to which they can look forward in the future.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Was not the bonus intended to meet t'he situation of the depreciation in the purchasing power of the dollar.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The high cost of living.


Leon Johnson Ladner: In other words the high
cost of living. As compared with pre-war times the dollar had depreciated in its purchasing power and accordingly the bonus was granted to cover that situation.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am not an economist but I fail to see the distinction between the high cost of living and the depreciation of the dollar.


Leon Johnson Ladner: There is none,


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I think it is the same
thing. But when the bonus was removed- and of course 1 am not responsible for that- I understand that the view was taken that the cost of living had decreased.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It has gone up again according to your own figures.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: So have the salaries.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I have not been taking
up much time and will not do so because the intention is to prorogue parliament to-day, but I think this is the crux of the whole situation. We ha ve all had representations made to us by different organizations, and I 'want some information on the subject. As compared with conditions prior to the war, the purchasing power of the dollar to-day is much depreciated, and the purpose of the bonus was to cover that very point. That being the case, the increase given to these men could hardly be considered as an increase unless it at least equalled or exceeded the bonus. If you take away the bonus, which was intended to meet the depreciation in the purchasing power of the dollar, and then speak of an increase, you are really talking about a decrease. Has that feature been considered? Objections have been_ raised all over the country to the government's treatment of the so-called increase because the men affected complain that they are receiving relatively less than employees in other walks of life.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That is the very thing
we had in mind. We have sought to adjust the situation in such a way that these increases would be subordinate to whatever treatment the bonus received in this or that class. I said, and I repeat, that by this revision of salary, the whole civil service will receive practically the same amount as they did with the aggregate of the bonus and salary of 1924. There might foe a slight difference. The great advantage to the service is that this is now a salary accruing to them with the statutory increase and possibilities all through the service of reaching higher maxima. That should be appreciated.


Leon Johnson Ladner: On the theory which the minister has been explaining where there has been an actual decrease instead of an increase, or an injustice, is there in the act any provision by which the minister by order in council can remedy that situation?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That could be done only by reclassification or promotion of those men.


Hugh Guthrie: To cut the matter short, would the minister consider this suggestion? There are 3,000 letter carriers and I understand there are 1,700 mail clerks, or, in round numbers, 4,700 of these employees. All they ask is that in addition to what they are being granted they get $60 a year. They are now getting an increase of $60 a year less the $18 of which we spoke, or a net increase of $42. If the government would consider giving them

Supply-Civil Service Salaries
the aditional $60, that would involve a matter of only $282,000 per annum. The minister proposes an appropriation of $2,700,000. If he would increase that by $282,000, he would cover that very large class of employees who feel that they are not being fairly dealt with at present.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Why single them out?
There you have discrimination, the very thing we want to avoid. The hon. member says: there are 3,000 letter carriers; give it to them. Why not give it to the railway mail clerks who are in the same division?


Hugh Guthrie: I have added them.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That will mean 11,000.


Hugh Guthrie: I was informed that there were 3,000 letter carriers and 1,700 mail clerks.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: There are postal clerks, customs clerks and many other classes in that group who have been given consideration already and who are getting $60 of a difference. I want to accept any suggestion ill good grace, but we have tried hard to have an adjustment made that will prevent discrimination, and it is by giving special consideration to this or that class that discrimination will arise.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Did the minister not promise the men in 1924 to make good the $198 bonus? As a matter of fact they are getting a net increase of $60.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: This year?


Alexander McKay Edwards: I mean a net increase over the 1924 income.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That is right.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to
support the plea of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie), not that I consider his proposal as being at all adequate to meet the situation, but because I regard it as being the least possib'e that can be done at the present time. I think it would receive the support of hon. members and also of the public generally throughout the country. The requests of the letter carriers receive greater endorsation from the general public than those of any other class. This is perhaps because the ordinary public comes into closer touch with them and understands the nature of their work, much of which in this country is arduous, but. it is also because we believe that this particular class of civil servants has not received proportionately anything like the salary which they should receive, and that in making an increase as proposed we are in
reality only attempting in a very small degree to catch up in the arrears that are due to them.
I venture to suggest that the apparent increases of which we have heard so much are often nullified by changes in the classification of the civil service. That has not.been clearly brought out. The schedule of salaries in the civil service is so complicated that it is extremely difficult for us at this time to go into details, but it should be clearly recognized that very often any increases have been entirely nullified by changes in classification. Moreover, with regard to this special class for whom a plea has been made, a few years ago an adjustment was made giving them $60 a year more. As I understand the situation, that was in order to bring them up more nearly on a parity with the other classes of the civil service. In this case if they are to be given simply the other $60, this means really that that adjustment goes for nothing.
I take it that others are not being discriminated against if this class receives the full $120 increase.
Another matter in which we who come from the west are particularly interested is the bonus. There has been a special bonus for years on account of the higher cost of living in the west; that complicates the situation still further as regards the western men. But in the case of the war bonus I claim that it was given because of the increased cost of living and that increased cost of living is still a factor in the situation. Members of this House had their sessional indemnities increased at about the same time because of the increased cost of living, and we are not prepared to say that that sessional indemnity ought to be lowered. We recognize that the cost of living has been permanently increased or, if you like to put it the other way, that the purchasing power of the dollar has been lessened. This is an important consideration, especially in the case of the lower paid civil servants. I do not think the Secretary of State has answered the statements made by the letter carriers. I want to place on record this memorandum which has been handed to many of us:
Salary Revision, 1924, As Applied To Letter Carriers
1923,	salary, $1,260; bonus, $297; total, $1 557
1924,	April 1, salary, $1,260; bonus, $198; tatol. $1,458; reduction, $99.
1924, July salary revision, salary, $1,440; bonus, $18; total, $1,458.
1924, Post Office Department's recommendation for letter carriers, salary, $1,560.
1927, salary proposed, salary, $1,500; reduction bonus, $18; increase "net", $42 or 81 cents per week.

Supply-Civil Service Salaries
I do not wonder that the civil servants, however loyal they may be to the service, hesitate to accept willingly an increase of only 81 cents per week. I do not think it is fair to them. To put the matter in the words of the Amalgamated Civil Servants of Canada, a western organization:
We refer to the recent announcement on civil service salaries wherein it states "that a general increase in salaries to be effective April 1, 1927 on the following basis, $120 increase to all civil servants except junior clerks grade I and those who received an increase in salary of $180 in 1924, who are to receive an increase in salary of $60 per annum." We beg to say that no civil servant to our knowledge received an increase in remuneration of $180 in 1924. It is true that certain classes had $180 added to salary range, but the civil servants in those classes at the same time lost an equal or greater amount in pay by the abolition of the bonus.
If that statement is correct, a great deal of what the Secretary of State has said is not really relevant in this connection. I read on:
Now we find that this reduction, or at the best equalization of pay, is called an $180 increase for the purpose of depriving civil servants affected of the full benefit of the new increase. This is camouflage of the worst kind, and certainly cannot be calculated to ensure that esprit de corps which is necessary for a good and efficient service.
A few illustrations will suffice. A letter carrier at his maximum in 1920 received $1,656 per annum, in 1921 he was reduced to $1,458, in 1924 after the so-called $180 increase he still received $1,458 and under the new revision of 1927 will receive $1,500, an increase not of $60 but $42, which stiil leaves him with $156 per annum less than he received in 1920. Postal clerks in western Canada under the new revision will have a maximum salary only $60 greater than in pre-war days, despite his so-called $180 increase in 1924.
It will be noted that while in the above illustrations we quote figures paid to postal employees, we wish particularly to emphasize the fact that the same is true in all other departments because the salaries in all departments are interrelated.
I do not want to deky the House, but I venture to assert that greater consideration is constantly 'being given to the more highly paid officials, and I would urge that we attempt to deal fairly with these lower paid men who have not the same opportunity of making their influence felt.
Reference was made to the vote for the new building at Washington. I voted last night-in favour of it simply because it seemed to me that if we were going to keep up the standards that were proposed it was a good business proposition. Personally I do not agree with the idea of keeping up those standards. It seems to me that we can maintain our dignity in some other way than by lavish hospitality, ot

conforming to certain elaborate and extravagant standards. The purchase of the buiI'dL ing seemed a good proposition, and that is the reason I voted for it. But surely it is also beneath the dignity of Canada to pay less than a decent wage to our employees. By the vote last night we decided to keep up the dignity of one Canadian by voting-


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. gentleman
voted for it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, because as I
said this House was of opinion that ascertain style should be maintained, and the amendment itself made provision for an additional amount for the year in order to maintain that standard.


An hon. MEMBER:: Too thin.


James Shaver Woodsworth: And I said if we
are going to maintain that standard it seems best to do it in a business-like way, as was suggested by the government. I am not discussing the vote of last night, except as an illustration. I say it was generally considered, admitted by both sides of the House, that the dignity of Canada should be maintained, and the amendment itself provided for maintaining it on that scale. To-day I urge that we ought to maintain our dignity by paying something like a reasonable amount to our employees. We are paying far 'below that which is being paid in the United States. Why should we not 'have as great a pride in paying high salaries as we 'have in spending a large sum of money for the purpose of standing well with the comparatively limited group of people who may visit the embassy and be impressed by the scale on which our offices are maintained in Washington? I would urge that the government should even at this stage give careful consideration to the representations that are being made by the rank and file of the people from one end of the country to the other, and revise the proposed salary scale. The men have been waiting a long time. Personally I think they have been waiting with a good deal of patience, and since the government is assured of general support in the House for any move of this character, I cannot see why they could not afford to be generous.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the department and
the government cannot see their way to give this increase to the letter carriers as well as to the mail clerks, then I will confine my plea to the mail clerks. There are seventeen hundred of them. The 160 increase would amount to $102,000 a year. That is not a very

Supply-Civil Service Salaries
large sum. The objections raised by the Secretary of State on behalf of the government, as 1 gather, are twofold. First he says there is the question of discrimination, and secondly, that you must pay regard to the standpoint of the taxpayer of the country. Those are the two main objections, I gather, Co giving the increase to the railway mail service, apart from the further fact-I might call it No. 2-that they had some increase in 1924.
I am not impressed with the two arguments advanced by the Secretary of State. As to the question of discrimination, there is no comparison between the hazards of the life of the railway mail clerk, and the life of an ordinary civil servant. Hon. members have only to reflect' that every day these men are on duty on their run they are in danger. If my hon. friend will look up the statistics he will find that the average life of railway employees on the United States railways is only eleven years. I will leave it to the Minister of Labour if I am not' correct. I am talking of engineers and of the operating staff.
I need not say that the railway mail clerks are occupying as hazardous a position, we will say as the brakesmen, or engineers or locomotive firemen, but if my hon. friend will go to the Post Office Department he will learn that' there is a very substantial percentage of accidental deaths due to the hazard of the occupation in Canada. One of the worst sights I ever saw in my life was an accident to a railway mail clerk at Palmer's Point, Dorchester, when a huge express train went over the embankment into the the slough, and the only man killed was the railway mail clerk. The engineer and the brakesman survived. The railway mail clerk was a resident of my own city. I knew him well, and because of the hazards and the risks that these men take I say there should be discrimination in their favour. They are not paid out of proportion t'o the risks involved in the course of their occupation. Neither am I impressed by the plea of protection to the pocket of the taxpayer, in view of the exhibition of prodigality we had last night in the expenditures provided for in t'he supplementary and main estimates as well as the other expenditures voted this year. It ill becomes, the Secretary of State or any hon. member on the government benches to talk about' protecting the taxpayer. I marvelled last night and said to myself: Where is the Minister of Finance, and why did we not have some word from him on behalf of the taxpayers of the country? We have had no word from him in that regard this session, I am sorry to say. I have the very highest respect for my hon. friend. I am sorry to have t'o admit that he has fallen down on the job. You will be doing less than justice if you do give this increase to the railway mail clerks; and you will be doing an injustice if you refuse it.


Mr. ROBB:: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend
is one of the whips of the opposition, and he says he marvels at the Finance minister for allowing votes to go through the House so rapidly. I sit here and marvel at my hon. friends opposite, one moment blowing hot, the next moment blowing cold-advocating extravagant expenditure throughout the country wherever they think it will catch the popular vote.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the minister stand
up and say that the granting of the increase to the railway mail clerks of this country is extravagance? Let him answer.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: In this salary
revision there appears to be one class that gets an increase of only $60, in some instances less. The minister explained that in 1924 when salary adjustments were made this class got an increase of about $180, and he now suggests that they are being treated in a better way than, the rest of the service under this revision. Why was there any revision of the salaries of that class in 1924? If those men and women received an increase on that occasion while the rest of the civil service did not, were the latter discriminated against?


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: No.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Then if on that occasion they were given something simply to bring them in line with the other civil servants, I ask are they not now being discriminated against? It seems to me that one or other condition must be true.


Arthur Edward Ross: You are perfectly
right.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I would ask the minister to consider whether we would not be justified in giving a straight $120 increase all around. If at this moment he is not prepared' to do that, I would ask him not to object to the desired increase if after investigation it is found that full justice may not have been done this class. I want to say a good word on behalf of these officials. I know their work, I believe they are entitled to full consideration, and I hope they will get it.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Chairman, one of the
great difficulties we encounter in dealing with

Supply-Civil Service Salaries
the salaries of the railway mail clerks and mail carriers is that, in my opinion, they are not properly classified. Each set of employees are in a class by themselves. To give to the railway mail cterks and mail carriers the Ml increase which they claim they should now get, without giving consideration to the increase granted to them in 1024, would be a discrimination against all other classes in the service. But recognizing as I do the hazardous work of the railway mail clerks, and the arduous work of the mail carriers, my recommendation would be to readjust their Classification and thus bring about such a change as would give them the justice that they are now seeking.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What does that mean?


Peter John Veniot: I claim the railway mail
clerk is not classified according to the work he is doing, and therefore is not receiving an adequate salary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Can the minister state
the minimum and maximum?


Peter John Veniot: The salary starts at $1,080
and reaches $1,680. When this proposal goes through the maximum will be $1,800.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And mileage?


Peter John Veniot: Yes, I am coming to that.
I do not point this out to depreciate the value of the work performed by the railway man, but besides this salary he gets one cent a mile for the run he makes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What would be the total payment?	[DOT]


Peter John Veniot: It depends on the mileage. The senior men are granted the best runs if they so desire.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some runs are as high
as six hundred miles.


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The average, I think, is about 2-50 miles.


Peter John Veniot: It is pretty close to the
mark. This must not be lost sight of. In order to get all the facts before the House, let me call attention to what is practically a part of the salary of the mail carrier; I refer to his uniform and boots, which are supplied to him by the department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But he can wear them
only when on duty.


Peter John Veniot: That is so. I think he is
entitled to a new suit and a couple of pairs of boots every year. I feel there is no class of civil servants that should be better paid according to the work they do than railway mail clerks.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Peter John Veniot: They perform the most
hazardous work in the whole service. Then we must not forget that the mail carrier is gathering and distributing mail six days a week in all kinds of weather. His work is also in a different class. There is where the trouble comes in. I am not blaming anybody for it; but I claim that had these two classes been properly classified they would not to-day be complaining, because their minimum and maximum would have brought them statutory increases which would have satisfied their demands. I understand that the Civil Service Commission cannot very well re-classify any branch unless they get a recommendation from the minister in charge. It is my intention to request the Civil Service Commission to make a re-classification or readjustment of these two classes, and so secure to them adequate recognition of their services.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The other day the Postmaster General made the statement of his own volition that he had seen fit to introduce legislation reducing the postage on. papers by 334 pgr cent. Last year we got $1,500,060 for carrying 45,000 tons of newspapers through the mail. We have now reduced the rate 331 per cent with the result that we shall lose $500,000 in revenue which will go into the pockets of the rich publishers of the country. Nobody asked the minister to make that reduction and if he had retained the revenue we shall now lose he would be in a position to-day to give the mail clerks and letter carriers the $60 mentioned by the leader of the opposition. The letter carriers of the country carry 100 tons of newspapers per day.


Peter John Veniot: No, they do not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, the newspapers and magazines carried last year in Canada totalled
45,000	tons. Deducting one-third as the quantity delivered otherwise than by tetter carriers, we have 30,COO tons carried by these men, or approximately 100 tons a day.


Peter John Veniot: If my hon. friend's calculations were correct I would agree with this statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Postmaster General will find that the letter carriers are carrying on their backs 100 tons of mail matter per

Supply-Civil Service Salaries
day They are to receive about 78 cents a week increase in pay while the proprietors of the newspapers, without any solicitation on their part, are to get $500,000. We should keep that money and give it to the letter carriers and the railway mail clerks. That is one point I want to make. There is another suggestion I would offer the government, and that is with respect to railway mail clerks. I think the government Should consider the advisability of carrying an insurance policy, covering the lives of these men, of from $3,000 to $5,000. Having regard to the fact that these employees work in the very front of the train, I think the state might well provide a system of insurance for them. I think these 4,700 men are being very badly used. Their danger has not been appreciated. The minister says frankly that he will do something to meet the situation and of that we are glad. I do think, however, that the money which is being given to the publishers of the country as a result of the reduction in the rate on newspapers might go to the letter carriers, who I repeat carry ICO tons of mail matter on their backs every day.


Mr. ROBINSON:: I have received from the letter carriers of the border cities a statement showing that in 1924, until March 1, they were receiving $1,557 a year while from April 1, 1925, they received $1,440. In 1926, with a bonus of $18, they got $1,458. These letter carriers, owing to their arduous duties, seldom remain in the service the 35 years, or whatever happens to be the period of service that entitles them to superannuation. Having to climb stairs and hills with heavy mail matter on their backs, they succumb to the strain in a few years. In places like the border cities, where the -cost of living is high and rentals are double what they are in cities like St. Thomas, Chatham and London, the letter carriers should receive a bonus. In St. Thomas, for a frame house of six rooms a rental of from twenty to thirty dollars a month is charged, and for the same house in the border cities it is anywhere from forty-five to sixty dollars a month. Having studied the condition of the letter carriers I am quite sympathetic towards them and I urge the minister to take this matter into his serious consideration and do something to help them to meet the cost of living.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I want to endorse what the minister has said with regard to the necessity for a reclassification df these men, When may we expect it to 'be done?


Peter John Veniot: That depends on the authority to whom we have to apply. I can
assure my hon. friend that there is no man who ha,? a greater sympathy than I for the employees of the civil service in all classes, but especially for those men who have to deliver letters and mail.


Mr. GEARY:: I take for granted that the
object of those in charge of the salary revision is to continue paying to the employees of the government at least a living wage. The living wage in 1924 was admitted to be $1,458; that is to say, the salary was only $1,260, and in order to bring that up to a living wage a certain bonus was added, of which I believe $99 was removed by some sort of revision But what happened in 1924 when the revision took place? There was no change in the cost of living but the sum of $180, previously called bonus, was called salary; with the sequence to the man who received it that his superannuation percentage would be deducted from that amount, which had not been the case with the bonus. No one can say that between 1924 and 1927 there was any substantial decrease in the cost of living; rather, I think, the contrary has been the case. So if the department was alive to the fact that a man must get a living wage and that he must have some security in his labour, and implemented that understanding with a certain revision in 1924, it seems to me that the department must -be bound to at least continue that salary and not call it a raise. It has not been admitted by the minister, but doubtless he will quite frankly state that the Post Office Department in 1924 recommended a salary of $1,560 for letter carriers. In some way this recommendation was tossed about between the department and the Civil Service Commission, and only this year we find the Civil -Service Commission acting. I would like very much if the minister would tell us whether tlhe recommendation now before us in regard to these classes is exactly as it was received from the Civil Service Commission.


Mr. RINTRET:: I may say that it is.


George Reginald Geary: Then, Mr. Chairman, may
I recall to the minister that on June 15 of last year this question was very much alive; on that date I asked a question, which is to be found at page 4492 of Hansard, as follows:
I wish to ask a question in reference to the report on the salaries of the civil servants. I understand that action has been deferred pending the appointment of the two other commissioners, there being only the chairman at the moment. There being no Civil Service Commission fully appointed, will the question of salaries have to remain in abeyance until the next session of parliament?

Supply-Civil Service Salaries
To this question the right hon. Prime Minister replied as follows:
The matter need not necessarily remain in abeyance until the next session of parliament; I hope the commissioners will be appointed long before that time. I think I can say to my hon. friend that any delay that may be occasioned will not cause any loss to the civil servants in any particular.
I submit to the committee that at the least there has been the loss of the year's increase in pay. The Prime Minister must have been talking about delay, and he must have meant that the delay would not prejudice the matter because of the fact that any increase would be postponed from last year to some time in the future. That, I think, has not been taken into consideration, though t'he Prime Minister must admit what I have taken his words to convey; the service were greatly reassured as to the position in which they then found themselves as a result of what the Prime Minister said.
This amount of $1,560 amounts to practically 60 cents an hour for an eight-hour day, in the neighbourhood of $28.60 per week, as nearly as we can get it. The men who are digging ditches, or rolling barrels or doing other labouring work of the most ordinary kind for the city of Toronto, are getting exactly that wage to-day, with holidays thrown in and other considerations. The postal employees are men who have to possess certain qualifications exceeding those of the labourers I have mentioned; they have to pass an examination and they must be men of intelligence and education in order to carry out their duties efficiently. May I remind this committee that during the last few years there has been a great' deal of important work added to the duties of the letter carriers; they sell stamps, collect c.o.d. orders, have to do with postal insurance, and other little jobs of that sort which carry some responsibility, in addition to their regular work. But, as I remember it, as a consequence of these additions to the duties of the postman there is no increase in his salary. The revision in 1924 was not an increase; it was simply a transfer of one part of his salary; instead of being labelled a bonus it was called a salary. That condition still exists and this salary was considered necessary in 1924, so I think we find ourselves clear on the point that there is no such general increase as that suggested by the Secretary of State.
My hon. friend has spoken of a matter in this connection which I think is of importance, and about which I asked a question last night. There is a loss on the carrying of newspapers, which I think has a direct bearing on the question under discussion. That 
loss is a direct charge, because there is no profit in that part of the postal business. The recent action of this House on reducing the postage on newspapers, has just been described as a direct bonus to the proprietors of certain newspapers, which I understand to be the larger ones because smaller ones have written me protesting against the reduction. I understand further that some of these newspapers canvass their district and gave bonuses to obtain yearly subscriptions, and that in some cases you will find a newspaper offering a kewpie doll for a subscription. If that is the case, this government i3 assisting those newspapers by buying kewpie dolls for the purpose of increasing their circulations. That act has passed, but it' has an effect on this question, because I think the government should say whether they are prepared to grant this request to the proprietors of newspapers, while they will not accede to the request of a working man who is not' getting more than enough to maintain a decent standard of living. There is no use calling that $18 a bonus; it has become a permanent part of the letter carrier's salary, but that is now lost to him as against t'he $60 increase. There is not a general increase of $120, and it does seem to me that the minister has not made out a good case to support his statement that an increase of $240 has been made since 1924. I submit that a salary of $1,560 would be a reasonable salary for these men, and I would again remind the committee that in 1924 the department recommended that that salary be paid. So I do press very strongly the claims of these men to be treated adequately and fairly; it is not an extravagant amount, and it seems to me the people of this country would be well satisfied to see these men receive a wage commensurate with the cost of living and with the conditions under which men employed by this government should live.


Mr. EVANS:: May I ask the Secretary of State if he would make a statement regarding the civil servants employed by the Soldier Settlement" Board? Are they to remain in the temporary class, or will they be considered permanent, and is it intended that they should share in this increase and in the superannuation?


Mr. FORKE:: I may say that that
matter is at present being considered by the government.


Arthur Edward Ross: May I ask the
Postmaster General one question? He has promised to deal with two classes in regard to which there is some dispute. There is a third class that deserve consideration. I refer

Supply-Civil Service Salaries
to the postal clerks in cities, being those of large size down to the smaller ones. I think the officials of his own department admit that these employees should be in another class. I was in his department the other day, and the officials admitted that there ought to be something done in that regard. I would therefore ask the minister if, in undertaking a reclassification of mail clerks and letter carriers, he would carry out also a reclassification of the employees to whom I have alluded.


Peter John Veniot: I would not undertake to
make a reclassification. The statement I made was that I would look into the matter and see if a reclassification is justified. Before I make a promise of that kind, I should like to see whether I would be justified in doing it or not. However, I will look into the matter.


Mr. SPENCE (Parkdale):: Much as I
sympathize with the Secretary of State, I do not see any reason why, if he exercises good judgment, he cannot get out of the entanglement which seems to exist in connection with this matter. To my mind the course he should pursue is to use everybody alike. There never was a reclassification which was satisfactory to the civil service. I have never heard of such a one yet, certainly not in Toronto, and I have lived in that city for forty years. The reclassification in the present case is not satisfactory to the men. What they want is an increase of pay. Let us leave the cost of living out of the question; let us get away from the question of the bonus and the increase the men got in 1923. There seems to be a misunderstanding between the men and the government. The men claim that the $60 they are getting at this time is simply an adjustment. We have a splendid esprit de corps among the men in the different branches of the public service in the city of Toronto and why should we jeopardize its continuance. If dissatisfaction exists among any group of employees you cannot expect loyalty from them, and if you do not increase their salaries you will arouse a feeling of dissatisfaction. Personally, I think their salaries should be increased. I have no particular sympathy with a discussion of this kind, nor have I ever listened to representations by the letter carriers or mail clerks. I have received letters and telegrams on the matter but have never read them. However, I have been in business long enough to know that you must satisfy men before you can get loyal service from them. Our letter carriers and mail clerks in Toronto are good all round men. I am not talking
for the sake of getting votes, nor with the idea of promoting any political object. But dissatisfaction has been so rife and calamity howling has been going on for months to such an extent that I think tve ought to give these employees the increase in salary for which they ask. Then let the matter rest for another five years unless an increase in the cost of living necessitates action at an earlier date. We all know how efficiently the mail clerks perform their work. We all know how well the letter carriers discharge their onerous duties. I have seen letter carriers issuing from post offices so loaded down with mail matter that the burden was enough to kill two men let alone one. The letter carriers in Toronto are certainly not getting a fair wage for the work they are doing. In the business world there are a number of men who are paid more for doing less work. If business men treated their employees as the government does mail clerks and letter carriers, they would not get any loyalty at all. I think the best plan to adopt would be to give this increase of $120 and bring about the readjustment for which the men are asking. In order to put an end to the bickering and complaining I would say: Make it an increase of $120 all round and let it go at that.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: Last week I read to
the House a telegram which I had received from Branch No. 5 of the Federated Association of Letter Carriers of Quebec, who complained that they were suffering from discrimination in the matter of the $120 increase and asked for a reconsideration of their case. The hon. Secretary of State announced at the time that the claim of these men would receive consideration. I understand that the Postmaster General now states that he is willing to go into the matter again, that he is willing to meet representatives of the men and discuss their claims, and see if the classification cannot be changed. May I say that I would view with great pleasure any arrangement that would give satisfaction to these worthy employees of the Post Office Department.


Mr. PETTIT:: I wish to endorse all that
has been said on behalf o"f the letter carriers, and that remark applies also to the railway mail clerks. There are no more faithful officials in any branch of the civil service than the mail clerks and the letter carriers. They are mostly married men with families, and in my opinion they have been receiving far too little remuneration in the past for the splendid services they render to the public. The amount of increase now proposed is, I believe, not at all adequate; it should be substantially larger.



Supply-Civil Service Salaries
It strikes me that when we in this House vote large sums of money in connection with material things-votes which might be very much less in many instances-we ought not to be too niggardly when we come to deal with our fellow men. I say this while at the same time having due regard to the pockets of the taxpayers. I trust-and I urge the matter as strongly as I can-that the government may yet see its way substantially to increase the salaries paid to these public servants.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I just wish to refer for
a moment to the second lot of exceptions that the minister mentioned, namely, those concerning the senior stenographers and clerks. I notice from a memo I have in my hand that in the reclassification of 1919 senior employees were classified as senior clerks with a minimum salary of $1,320 and a maximum of $1,680 In 1924 they were reclassified, and the trouble seems to be that some of those who had got to the maximum were put into grade 3 class instead of into grade 4. The result is that it leaves them in this peculiar position:	As
many of the clerks classified in 1919 as senior clerks were debarred in 1924 from the fourth grade, they were placed as grade 3 clerks, although at their maximum of $1,680, and in this way did not receive any assistance in 1924. being revised downward instead of upward. In 1927, they are advised they cannot receive the $120 increase as the maximum of their class is now $1,620, and as they stand at a maximum of $1,6S0, they are beyond their class, or in other words have reached a dead wall so far as promotion is concerned. It would therefore appear that these grade 3 clerks at. a maximum of $1,6S0 should be placed in grade 4, or that in some way their standing should be bettered in order that they may receive the $120. I should like to ask the Secretary of State if it is ;possible to place those, who, I understand, number 400, in grade 4 and give them an opportunity of an increase?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I touched that very point in my explanation apd perhaps the hon. member will be kind enough to refer to Hansard. I suggested that they should receive an improvement by promotion, but that it would be unwise to grant them an additional increase because they are already above the maxima of their classes.


Henry Elvins Spencer: How are they to get promoted if they are above their maxima?


Mr. BELL (St. John):: I have telegrams from letter carriers in St. John, N.B., stating

that under the plan now proposed the net increase which they will receive is $39. Will the minister kindly let me have his view as to that?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Similar telegrams were sent to every member and we have already discussed the matter very fully this morning. The Postmaster General has made the declaration that he will look into the matter again. Perhaps my hon. friend will now agree to let the item pass.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I was unfortunately out of the House this morning.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Immigration contingencies and general expenses, including grants to immigration and colonization societies associations, women's hostels, as may be authorized by the governor general in council, $1,300,000.
John Wesley Edwards: My remarks will be of a more or less general character. I think it may be taken for granted that it is the practically unanimous opinion of the people of Canada who have given any thought to the matter at all that we want more population in this country, in order that the burden of our responsibilities may be spread over more shoulders and rest more lightly on each individual. But immigration is not merely a problem of numbers or a question of getting a number of people to come to Canada. It is as well a problem of the possibility and advisability of mixing old world and new world racial and cultural characteristics. It is a problem which has to do with the future of Canada and the part which Canada will play in the history of the world. It is very interesting to note that Canada's population in the last thirty years has followed almost figure for figure the population of the United States in the same period one hundred years ago. That is to say our population in 1900 was practically almost the same as that of the United States in 1800. Our population in 1910 was almost identical with the United States in 1810, and our population in 1921 almost exactly the same as that of the United States in 1820 if it had not been for the intervention of the war. In the last century the United States brought into that country from foreign lands over 36,000,000 immigrants.

Supply-Immigration
Immigration to the United States reached its peak in 1907, the figures showing for that year
1,280,000	immigrants. For a period of ten years the immigration figures of the United States were between 800,000 and a little over a million. The war showed that in the United States-and I say this from the study I have given to the matter-they had a large percentage of population they could not depend upon in a national crisis; in other words, they found they had a considerable percentage of population which had not become Americanized. That fact was so thoroughly impressed on the United States during the war that it led them to adopt a quota system the basis of which was three per cent of the census of 1910; later the basis was the census of 1890 and the quota was two per cent. I will not give figures as to just what that meant in the way of reduction in the number of immigrants coming from certain parts of Europe into the United States. The quota system was adopted with the idea of lessening the immigration to the countries from the south and south eastern part of Europe, and giving such encouragement as they could to immigration from the northern part of Europe and the British Isles, from that part of Europe which in our immigration regulations is specified as area No. 1, so far as Europe is concerned. I would like to quote here from a statement made by President Coolidge to Congress on December 6, 1923, in regard to this matter. He emphasized the view that the United States should adopt a policy of numerical restriction based on a census prior to 1910. That was carried out on the two per cent quota of the census of 1890. I quote a paragraph from President Coolidge's message which I think we, as Canadians, would do well very .carefully to consider in regard to our attitude towards immigration. President Coolidge said:
America should be kept for Americans. For this purpose it is necessary to continue a policy of restricted immigration. It would be well to make such immigration of a selective nature with some inspection at the source, and based either on a prior census or upon the record of naturalization. Either method would insure the admission of those with the largest capacity and best intention of becoming citizens. I am convinced that our present economic and social conditions warrant a limitation of those to be admitted. We should find additional safety in a law requiring the immediate registration of all aliens. Those who do not want to be partakers of the American spirit ought not to settle in America.
That paragraph in the statement of President Coolidge might 'be paraphrased iby inserting the word '^Canadian" where "American" 32619-1591
is used, and may with good judgment foe accepted as the policy we in Canada should adopt. I believe we are rapidly nearing the time when we must, to a greater or less degree, accept that as the logical position for us to take in our immigration policy That is to say, that we should have in mind, not merely the getting of so many tens of thousands of people to come to Canada as immigrants, but we should also consider the possibility and the ease with which these immigrants can be Cauadianized and converted into Canadian citizens, as we want them to foe. I make that statement and I wish to justify it by showing in my estimation t'he plan we ought to follow. If Canada were to adopt the quota system on the three per cent basis, in proportion to our population, we would be taking in as immigrants each year from 15,000 to 20,000. That is in proportion to our population as compared with that of the United States, we would be taking in 15,000 to 20,000 each year. That is to say, if we accepted the United States position as sound, that the United States, with a population of 120,000,000, can only-and this is exactly what" they say- Americanize a certain number of people from foreign countries within a year, and therefore they restrict their immigration to that figure, then in proportion to our population as compared with theirs, we would only foe able to take in from fifteen to twenty thousand immigrants from continental Europe, Manifestly we cannot place this restriction in immigration, and no one would think of suggesting its being put into force.
But I want to submit a suggestion in regard to juvenile immigration. We are told in this report, and we have every reason to accept it as absolutely correct, that every year in the United Kingdom some five or six thousand boys and girls leave school without any job to go to. We are also told that we might reasonably expect to bring a large proportion of those boys and girls to this country under some plan of juvenile immigration. Tlhe report, in referring to a number of organizations engaged in immigration work, mentions the British Immigration Aid and Colonization Assoc:ation, with headquarters at Montreal, as the only purely Canadian organization engaged in bringing boys to Canada. The organization has only been active since 1924. I might point out that of the 1,862 boys and girls brought to this country by the various agencies during the year ending March 31, 1926, 446 boys were handled by this organization. The next in the list was the Salvation Army, which brought out 464, of whom 379 were boys.
Supply

Immigration

There is another point in this connection that I want to mention. On page 9 of the report reference is made to the number of applications received by the various organizations and the number of children sent out by them. I draw the attention of the minister to the fact that whereas the Salvation Army received 2,560 applications, it sent out 461 children; but the British Immigration Aid and Colonization Association received 479 applications and sent out 446 boys. Why is that? As a matter of fact I know because I had a great deal to do with this organization starting along this line of juvenile immigration. The reason is this, and I commend it to the attention of the minister. From the time that society started to operate it laid down the principle that not a boy-they do not bring any other than boys of teen age-should be placed on board vessel at Glasgow or Liverpool until he had a plaoe to go to when he arrived in Canada. There was nothing haphazard about the association's plan at all. It has worked out surprisingly well. May I add that the plan inaugurated by this particular association so impressed Premier Ferguson that he has instituted a juvenile movement through the provincial farm at Guelph. I believe the premiers of the other provinces as well as the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railway are convinced that the juvenile movement is one of the very best that we can encourage to bring young immigrants to this country. I think it is the best, for two main reasons; many others could be given. First, we should encourage to the limit the bringing of boys of teen age from the old country because such boys, according to statistics, show a higher percentage of literacy than our native-born Canadians, and such ideas as they have learned in the mother country, of government and civil institutions are the same as ours. So there is no trouble whatever to C-anadian-ize those boys. And they speak our language. The second reason is that probably all over the Dominion, certainly throughout Ontario and Quebec and the prairie provinces, thousands of our farmers are in need of help, and for lark of it their farms are not producing to anything like their full capacity; they cannot afford to hire a married man, and give him a wage sufficient to maintain himself and his family; and consequently they are very anxious indeed to get these boy immigrants. In a word, the movement works well from the standpoint of the farmers to get them much needed help, and from the standpoint of the boys to get them farm jobs. If there is anything like proper supervision of fMr. J. \V. Edwards.]
the boys after they go on the farms I believe that practically all of them will make good in the future as they have in the past.
As I said before, I think the Minister of Immigration has adopted rather a harsh attitude towards the Salvation Army. That organization has been bringing out the class of boys that the farmers of this country are asking for. I believe that every boy brought out by the army has cost it between $70 and $80 after taking into consideration the government grants, for the army' authorities inform me that before bringing a boy to Canada they have to look after him for a period varying from six to twelve weeks. I do not regard it as a handicap to such boys to enter into an arrangement with the Salvation Army to pay back a certain amount of money to assist the army in continuing their work. I repeat, I do not agree with the policy which the minister is pursuing in regard to the Salvation Army. And we are not carrying out that policy all along the line. As I said before, immigrants from continental Europe are handed a certain amount of money by immigration agencies to enable them to prove that they are not entering the country as paupers. That money they have to pay back to the organization with, I believe, a considerable addition in the way of profit, and that money is turned over again to bring out more immigrants. If it is a handicap to the boy to have an arrangement with the Salvation Army to pay back $70 or $80, then logically it must be equally a handicap to the class of immigrants I have referred to to pay a large percentage of profit or a commission to the immigration organization that advances the money to enable them to comply with our regulations. Having regard to the work which has been done by the Salvation Army and similar organizations in bringing out boys to this country, and in view of the report of the inspectors as found at page 9, showing the percentage who are making progress, good, fair and poor, the character and behaviour of the boys, and so forth, I say that this line of immigration is one that commends itself strongly to me. The minister has admitted that there are operating in Canada and the United States some twenty-eight clerics of one denomination engaged, as he says, in the work of repatriation; that is to say, I suppose, they are engaged in trying to induce French Canadians who have gone to the United States to return to Canada. That is a commendable work, although I am doubtful whether these clerics devote all their time across the line to bringing French Canadians back into Can-

Supply-hnmigration
ada. A good deal of their time, I think, is spent in inducing French Canadians to go from Quebec to the other provinces of this Dominion and plant colonies in other parts of the country; they are not merely engaged in getting French Canadians to return from the United States and re-settle in Canada. I put this to the minister in all fairness. He has seen fit-and I do not quarrel with this feature of his work-to appoint twenty-eight clerics of the Roman Catholic church to engage in immigration activities, while there are no Protestant ministers similarly engaged in Canada and the United States. These twenty-eight clergymen to whom I refer are under salary or under part salary and expenses, according to the minister's own report. Furthermore, there is in Great Britain only one cleric, of the same denomination, who is in receipt of a salary of $1,800 and $1,600 expenses. I do not think that anyone will quarrel with that salary; it is not exorbitant. And so far as Father MacDonnell is concerned, he has done efficient work in bringing Hebridians out to Canada. As I say, I have no fault to find with that. I want to point out to the minister, however, that there are twenty-eight clergymen of one denomination engaged in this work and no minister of any other denomination in either the United States or Canada. In immigration work in the old country there is only one cleric, of the same denomination as the twenty-eight, and no cleric of any other persuasion. Now having regard to these facts, and the further fact that there has been a disposition on the part of the department to deal generously, or at any rate not unfairly, with this particular denomination, I feel all the more strongly that the minister was wrong in imposing upon the Salvation Army such restrictions as he did. I do not say that his department is to be censured in regard to the twenty-eight or thirty clerics of one denomination about whom I have been speaking; but having shown that disposition towards that denomination the minister, it strikes me, might have been somewhat more generous and have given a little more latitude to the people of other denominations engaged in immigration work and who have proved in the past their ability to further immigration into Canada.
In a return tabled a few days 'ago I find that during the year ending December 31 last 135,9S4 persons came to Canada.	In
looking over the list I see that they represent fifty different nationalities in Europe. Forty-eight thousand of these immigrants were British white 20,000 came from the United States. I favour that kind of immigration
for the reason I have already stated: such people are easily assimilated and1 Canadianized because their institutions and language are the same as ours. Their ideas of government also are practically identical with ours. I find that from area No. 1 in Europe, that is to say, Germany and Scandinavia, which have always been favoured, and properly so, in our immigration arrangements, there came about 19,-OOO. That leaves about 47,000 or 48,000 from other countries. Now I do not say anything against these various nationalities, but in my judgment it would have been far better had those 48,000 people who came from various countries in Europe been brought from Great Britain and the United States. If we are going to build uip this country with a population -who will appreciate the part Canada is going to play in the progress of the world in the years to come we shall be forced to give some consideration, if not exactly to adopt a quota system such as is in force in the United States, at least to some selective immigration policy. We must deliberately select people from those parts of the world where the ideas of governments aTe similar to our own. People coming from those countries are easily assimilated here and they fall in line readily with our customs and our institutions. In other words it is incumbent upon us to devote our energies in the years to come to bringing into Canada immigrants from England and other countries in Europe where conditions are much the same as they are in Canada. Such people will the more readily work hand in hand with native born Canadians to build up this Dominion. After all, the responsibility for Canada's future rests on the shoulders of her native born sons. The first and primary responsibility is theirs, and it is an important one. If we want assistance from outside let us therefore select our immigrants from among people who will most easily cooperate with us in our endeavour to develop Canada along the lines of true progress.


Mr. MacLAREN:: Will the minister state
definitely what arrangements his department has made with the government of New Brunswick in reference to cooperative immigration measures?


Robert Forke: I do not think I can fully
answer that question. The problem is threefold, but so far as the arrangement between the Department of Immigration and the government of New Brunswick is concerned it is settled.


Murray MacLaren: What arrangement has
been made?
Supply-Immigration


Robert Forke: 
Murray MacLaren: Has it any particular
reference to boys and girls?


Robert Forke: Nova Scotia and the department have a boy scheme in conjunction; New Brunswick is carrying through its own boy scheme, receiving the same assistance all organizations receive in the way of free passages and the granting of $10 for every boy brought over.
I do not want to delay my own estimates, but while I am on my feet I would like to say that I thoroughly agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) . Perhaps I should have left this alone, but I have always felt Quebec to be in a little different position from the other provinces. The people are almost entirely of one race, and we spend very little money on immigration in that province. My hon. friend has stated the case fairly and fully; it is all out in the open, whether it be wise or not, and that is the reason why these people have been allowed a certain latitude not given others.


Mr. IRVINE:: I would like io ask the minister if he does not think the industrial life of Canada is pretty well over-balanced now, and that as a matter of fact we have too many farmers as compared with the number of men employed in other industries? It would seem to me that the policy of the department is going to further over-balance our industrial life, because too many farmers will reduce the price of wheat just as too many labourers will bring down wages.


Robert Forke: I have considered that question and I find that when this Dominion was exporting 100,000,000 bushels of wheat we did

not have as good a market as we now have when we export 400,000,000 bushels, so I am not very much afraid. The world has never had too much food in all the experience of humanity, so there is not much danger that we are going to produce more food than the people require.


Mr. GARDINER:: I would like the minister to give a brief outline of the policy of the department. Since I have been in the House, this is the first time we have had a Minister of Immigration who was responsible for that department only; previously another minister has had charge of this department. Consequently I think the minister might give us a brief outline of the proposed activities of the department, which will possibly save a great deal of discussion later on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the minister
answers, there is a question I would like to bring up and which I am under obligation to ask him. In December last the divisional commissioner of the department wrote to a gentleman who was arranging to have his brother come to Canada., as follows:
I beg to advise that the department lias been unable to find a record of your admission to Canada in January, 1904, either at Montreal or at New York. However, the Department of the Secretary of State have advised that you became a naturalized citizen at Calgary on the 6th October, 1908, when you claimed to be a labourer by occupation, and a former national of Russia.
Kindly consult with fellow passengers-
Twenty-itwo years later.

in order to obtain correct information regarding your sailing and landing in Canada. Did you proceed from Montreal to New York, or vice versa?
Here is a gentleman who came to western Canada; he married an English woman and they now have two children, one a promising student in high school and the other working in the community. This poor man looked upon this letter as a sort of terrorist reign of Russia, and he thought when he saw these departmental officers going around inquiring about him that he was under conditions again which he had left Russia to escape. I think the minister will realize this is carrying the matter to an extreme, and I do hope he will take some steps to see that that is stopped in Canada. A man who has been a Canadian citizen for eighteen years, who is married and has a family, is being pursued and harassed and cannot quite understand why. Cannot something be done by the minister to stop iniquities of this kind?
There is another matter of which I would like to speak, and that is this permit busi-

Supply-Immigration
ness, 'by which men are held up to the tune of $100 or $150 to secure permits. This is a public scandal; it existed before the minister came int'o office, however, and I do not want him to think I am blaming him for this practice. It should stop, however, and if the minister coming into the department fresh, with the power he has with the men of his group, will merely say that this thing will stop, he will be doing a public service and will prevent this country from becoming a by-word in foreign countries whose nationals are compelled to pay this sum for a permit to enter the country. The regulations should be clear and impartial; they should be applied to one as t'o another; there should be no favouritism shown Jones which may not be shown Brown and everyone knows that is exactly opposite the present practice. Let him stop that practice and he will have done a great service in maintaining the reputation of Canada abroad and at home. If he will do that, and will deal with this other matter by giving instructions that men should not be so harassed, after having been Canadian citizens for eighteen years, because they want to bring some relative into the country, he will be doing another great service. I do not want to take up too much time of the House but I was under obligation to a great many people to take up this question, and I have done my duty as well and as briefly as I could.


Mr. CAHAN:: Mr. Chairman, there is no
department of government with the administration of which I am in less agreement than with that of the Department of Immigration. I had intended during this session to move that a committee of the House consider the whole matter of immigration, from the passing of the orders in council governing immigration, down to the administration of that department, but inasmuch as the session is short, and also since we have a new minister, after consulting with a number of members of the House it was agreed that it would be well to allow the new minister to have at least one year in which to investigate his department and to bring down a satisfactory explanation of the future policy of that department. I believe that next session a considerable number of members of this House will expect such a statement from the Minister of Immigration.


Mr. NEILL:: I rise to endorse to a large
extent the request of the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner), only I wish to define certain things which I would like the minister to emphasize. Together with the hon. member for Acadia I would like a definite statement placed on Hansard for the information of the country; I have tried to get it privately, but have not succeeded. I would like to know what are the various assisted policies of the Department of Immigration.
I am not concerned with those schemes which require or desire that immigrants should come here at their own charges. I am primarily concerned with the different schemes by which the public money is expended in helping people to come to this country, and I think it would be perfectly proper that this vote should not pass until a definite statement has been placed before the committee so that we may know what the policy of the department is. Beginning with the scheme for bringing out boys, we are entitled to know what is paid in connection with the scheme, who has the handling of these boys, and so on. A long statement is not needed, but only a brief summary of the cost and method in each case.	.
Then we come to cooperative societies like the Salvation Army. Next we have the scheme by which farm labourers are assisted to come out, and they are helped in some way that is somewhat shadowy. I find now that there is a subsidiary scheme, so to speak, by which the farm labourers are divided into two classes-the experienced farm labourer and the inexperienced farm labourer. I Aould like to get particularly what constitutes an "inexperienced farm labourer", because if he is not just simply a common, ordinary labourer,
I do not know what he is. If he has not had any experience of working on a farm, how can he be classified in connection with farm work? That is some sort of subterfuge adopted in order to bring practically unskilled labour into this country. Then there is the statement by which apparently the government lends itself-and yet we are told that it incurs no responsibility-to the scheme by which the railway companies advertise that they will bring out men and guarantee them employment in this country. Yet when an advertisement of that character is produced in this House and the matter is put up to the department, the department denies all responsibility. Now I want to know, and I think 'the House wants to know, what the scheme is in connection with railway companies, what their obligations are, and whether the department or this government does not at the same time incur some direct or indirect responsibility.
Then we have the scheme alluded to a few minutes ago, the empire settlement scheme,
Supply-Immigration

and the "three thousand" scheme, whatever that may be. Perhaps they are the same, I do not know. Next there is the scheme of which I have come across traces, so to speak, here and there, and that is for loans to pay passages. I think it is some private company in Britain which finances that. If that is not the case what responsibility do we take in that connection? I have outlined all these schemes and I am sure it would be of interest to this House and to the country- and I say that in no spirit of criticism at all [DOT]-to le'arn just what we are lending ourselves to. We are spending over $3,000,000 in this work, and I again repeat that we want to know what is involved in connection with them.
Whilst I am on my feet, and in order to save time perhaps later on, I want to say a few words on behalf of what I might call the labour section of British Columbia, if I may presume to speak for organized labour to some small extent. At any rate I know what their ideas are, and I am familiar with some of their organizations. Here is a short letter which I took out of a Vancouver paper just recently, and which I think voices a certain point of view that is very largely entertained in that city. It reads as follows:
Sir,-I wish to draw your attention to the labor situation in the city. There are several thousand men looking for employment, men who have been in this province for years.
And remember this is dated in April when spring work is well in hand. The letter goes on to say:
Men have been told at the employment office that the jobs are being reserved for the newcomers, and a good many late arrivals from Europe have been placed, although the city has been full of men all winter and has enough men around to do all the work that is likely to be undertaken for a few years.
Just the other day twenty-five immigrants were sent up to Ocean Falls. They did not even get a chance to see the city as they were just out.
Tills country does not require immigrants at present. It wants capital; labor will follow.
I think that is a temperate and moderate expression of the views of organized labour in British Columbia. Moreover, I think it is true that there are large bodies of unemployed men right in Vancouver to-day. I think the relief expense for a fortnight in March ran to something like $3,000. Of course we shall receive again the stereotyped reply "Oh, these are men who will not work." It is so easy to stifle our conscience by suggesting that these men will not work. But let me recite one or two things. I have here a copy of a labour paper published in Vancouver, the
(Mr. Neill.)
Labour Statesman, and I find in it cases of men who cannot be called professional loafers. These are all within a few months:
Detective Jock Milne arrested a man for stealing $5. On investigation, he found that the man's wife and two children, aged ten years, and sixteen months, had been living in semistarvation, a small piece of bread being the only food in the house.
Policemen and detectives are not generally softhearted but this man was led to give to this starving family a goose he had just won in a Christmas raffle. Here is another case:
Then on December 4th 1926,

. Vancouver, committed suicide, by taking strychnine. He left a sick wife and five young children and a note saying he was despondent through being out of work.
Here is another case:
On December 8th, 

 

, of Esquimalt,
slashed his throat in four places. "Let me alone", he said to the police, "I cannot find work so I might as well die. I am fed up."
And next this case
On December 6th,

a Victoria
man, unable to support his wife and four children, threw a stone through the window of Mitchell and Duncan, fashionable jewellers in Victoria, and calmly sat down awaiting arrest. He claimed he was desperate.
Another case is that of a man who stated that he was married, with six children, a wife, Canadian-born, and only a few cents between them and starvation. I could go on and give half a dozen more cases but I will not do so. I only read them to show that these men are typical of a certain class. If they were professional bums they would have gone to a relief agency and demanded and got relief. These are men who took their situation, and that of their wives and children, so desperately to heart that they decided to end it in another way. These men cannot be accused of being professional loafers. It only bears out the statement announced in the papers of the same date that there is a large body of unemployed men in Vancouver to-day. Now I do not object to immigrants coming to this country, I welcome them. But what the labour people say is this: We hear a great deal about protection. Protection of what? Protection of industry. The plea is put up from time to time "Do not let manufactured products from foreign countries, or even from Great Britain, come in here without imposing a protective duty in order to encourage Canadian manufactures." But when it comes down to labour which is the only asset of the worker, the working man might at least be protected from the labour of foreign countries in the matter of the only asset that he has. But is he protected? He is not. On the

Supply-Immigration
contrary his competitor is subsidized. He himself came here at his own charge; he saved and scraped enough money to come to this country. His competitor is a man newly out from the old country, or from southern Europe, who has got to take a lower wage, in the latter case because of his inability to understand our language. That man is subsidized to come here, subsidized at our expense and at the expense of the working man with whom he is going to compete. That is what organized labour in British Columbia objects to; it objects that its competitor should be subsidized. Let these men come to Canada if they want to, but let them come at their own expense. But organized labour objects to an organized system of government assistance to bring in unskilled labour to compete with the already overladen surplus that is in Canada to-day. I have gone somewhat off my subject, but I would join again with the hon. member for Acadia in asking for a definite statement of the policies of the government and a brief explanation of the various schemes by which labour is brought to this country.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: The minister is a little backward in giving the explanation to which the House is entitled.


Robert Forke: I rise with no other intention.


Edward Joseph Garland: I know,
but you were sitting there very quiet.


Robert Forke: I am getting old and stiff
and it takes me some time to get up. But I should like to reply to what the hon. member for West Calgary said about permits. I wish the stopping of permits were as easy and plain as he seems to think it is. We have the Immigration Act, the regulations and the orders in council which lay down the law exactly in the matter of the admission of immigrants into the Dominion, but unfortunately there is a clause which permits the minister to override all these rules and regulations and orders in council. If this was only a matter of business, it might be easily got over, but elements of compassion enter into the circumstances so that a man is often compelled, simply on compassionate grounds, to issue permits.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Send the permit direct to the person.


Robert Forke: I can assure the committee
that I would like to do so. Since I came into the department my heart has been sore many a time over the question of issuing permits
because I could see how much suffering and grief was caused to persons anxious to get permits when I could not conscientiously see my way clear to issue them. I have no sympathy whatever for people who use these permits in order to make money, and if I can stop this practice it will be stopped. Unfortunately, however, people who have a reasonable right to expect to get a permit do not go directly to the department but to some lawyer or a member of parliament or someone else. I am not making any accusation against anyone, but the way in which this is carried on, I do not know whether someone is getting 150 or not on account of managing to get these permits. I will endeavour to stop this practice and I will issue permits only when I feel that thejr ought to be issued. I am sure that since I have come into the Department of Immigration there has been no increase in the number of permits issued.


Robert Gardiner: What circumstances
make it necessary to issue permits at all?


Robert Forke: Under present regulations
only those engaged in certain occupations can come into Canada from, Europe. They must be farmers, farm worker's, or domestic servants. For instance, supposing'a Jewish family, because they are perhaps better able than many others to assist friends on the other side, want to bring out a relative. A permit is required for this, and it seems to be a reasonable thing to issue that permit because the family on this side may be well off and the relatives on the other side may be in destitute circumstances. It takes a pretty hard-hearted man in a case of that kind to refuse to issue a permit, and similar casies come up all the time. Perhaps someone may be in perfect health but have some physical defect such as wanting an arm, or something of that kind. Under the regulations he cannot come into this country without a permit, and we have to come to a decision whether or not we shall issue a permit allowing a person with a physical defect of that kind to enter this country.
I have been asked to give a statement of the policy of the Immigration department in regard to immigration. I would be delighted to do so if I had a properly prepared statement so that I could give the committee all the information in as concise a manner as possible. But I had no expectation that I would be called upon this afternoon to make any such lengthy explanation, and I am afraid if I entered into any detailed account of the different activities of the department it would take me perhaps two hours to cover the
Supply-Immigration

ground. I will therefore as shortly as I can endeavour to give a resume of the different activities of my department.
With regard to European countries, I might say a word about the railway agreements of which we hear a great deal. We have an agreement between the department and the two big railway companies whereby they are allowed to recruit in certain countries in Europe a certain number of immigrants of the farmer type.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Why only the farmer
type?


Robert Forke: It was thought that was the type of people whom we could most readily assimilate, and as a matter of fact we have more demand for farm labourers than for almost any other class of immigrants. That has been my experience, and whether that policy is right or wrong, it is the present policy of the department. Mention has been made of experienced and partly experienced farm labourers. Naturally people brought up on a farm are of a type that can make good farm labourers, but we all know quite a large percentage of them drift into other employment.
We sometimes speak rather slightingly of foreign-born immigration, but this country would take a long time to develop if we had not foreign-born immigrants. If you go around and see who is doing the heavy, nasty work, work in the lumber camps, in the sewers, the hard physical work that is perhaps not to be desired by our own people, you will find that it is being carried on by foreigners. They are not to be despised; many of them are honest people, willing to do the hard physical labour that our own people will not undertake, and we can always assimilate a certain number of foreign-born people. I agree with the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) that we should be careful that they are not allowed to come into this country in too great numbers so that the British-born element will not be almost absorbed by a foreign population. The railway companies undertake not to bring in immigrants from foreign countries unless they are farmers, farm labourers, or domestic servants. They also undertake by solemn agreement that when they bring them to this country they will place them in occupations.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What guarantee
have we that the railway companies will live up to that agreement?
[Mr. Forke.l


Robert Forke: The guarantee that we can stop them if they do not live up to it, and the written word of the presidents of the two railway companies.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If instances should
arise where men are out of work or are not suitable, what steps can be taken by municipalities to ensure that this procedure shall be promptly stopped?


Robert Forke: If the railways do not place those immigrants, the department has already undertaken to see that they get work. Speakers have referred to instances of unemployment and so on, but except in isolated cases, such conditions have existed in this countiy for a long time. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) was citing individual 'Cases a little while ago, but it will be found that in any countiy under the sun there will always be people who will be in circumstances of that kind.


Alan Webster Neill: I cited two thousand in
Vancouver alone.


Robert Forke: 
Alan Webster Neill: Who pays the passage money?


Robert Forke: 
Mr. LUCAS:: 
Robert Forke: 
William Thomas Lucas: Does the immigrant get his passage extra?


Robert Forke: Yes, it is extra. A very
common complaint I get through the mail from people in Canada is, "Why do you not do as much for our own Canadian people as you are doing for people on the other side?" Well, what are we doing? We are giving extra care and attending to the immigrant, and he is getting a farm without a payment down, but the Imperial government is risking $1,500 to start with, and all our risk is letting him have a farm without a payment down.


Robert Gardiner: Do you think you are
taking a less risk with him than you are with a Canadian?


Robert Forke: You must remember that
the British government is putting up the actual cash.


Robert Gardiner: You have no security
on the stock?


Robert Forke: Yes, we have all the security there is.


Robert Gardiner: Is that on behalf of the British government?	.


Robert Forke: 
Robert Gardiner: Would you give the
same opportunity to a Canadian who has his own stock and equipment? Would you provide him with the land and let him go on the land without any payment?


Robert Forke: My experience in western
Canada is that if you can get a likely man with stock and equipment to go on the land, it is a good proposition.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: The minister admits
that a Canadian cannot secure the land for a term of twenty-five years?


Robert Forke: The conditions are not the
same. We are working on some scheme by which we can help our Canadian boys who would like to start farming. I hope I shall be able to arrange a scheme of that kind to help young men who want to go farming who have the right ideas, so that they may get some assistance.


Robert Gardiner: Was this policy entered into before you came into the department?


Robert Forke: The three thousand family
scheme was in operation before I came. We are using every endeavour to encourage boy immigration. We are willing to enter into negotiations with any of the provinces with regard to bringing boys out here, having them trained and put in a position to go on the farm or into some occupation. I think I might lay this memorandum before the House and probably save time-


Robert Gardiner: Put it on Hansard.


Robert Forke: Very well. This memorandum gives an account of the system and tells about the assistance given to the different organizations. It reads:
Passage Assistance
The empire settlement agreement provides passage assistance for,-
(a)	Farmers and their families.
(b)	Single farm workers.
(c)	Domestic servants.
(d)	Juveniles.
We formerly loaned the regular transportation rate. Last year we got the rate reduced and secured a further reduction this year. The rate is reduced by contributions from the British government, the Canadian government and a rebate by the transportation companies.
Supply-Immigration


Mr. WHITE (London):: There is no discrimination in the case of British immigrants?


Robert Forke: No.


Mr. DICKIE:: Has the government in view any action, in concurrence with the British government or otherwise, in regard to placing these British immigrants in British Columbia?


Robert Forke: The conditions are open' to all parts of the Dominion; we are willing to enter into an arrangement with any of the provinces.


Charles Herbert Dickie: Has anything been done
with regard to British Columbia?


Robert Forke: We have placed many immigrants in British Columbia.


Charles Herbert Dickie: I would like to place on
Hansard a memorandum with regard to these immigrant boys. This is taken from Lord Clarendon's official report, following his personal inspection last year of British family settlement, during which he motored over

Supply-Immigration
6,000	miles and personally visited nearly 200 of the British families on their farms. He says:
We have no hesitation in saying that the British family settlement scheme has thus far proved a conspicuous success, and promises to become the most successful effort in colonization undertaken by any government in modern times. ... In this report we described the origin and functions of the Soldier Settlement Board, now the land settlement branch of the Department of Immigration and Colonization at Ottawa, and have endeavoured to show how this admirable organization handled the settlement of Canadian soldiers and is now handling the settlement of British families.
Then I read from an article by Lady Clarendon, as follows:
We have returned home with the greatest admiration for the personnel of the land settlement board, their unfailing kindness to settlers, their broad views, their patience and patriotism. If Canada, and above all a government department, can produce men such as these, then all is very well with our fellow countrymen who are giving themselves to Canada.


John Wesley Edwards: I offered a
few criticisms of the minister's department. In all fairness to him may I offer two or three suggestions? He has said, and quite properly, that the door is wide open for immigrants from the British Isles. We want them here. Why do we not get them? The reason certainly is not lack of surplus population in the old country. We do not get them in large numbers because our system is haphazard. For instance, there is no assurance that immigrants will get work on their arrival here. I am glad to find that the provinces are showing an increasing disposition to cooperate with the federal department, and I am going to offer a suggestion that I think can be adopted at no cost. Take a county in Ontario with, say, sixteen municipalities, each of them represented by a reeve and council; the reeve of each township represents his municipality in the county council. Now, I suggest that we make use of all this municipal machinery to secure information of how many farmers want boys or married men on their farms; this information could be conveyed to the county council through the reeves of the various townships; the county council in turn would communicate the information to the provincial authorities, who in turn would communicate with the Department of Immigration. In that way you would have complete cooperation and the latest available information of the requirements of every municipality in regard to farm help.
Suppose you get an inquiry from an immigrant; he wants to go to Ontario. You
ask him where in Ontario; he answers, Hamilton. You ask him why he wants to go to Hamilton; he tells you that he has a cousin or a brother there. Very well, that is a good idea, let him go there. This plan has been put in operation in dealing with boy immigrants and has proved to be an absolute success. Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova 'Scotia and Ontario, through their respective governments, have issued booklets giving information of the number of vacant farms, their location and price. That is valuable data to start with, and surely you can systematize the work in cooperation with the municipalities throughout the Dominion in placing immigrants in the rural districts.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I have a good deal of
sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. member for Frontenae-Addington (Mr. Edwards). He covered a few of the points that I intended to take up. I would ask the minister: Why should not Canadians in the central and eastern provinces who want to go to western Canada to take up what the Immigration department seems to put so much stress on, agriculture, have the advantage of the same low passenger rates as are given to immigrants?


Robert Forke: That is a matter for the railway companies. Besides, every province would strongly object to the department encouraging its people to move to a sister province.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I have heard a good deal of criticism because the man in eastern Canada is not put on a parity with the man from outside. A tremendous effort is being made to bring in people who are supposed to go on the land. I notice by the report that 50,000 of the immigrants that came in last year did not take up farming; which proves that the policy is a failure as we have always claimed it would be. I think it is a mistake to try to force people to go into any particular calling. Another point I would bring to the attention of the minister has to do with the railways. It is to the interest of the railway companies to bring in anybody from anywhere who will turn the sod and grow produce, and thus increase freight traffic, for naturally the railways are interested only in so far as they can increase their traffic. I know that people who have been brought into western Canada by the railways have taken up agriculture in certain districts, and have had great difficulty in making both ends meet. Therefore I think the department should keep in pretty close touch with the railways with regard to how many immigrants are being brought out and
Supply-I mmigration

where they are being placed. The department is interested not only in getting immigrants but in looking after their welfare afterwards; but the railway's interest is simply to bring the people out and get increased freight traffic.


Robert Gardiner: With respect to the
agreement that the department has with Great Britain to settle families in this country, while it is quite true that he may have inherited this policy-


Robert Forke: The land settlement scheme will come after this estimate is disposed of.


Robert Gardiner: But this covers immigration; I will deal with the land settlement scheme later. When we look at it from the viewpoint of the Canadian I do not envy the minister his inheritance. While it may be all right after you have satisfied the demand of those of the Canadian people who wish to go on the land to enter into such an agreement with Great Britain, in my judgment there are some circumstances underlying that agreement which call for discussion.
The department has taken 3,000 abandoned soldier farms for the purpose of settling them with British immigrants. I want to point out to the minister that we have in western Canada to-day returned men who have their equipment and who are anxious to secure land through the soldier settlement scheme. But they are turned down, the reason being given that these lands are reserved for British immigrants. That policy is not fair to Canadians generally and more particularly is it unfair to the returned men. We owe a duty to our returned soldiers and we shall not have lived up to it so long as one returned man who is in a position to go on the land finds it impossible to secure land from the department.
I would suggest to the minister that he review the whole situation. It is quite possible that he has gone so far as to be unable to draw back, but that is no reason why he should not make provision for the needs of Canadians themselves and especially of Canadian returned men. I am satisfied from experience that there are thousands of Canadians well qualified to settle on the land, men of experience who have their own equipment and who can settle without cost to the government, provided the land is given them on the same terms as it is granted to British immigrants. I make this suggestion to the minister, realizing the problem he has to solve, and I hope he will look into the matter with a view to meeting the situation.
[Mr. Spencer. 1


Henry Elvins Spencer: I have a newspaper clipping which states that during the year 1927 more than 6,000 Hungarians will come into Canada. Is that statement true?


Robert Forke: I do not know anything
whatever about it.


Edward Joseph Garland: I want to associate myself in one regard with the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington and that is with reference to the assimilability of certain immigrants. The Canadian Pacific Railway under this iniquitous permit system has brought into Canada in one year a total of
21,000	immigrants, 7,000 of whom were Men-nonites who were unassimilable. There is no one who knows better than the Minister of Immigration himself the defects of that type of people. In my constituency they are spreading their holdings into the best wheat farming districts. They are good pay, as the vernacular has it, and they will go into a district and buy land from the private settler, and the moment they do so community life begins to lag. They take no interest in the welfare of the district and will not take part in any of our organization meetings.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You cannot blame them
for not coming to your meetings.


Edward Joseph Garland: Nor will
they attend Conservative meetings. They do not engage in any community work. As soon as they settle in a district there becomes evident a falling off in these activities. It has been contended that after one or two generations, these people become used to our customs and. are almost wholly Canadian. I deny that. The experience in Manitoba where the Mennonites first settled is altogether to the contrary. In the course of time one or two or three individuals may break away from the group. These men having developed some individuality of their own resent the shackling influences of the organization to which they belong and, throwing them off, they become effective citizens. But the majority stay right where they are in the little colony group. They do not exercise the franchise nor do they share in any respect in the responsibilities of citizenship. They are not citizens and they do not become Canadians.


Alan Webster Neill: Do they become naturalized?


Edward Joseph Garland: If they
are forced to, but many of them do not bother their heads about it. The bulk of them are unwilling to become Canadians. Now I have

Supply-I immigration
no objection to these people on the ground of their religion, for I am absolutely tolerant of all forms of belief. I am not worried about that. I do say however that the minister is not justified in issuing permits to the Canadian Pacific Railway to bring in large numbers of unassimilable people.


Arthur Edward Ross: How many of them have moved away?


Edward Joseph Garland: A small section, not a material number. In my own province their colonies have been steadily growing. They are spreading out and their holdings this year are larger than they have been within my memory.


Arthur Edward Ross: I understood that many thousands had moved to Mexico, taking with them some $7,000,000.


Edward Joseph Garland: Some of
them went away, but I do not remember the exact number. The minister would be well advised to give this matter his serious consideration. Mr. Coats, a man for whom I have the deepest admiration and respect, a few years ago wrote an article for the Polak Institution of the United States, the most advanced scientific research organization on the North American continent. The article appeared under the title Immigration Programme of Canada, and in it Mr. Coats pointed out clearly as no other writer on the subject has done, that the reason for the tremendous influx of settlers into Canada in the early years of the century was to be found in the enormous expansion of credit and in the existence of free lands.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And railway construction.


Edward Joseph Garland: Exactly.
There has been in recent years no such expansion of credit. I admit that this year there is an indication that credit is loosening up, and the minister may find it not so difficult to place men satisfactorily as the department has done in the past. A reference to the figures of the Immigration department will convince one of the insanity of a vast immigration scheme until we have learned how to keep at home the people we already have. I have a return from the Bureau of Statistics covering recent years. The facts regarding the more distant past are already on Hansard but it will be interesting to look at the figures more recently available. In 1924 we brought to Canada 124,450 immigrants. Our natural increase was 91,398. In 1925 we brought 84,907 and our natural increase was 88,384. By natural increase is meant the net of those
who live over those who die. In 1926 the figures for the eleven months from January to November are 130,569 while the natural increase is estimated at 89,000. So that in three years we brought in 339,926 immigrants, and the natural increase amounted to 268,782. At the end of 1923 the total population of Canada was 9,150,940. Add to that the immigration for three years of 339,926 and the natural increase of 268,782 and you have a grand total, showing what we should have had if we kept our immigrants and our natural increase, of 9,759,648. But the census bureau reports an actual population of 9,390,300, and we therefore must find out what happened to 369,348 people. While our total immigration was 339,926, the actual statistics prove that we lost a number equivalent to all we brought in and 29,422 in addition.
There is a story I would like to tell which some hon. members may have heard before. Many years ago in the medical profession there was a method of testing the sanity of a person whose mental balance was questioned. If a policeman arrested a man on the street and suspected him of being in an unsafe condition, he would be taken t'o the police station and a local medical man called in. The medical officer would take this poor chap into the yard at the back of the station and show him a wooden barrel which had a lot of little holes punched around the bottom, and he would tell the man to take a pail and fill up the barrel from a tub of water in the yard. If the man kept walking patiently to and fro from the barrel to the tub with pailfuls of water, without paying attention to the fact that the water was running out, he would be put away where he would be safe; if he protested against this labour he was adjudged sane, and released. If that proof of sanity were applied to the policy of the Department of Immigration, undoubtedly the judgment would be that the policy in the past has been an insane one, because we are not learning how to keep our people in the country; we do not seem to be able to keep either the immigrants or the natural increase here. Under these conditions may I point out just one fact at the moment. There is not to my knowledge, and I challenge the minister to indicate where there is, one single industry in Canada suffering from lack of labour, nor is there a locality suffering from the same thing; as a matter of fact, the contrary is the ease. As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) indicated, the cities on the Pacific coast', the cities of eastern Canada and even those of the prairie provinces are today carrying large numbers of unemployed,
Supply-I mmigration

and have been doing so for some time. Only yesterday a man came to my house here in Ottawa and asked for work, any kind of work I could give him; he said, "All I want is work," and he was a decent, clean looking fellow. He wanted a job doing anything, cleaning up the yard, cleaning up the basement or anything at all. He said, " I have walked from Hideau street t'his morning asking for a job from house to house, and I could not get it." An hon. member has said that sort of thing happens in Hamilton every day, .tnd I have no doubt that' is the case. Then we have another example taken from the Toronto Evening Telegram dated April 13, 1927:
Hungarians Seek Work Factories are Besieged
Found conditions in west not what was expected-foreigners drift eastward in search of work.
Oshawa, April 13.

Disgruntled at finding their dreams-
I submit that should not be called a dream, Mr. Chairman; these men were pledged a proper job before they came here, and the position was deliberately misrepresented to them either by the agents of this administration or of the steamship companies, or possibly both.
-of steady employment in the western provinces shattered, hundreds of Hungarians have arrived here in the past few months searching for work in factories or as labourers.
We heard a moment ago that only agricultural help was being brought to Canada, and the absurdity of that position is demonstrated a hundred times a year.
So acute has the situation become that an official request will be made to the Department of Immigration at Ottawa to take some action to remedy the condition.
I have in my hand a telegram which I received just the other day and which I have already placed on Hansard in connection with another debate, but as it affects the problem of immigration I would call it again to the attention of the minister:
Immigrants arriving Drumheller promised work coal mines quite number here now without funds and charge on community. Please advise government unless they can provide work through Ontario market to have immigrants directed elsewhere. Our own unemployment problem with mines closed too serious to countenance further immigration here.
This is signed by the Drumheller Board of Trade, the members of which I happen to know, and I want to assure hon. members that on that board there is not a single working miner. It is composed of the industrialists of the town, the operators who own the mines, 
the business and professional men and others. These men are of the class the administration and opposition would call responsible citizens, and they have signed this telegram pleading with the administration not to send any more immigrants there, especially those promised work, as they cannot take care of the unemployment existing in that district at the moment. I cannot understand the policy of the administration. I do not know why it is being carried on in this way, and as a matter of fact I find it difficult to analyse it at all. They allege that they are bringing to this country only domestic help, experienced farmers and their families and men willing to go on farms as inexperienced farm help. Under the deliberate policy of misrepresentation, the administration is permitting to come into this country men who are not agriculturists at all, who do not go on the land but who drift into the cities.
Now let us turn to another phase of the question. Why should only agricultural help be brought to Canada? Why should that particular restrictive policy be adopted? I would like to ask hon. members of this House who are lawyers what they would think of an immigration policy not only which would propose to bring lawyers here and only lawyers, to enter info competition with them, but which would assist the passage of those lawyers from other lands and, having brought them to Canada, would then proceed to assist them with loans in order that they might the more readily compete with the lawyers of the country. The same policy might be applied to every retail business man, every professional man and to every person in what we call the middle class condition in Canada. Apply it in that way, and you get a truer reflection of the present discriminatory policy of the administration. The minister chuckles and laughs at the suggestion; I presume that is it, or else his deputy has told him a joke. It may be nervousness, but I doubt it; I hardly think he could be nervous because he likes this discussion. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that a policy so grossly unfair to agriculture in this country is not countenanced by the farmers and is not supported by them, and in spite of the allegations of the Toronto Telegram, the Toronto Globe and other eastern newspapers, let me say that every organized group of farmers in Canada have protested time and again against this policy. And what is the reply? The reply is a continuation of the policy, that is all, with, shall I say, an accretion of injustice. In former days it was just a case of bringing these men in if they had money to the amount of $25, or

Supply-Immigration
something like that. But now we are not satisfied with that policy. We are going to assist colony settlement. We are going to buy the land, build the house, break so much land, and supply these men with stock, such as a cow, a couple of pigs and so on, so that they can start farming. That is part of the policy that is aided and abetted by the present administration. I do not know that it is of any use for me to continue a discussion of this kind.


Mr. VALLANCE:: May I ask the hon.
member a question?


Edward Joseph Garland: Just a
moment until I get through this sentence. I have protested in every way and appealed to the administration not to destroy the effective force overseas engaged in checking the mental and physical qualities of intending immigrants.
I have protested against the continued pouring out of the money of the taxpayers of this country on. various policies of immigration, against spending three millions a year for three years with the result that all we can show is a net loss of 29,422, a loss equivalent to all the immigrants we have brought in. Such a policy as that should be no longer countenanced by this country. Until either the economic condition of Canada is altered by wise and effective legislation, until some change takes place in the whole social and economic structure of Canada the administration is no longer justified in spending money in bringing to this country men who may in rare instances succeed but who in the majority of instances will only add to the load of taxation which rests on the shoulders of the farmers of this country, and which the Minister of Finance has made all the greater by 'his income tax reductions. Now I am willing to answer my hon. friend's question.


John Vallance: Do you believe that the placing, we will say, of an agriculturist with a family of five on a farm warrants us in placing an industrialist in some urban centre in eatern Canada? Does not the one take care of the other?


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes.


John Vallance: Well then you and I
agree.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am not
sure that we do.


John Vallance: We do in this respect.


Edward Joseph Garland: Supply-Immigration

partmental officials. That is all I wish to say at the moment on this question. I wish to protest vigorously against the continued expenditure of the public money on a forced immigration policy. I would not stop people coming here who are physically fit, men and women who are willing to take their chance with the rest; let them come by all means. But keep an effective! force for the purpose of carefully checking the health and fitness of these people who propose to come. Do not put too many obstacles in the way of their coming here if they want to come, but do not continue to spend money on deliberately false propaganda that misleads and deceives the unfortunate immigrant and causes him to suffer after he comes to this country.


John Vallance: With reference to the
question I asked the hon. member for Bow River, I believe it is correct that for every agriculturist with a family that you can place on a farm in any country, you can place in the urban centres an industrialist. As far as the British Isles are concerned, I believe, as the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) said the other day, talking to a gathering of ladies in the Chateau Laurier, that the development of Canada is in. the north country. I believe that the greatest development for some considerable period will be that of the agricultural possibilities of the north country, and I believe that the conditions there are such that the British immigrants will not come in and take advantage of them. There is no use in sidestepping that fact. The conditions in the north are such that he will not take advantage of them. So I contend, and I have argued with the Minister of Immigration, that the individual we want in there-and with this I think most of us from western Canada will agree, is the man with the sheepskin coat. And for every one of them that you put into the north country, you can place a British immigrant in the urban centres, if he wishes to go there. So far as British immigration is concerned, I do not see any good use of bringing these people here, if we only intend to place them in the north country to engage in development work. 1 was much amused at the illustration given by the hon. member for Bow River about an individual emptying water into a barrel. The only trouble there was that the wrong material was being put into the barrel. It could not contain water, but it might have contained something else. I believe that he

proved that the immigrant we were bringing in was the wrong type of immigrant because he would not stay. What we want is the chap who will stay.


Mr. BROWN:: It is certainly not my desire to delay the passing of these estimates, but I cannot allow the remarks made by the hon. member for Bow River to go un-[DOT] challenged. I am not going to deal with all the subject matter of his speech but I wish to speak particularly of the special class to whom he referred, and that is the Mennon-ites. Now it so happens that in my constituency I have nearly all, if not all, of the Mennonites in Manitoba-


Edward Joseph Garland: I have three separate colonies in mine.


John Livingstone Brown: -and as evidence that they are intelligent people, I may mention that the oftener I run the more Mennonite votes I get. If there is any better proof of their intelligence than that, I do not know where it can be found. The hon. member's statements are entirely too sweeping. There is a class of Mennonites, who, as he says, do not seem willing to assimilate and who have held themselves aloof. Many of those people who refuse to conform to our school laws have migrated to Mexico, but the statement that the Mennonites will not and do not make good settlers is absolutely without foundation. I could take hon. members into Mennonite colonies in southern Manitoba and show them some of the most progressive farmers and the finest type of people in that part of the country. I had the privilege last fall, after the election, of being invited to a school teachers' convention that was conducted almost entirely by Mennonites. It was purely a Mennonite community, and a group of young men school teachers were there who are the hope of Canada. They had ideals of the very highest. Therefore, when these sweeping statements are made, I must protest.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is it not true that I stated that in the evolutionary process we throw off individuals of the type that the hon. member has just mentioned, but the colony settlement to which I referred still exists?


John Livingstone Brown: These people still live in their colonies, and the fact that they have lived there by themselves since the early seventies has in some measure prevented them from assimilating with the rest

Supply-Soldier Land Settlement
of the people of Canada and taking part in their citizenship. But the point which I wish to emphasize is that that' condition of things is rapidly passing away. What the hon. member says is only partly true. Among these people we have some of the finest people in Manitoba to-day. I think I owe it to my constituents to make that statement.


Arthur Edward Ross: In what year did these Mennonites move away?


John Livingstone Brown: They moved away largely
three or four years ago.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is that not since
the hon. member became member for that district?


John Livingstone Brown: They were moving away
just at that time. They were the least intelligent ones who moved away.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Why did they move
away?


John Livingstone Brown: They were what we call the "Old Colony" Mennonites who refused to conform to the school laws of Manitoba and for conscience sake-and I think they were very much mistaken-they migrated to Mexico.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required for soldier land settlement advances and cost of administration of soldier settlement $1,475,000 Amount required for general land settlement advances and cost of administration of general land settlement	 1,900,000

The CHAIRMAN:: Shall this item carry?
Carried.


Robert Gardiner: Who said that this item was carried? It has not even been discussed.


John Frederick Johnston: I did.


Robert Gardiner: I wish to protest against this method of conducting business. We were discussing the immigration estimates and while that discussion was going on, no one heard you call this item. In fact you are not entitled to pass these items as long as the discussion is going on.


John Frederick Johnston: I certainly called vote No. 288, and I gave the amount.


Robert Gardiner: I suggest that we have a reasonable pause between the carrying of one item and the calling of the next one.
32049-1604	I r I ^ gn


John Frederick Johnston: I am sure my hon.
friend will realize that it is now five o'clock and we have passed only two items to-day, so that there must have been a pause somewhere.


Robert Gardiner: Are we going to discuss item 288?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Mr. KELLNER:: In connection with the
activities undertaken by the department in the way of providing ready-made farms, for instance drilling wells, breaking land and constructing buildings, is that provided for by calling for tenders, or how are the contracts let?


Robert Forke: By tender.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: On the Saddle lake reserve how much breaking has been contracted for, and at what price per acre?


Robert Forke: Forty acres and 51 units. That will be forty times fifty-one. The price is roughly $5.50 per acre, the land to be disced once.


Robert Gardiner: Has the government
come to any conclusion regarding taxes on soldier settlement lands now owned by the board? This is a very important matter in connection with western Canada.


Robert Forke: Some little time ago a delegation from the three prairie provinces representing the municipal unions met a committee of the government and entered into negotiations. I think we came to an amicable settlement whereby from now on there will be no further dispute in regard to the taxes on soldier settlement land.


Robert Gardiner: The Soldier Settlement board have under their control certain lands which are leased. What is the policy with regard to those lands that are leased to private persons?


Robert Forke: The rental has always gone first to pay the taxes.


Robert Gardiner: The minister means
that a portion of the rent received by the Soldier Settlement board is used to pay taxes on the land.


Robert Forke: I know since I have come
into the department I have received thanks for the amount of money the municipalities have been paid in connection with taxes on leased lands.


Robert Gardiner: The reason I ask the
question is because I have received com-
2536	COMMONS
Supply-Soldier Land Settlement
munications from many municipalities which claim that no taxes are paid on those leased lands, to the detriment of the school districts and the municipalities themselves. Is there any reason why there should be a different policy in one district from that in another?


Robert Forke: From now on the matter
will be looked into.


Mr. WARD:: Is it the intention of the
Soldier Settlement Board or the government to pay taxes on soldier settlement land that has reverted to the crown? Is it t'he intention to reimburse the municipalities in any way for the loss of those taxes?


Robert Forke: In connection with lands
that have been abandoned, the department has always paid all taxes up to the time that the settler abandoned the land. The department has recognized the fact that it has to pay those taxes in any case and perhaps it will be better for the municipalities to see that they are paid every year up to date, because it is realized that so long as the man is on the land we shall have to pay 'the taxes anyway. We have just dealt with cases where lands have been rented. As regards lands that have reverted to the crown and are yet unsettled, the policy of the department is to sell those lands as rapidly as po^ible. The representatives of the municipalities were so well satisfied with the arrangement we made with regard to future taxes on those lands that they were not pressing that point very much if we undertook as a matter of policy to dispose of those lands as rapidly as we could. Unfortunately some of these lands in Manitoba are not very good. I have not discussed the matter so far, but my private opinion would be that I would be quite willing to hand over some of these lands and let the municipalities have them for the taxes.


Robert Gardiner: Is that land of no
agricultural value? I understand the department has two thousand farms of that nature. Has the department any policy in the matter?


Robert Forke: We discussed that matter
with the delegates of the municipalities, and although we did not formulate any policy, perhaps in the near future we shall have a thorough survey made of all lands in possession of the crown, and those that we do not think are fit for agricultural purposes, I think I may safely say) will be handed over to the municipalities if they are willing to take *them.

Mr. GARDIN'ER:	From time to time
certain contracts to returned soldiers are cancelled. No doubt many of these contracts have had to be cancelled because of the fact that in the first instance the cost of the land was too high. In view of the fact that the revaluation bill has passed both houses of parliament, would the minister take into consideration the possibility of delaying any cancellation of contract until such time as there is a possibility of having a revaluation of these lands merely to give these men some chance of staying on the land, rather than turning them off the land at this time?


Robert Forke: I will read the instructions
sent to the general supervisor, as follows:
The general situation and the board's instructions are exactly as I gave them in my wire, that foreclosure is not to be adopted where there is any possible hope of most generous revaluation rehabilitating a man, but where his position is utterly hopeless then, of course, we do not see how we should, in the interests of the man himself, forego taking action that is essential.


Robert Gardiner: It might be all right
if that were determined by the proper officer, but you have in the employment of this board men who probably do not understand the conditions as fairly as they might understand them. I suggest therefore that instead of leaving it whollj' and solely to the recommendation of the supervisor or the district superintendent, for the time being and until we see see what revaluation will do for these men, cancellation of contract should be discontinued, so long as the soldier is willing to stay on the land.


Mr. PARENT:: My hon. friend might have said all that when the budget was on.


Robert Gardiner: I did not take up that
subject, and if I wish to make any remarks now I will do so. If we are given a fair opportunity for discussion we will put the estimates through. I suggest that under the circumstances, taking into consideration what these men have passed through and' the possibility of giving them some redress through revaluation, you adopt the policy which will give the best possible consideration to the men.
I spoke this afternoon about the situation in this regard. I have had communications from returned men who have been accepted by the board as being entitled to farms when they qualify. I do not know how many of these men still require farms, but there are some. In view of the agreement entered into between this government and the British

Supply-House of Commons
government, the matter is exercising the minds of the returned men, because these 3,000 farms are allocated to other men and they cannot find farms for themselves. Let me suggest that all the returned men should be satisfied, so far as then demands for farms are concerned, before consideration is given to others. Oan we be sure that these returned men, who still ask for farms and are entitled to them, will be given consideration and their wants supplied first?


Robert Forke: I might say my hon. friend's
wishes will be met as far as possible. Of course, they have delayed a long time. If they had taken action two years ago they would have been in a different position. The farms were vacant and some of the lands have been sold for taxes. Something had to be done. The three thousand-family scheme has been criticized and we thought better to place men on the farms which were not occupied. I think the returned soldiers have been leniently dealt with on the whole. On the resale of these lands we find in some cases, the department is getting better prices for the abandoned farms than the soldiers paid for them.


Robert Gardiner: I can quite understand
that where the conditions are improving. In some cases the returned man has 'held on because of price conditions, and I commend him for his judgment, but that does not solve the problem. I 'hope the minister will give full consideration to the demands of these men so that they will be satisfied.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Legislation-House of Commons
Salaries	_ ..$ 231,645 00
Expenses of committees, clerical
assistance, etc	 101,950 000
Contingencies	
47,265	00Publishing debates	
60,000	00Estimates of Sergeant-at-Arms..	187,231	10
Mr. COOTE:: I desire to say a word or
two about the services around the House of Commons at the time of prorogation. I think that we might have the services of some of the messengers after the House prorogues. Sometimes after prorogation the messenger service is required and it is cut out.


Hewitt Bostock: In compliance with the
request of hon. members on both sides, I may inform the House that I have consented to the continuance of a limited messenger service for a short time following prorogation.
Mr, WARD: Will we have the services of a few stenographers for a short time?


Hewitt Bostock: I have also considered
that matter and have recommended that for two or three days after the session members shall be able to secure the services of stenographers and that they shall also have access to blue books and parliamentary documents.


William John Ward: I have heard that the Post
Office Department has been instructed not to carry our files, books and other matter that we wish to send home by mail, but that they would have to be parcelled together and sent by express.


An hon. MEMBER:: Too bad.


Hewitt Bostock: That is a matter for
the Post Office Department, and I think the minister who has charge of that department will yield to my request when I ask him to permit members to send these documents by mail.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To increase the salary of the secretary to the leader of the opposition from $3,000 to $3,960 per annum
from April 1, 1927	$	960 00
To provide for the full sessional indemnity to members of the House of Commons-days lost through absence caused by illness, official public business, or on account of death during the present session

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in chapter 10 of the revised statutes, an act respecting _ the Senate and House of Commons, or any amendments thereto. Payment to be made as the Treasury
Board may	direct	
25,000	00To provide for the salary of the Deputy Speaker from December 14, 1926, to March 31, 1927, inclusive	
1,193	54
To hereby appoint D. Barbes, J. W.
Gibson, as principal clerks at $2,280 each; H. Gilchen, J. P.
Doyle, E. Guerin, M. E. McEwan, and J. U. Emard, as clerks, grade 4, at $1,800 each from April 1,
1927, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act
or amendments	thereto	 13,560	00
To authorize indemnity to the Right Honourable Arthur Meighen, leader of the opposition for the period September 26 to October 11, 1926,
inclusive	 434	59
To authorize remuneration of A.
Chasse, private secretary to the leader of the opposition for the period September 26 to October 11,
1926, inclusive, at the rate of $5
per diem	*	80	00
*41.228 13
[Stage Direction]
Supply-House of Commons
James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to
have details of the appointment of D. Barbes, J. W. Gibson and the others mentioned in this item.	1


Hewitt Bostock: When the Civil Service
Commission reorganized all the departments and reclassified the employees it dealt somewhat summarily with the staff of the House of Commons and the Senate. Let me say that so far the Senate has refused to fully recognize the authority of the Civil Service Commission. A certain number of the employees of this House are classified by the Civil Service Commission, and I may say that at the present time there is a strong agitation amongst the officials for a reorganization and reclassification. With a view to carrying this into effect I have had two meetings of the Board of Internal Economy, and as a result the Civil Service Commission will be asked to recast the organization and classification of our branch of the legislature.
I am very glad the hon. gentleman has asked this question. All the employees mentioned in the vote have 'been in the service of the House of Commons for many years. The classification in their individual cases not having been made, I took from the Board of Internal Economy authority to bring the matter before the Treasury Board. I may say that between the Department of Justice and the Civil Service Commission there seems to be a difference of opinion as regards those of our employees who for a number of years have, nominally, been temporary, but actually have been permanent, for they are in the permanent service of this House. I may say, without giving names, that the members of the commission have agreed that the only way to settle this question was to bring forward thofe cases for the ratification of parliament.
Now, I should like the committee to remember that, without claiming we are above all laws, there are ancient and well-established privileges appertaining to parliament. Before his death the late Sir John Bourinot-who, as hon. members know, is frequently quoted in this parliament and in the other parliaments of the empire as an authority on parliamentary procedure1-in a memorandum which I have before me claimed that the parliament of Canada in regard to its internal economy, the appointment of its employees and servants, is above all commissions. I do not say that I am quite ready, especially now that we have a Civil Service Commission, to pass over that commission; but if I am not trespassing on the time of the committee I should like to read a few extracts from this

memorandum. It has been printed, and I intend to have it circulated to apprise members of parliament of the ancient and well-established privileges which appertain to this great inquest of the nation. Says Sir John Bourinot:
The House, it has been well said, "has always asserted the right to provide for the constitution of its own body, the right to regulate its own proceedings and the right to enforce its privileges, etc."
Further, he says:
The control and management of the officers of the Houses are as completely within the privileges of the Houses as necessary to the conservation of dignity and the efficient conduct of public business, by a legislative body, as any regulation of its own proceedings within its own walls."
Again, he says:
When it was deemed advisable to apply the Superannuation Act to the officers and servants, no attempt was made to apply it to the Senate and House of Commons by an order in council, or by any arbitrary exercise of the royal prerogative, but a clause was added to include in express and definite terms "the permanent officers and servants of the Senate and House of Commons and the permanent officers of the Library of Parliament," and these words were added in express recognition of the powers, privileges and immunities of the Commons:
I would draw the attention of hon. gentlemen to these words:
"Saving all rights and privileges of either House in respect to the appointment or removal of the officers and servants."
'Sir John Bourinot continues:
No general statute or order in council can override the privileges, immunities and powers of the Commons in this particular. As the prerogatives of the crown can only be given away or delegated to others by the consent of the crown, stated in express terms, so the rights, privileges and immunities of the two branches of the legislature cannot be taken away by implication or by the vague terms of any statute, but only by the express words of the law as in the ease of the enactments previously cited, or by the express resolution of the Houses, as in the case of the Audit Act, the general terms of which might be considered by some applicable to the two houses of parliament, but were only made so in fact by resolutions passed separately in the Senate and Commons, which enabled the officers of those houses to act thereupon.
Further, he says:
The houses being the judges of their own privileges, and having the sole regulation of their own procedure and proceedings, it is for them alone to control those instruments which are necessary for the effectiveness and accuracy of those proceedings. If the clerks and officers who are subject to these regulations, and necessary for the efficient conduct of the public business of the House, are subject at any moment to the inquiry and examination by persons commissioned only by the executive

Supply-House oj Commons
authority, and not duly authorized by the Houses themselves for that express object, the officers and servants of the houses cannot act with freedom, fidelity and obedience to their legal masters.
Let me say once more that I do not wish in any way to ignore the Civil Service Commission. In fact, if I wanted to be reminiscent I might say that in the old days I was one of its staunchest supporters, and I am still. But there are privileges and powers appertaining to parliament which must not be ignored.	[DOT]
Now, in the present instance there is no quarrel between the Civil Service Commission and the House of Commons. The names set out in this item are the names of old and faithful officers of the House of Commons who have served for many years and have given thorough satisfaction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Hewitt Bostock: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it not correct that the first name on that list is the wife of a gentleman who occupies a position in the Public Works department? The effect of this will be to make her the first permanent married woman to be engaged in the service since the Civil Service Act was passed, and this is being done in violation of section 36 of the statute.


Hewitt Bostock: I am glad the hon. member has brought the matter to the notice of the House. There is absolutely nothing to hide so far as this appointment is concerned. It is true that Mrs. Barbes is married, but she has been seventeen years in the service of the House. Before her marriage she was employed in the House of Commons and in July last she was approached by Senator L'Esper-ance who promised her permanency if she would1 become the secretary of a gentleman who is highly trusted by my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Bennett). I will send him a letter I have received in this connection. There is a precedent also. The late assistant secretary to the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen was Mrs. Helmer. She was paid by the House of Commons although her husband also had a government position. Afterwards she became secretary to Sir Henry Drayton.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But this is the first appointment of the kind which is being made permanent, and it is done in violation of section 36 of the act.	.


Hewitt Bostock: I appeal to the sense of justice of the committee whether I should deprive a faithful servant, who has been seventeen years in the service of the House and who has given excellent satisfaction in every respect, of the pension to which she would be entitled had she been unmarried. I do submit that such an action would be hardly fair to Mrs. Barbes, and may I point out moreover that if this item passes she will receive less as permanent than she did as a. temporary employee. I am therefore simply-carrying out a promise made to this lady by the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen in the month of July last after dissolution, through Senator L'Esperance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would vote against it equally if he did it.


Hewitt Bostock: If Mrs. Barbes had left the service of the Speaker for the Prime Minister's office she would have been made permanent. In a sense I am merely implementing that promise. Even though it may appear to be contrary to the letter of the law, I appeal to my hon. friend, who is a parliamentarian and a constitutional authority, whether it is not a fact that we have powers and privileges over and above the provisions of the Civil Service Act. I would not for a moment ignore the Civil Service Commission, but I submit that there are special cases such as this which must be faced and disposed of and I have considered the present case on its merits and have dealt with it honourably.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Speaker of this
House has properly indicated that the House of Commons has great privileges, and it must be remembered that these privilegs belong to the House and not to His Honour. That is point No. 1. In the second place, let us remember that the government in this instance is not charged with responsibility. Under our parliamentary institutions the government in this case is merely the medium for intimating to the House what ought to be done. These estimates could not come before the House as such unless some member of the government submitted them, and the Speaker is the medium between the House and the government, just as a minister who submits his estimates is the instrument of the House to enable those estimates to be brought in for consideration. We as law-makers should not be law-breakers. As those who framed the civil service law of the country we should not be the first to break it. Our right to ignore the act is undoubted, but the exercise of that power is injurious to the people of

Supply-House of Commons
this country in more ways than one. In the first place the present proposal creates the possibility of two pensions in one family. It gives a salary of between $5,000 and 16,000 to a husband and wife, and this the parliament of Canada, both the House of Commons and the Senate, has declared by section 36 of the Civil Service Act, to be illegal. I submit therefore that we should not at this time, in view of the present commitments of the public treasury, create a precedent such as this with full knowledge of the step we are taking. I suggest to His Honour the Speaker that he would be well advised to withdraw this item from the estimates. This would be the wisest course in the interests of Canada as a whole, as well as in the interests of the administration of law throughout the country.
There is another aspect of the question which I may briefly comment upon. These names seem to have been selected with singular lack of discrimination. I do not believe the House of Commons would make such a selection. We go down into the office to receive our cheques in payment of our sessional indemnity and to make our declaration. What do we find? The office is overstaffed and one gentleman who has very little to do sits in a chair while another man who has been there many years is not considered at all. I do not believe that reflects the mind of the House. When the Speaker acts as the medium of communication between the House and its servants, he assumes a position of judicial responsibility and in the selection of the appointees he should have regard to the general feeling of the House taken as a whole. I do not believe the Prime Minister would consider that justice was being done by the selection of one or two of these officials to the exclusion of others who, to the certain knowledge of the oldest members of the House, have greater claims. This is a disagreeable thing to stand up and speak about; yet in the very nature of things we must see to it that the House of Commons shall not become an instrument of injustice to its servants. The Speaker may err in his selections, because we have striking evidence over his own signature of his strong partisanship in the removal of thirty-four postmasters in Gaspe. Men in high, responsible positions may sometimes become partisans and it is because of that fact that I rise now, as my last act at this session, to protest against this injustice which is being done deserving public servants through discrimination. I ask the House,

regardless of politics, to assert our ancient authority-which is ours and not the Speaker's -and to determine that we who have made the laws will not break them. That is all I intend to say regarding this matter.


Hewitt Bostock: Regarding the case of
Mrs. Barbes, I desire to read to the committee the following letter:
Ottawa, April 14, 1927. Honourable Rodolphe Lemieux,
Speaker, House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Speaker:
I do solemnly declare that the Sunday following dissolution of parliament, last July, I was offered the position of French secretary to the Rt. Honourable Arthur Meighen, then Prime Minister of Canada, with the promise that I would be made permanent.
Yours truly,
(Signed) D. Barbes,
Secretary to the Speaker.
I repeat, I am only carrying out the promise of the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen to this lady through Senator L'Esperance, who offered her the position. There is no party bias in any of these appointments; I might say that one of the names mentioned is that of a very prominent Conservative family, but I did not hesitate, because I thought he should get that promotion. I have consulted the Board of Internal Economy and this is not done, as the hon. gentleman has said, upon the whim of the Speaker; so why exaggerate in that fashion? The Speaker comes before his masters, first the Board of Internal Economy, then the Treasury Board and finally the House of Commons, and if the House says no the Speaker will have to obey. I do not assert any undue authority; the Treasury Board has passed on this item, but it is the privilege of this House to say no, and in that case I have nothing further to say.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I am sure
that in this matter His Honour the Speaker has acted, as he has just said, not only with the best of intentions but in wha-t he regarded as a chivalrous manner. I confess, however, that I agree with my hon. friend opposite (Mr. Bennett) when he says that we are in no way bound to recognize any promises or pledges made by Mir. Meighen when he came into office, and which he himself found it impossible to carry out. I think in this matter the House should assert its rights and I hope His Honour the Speaker will be able to see his way to withdraw these names, at least for the present.


Hewitt Bostock: If the Minister of Finance will move that this item be dropped I will make no objection.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Do I understand
that all these names are included?


Hewitt Bostock: Yes, the whole item.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then I have a word to say, Mr. Chairman, on the principle involved rather than with regard to any one particular case, as I am not familiar with any of them. I would like to say in passing that I do not think the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) was quite fair ini his reference to s* murried womifljii receiving & salary and being entitled to a pension, because if I understand it correctly there is a large number of married women in the service at present, and unless there is a general rule laid down to exclude all married women it does not seem to me that that particular criticism applies in this case.


Hugh Guthrie: This is where the husband is also in the service.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am informed that 'there is a large number whose husbands are also in the service.


Charles A. Stewart: Can my hon. friend give specific cases? There is no chance in the world of appointing a married woman under existing conditions.


James Shaver Woodsworth: 
James Alexander Robb: I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Dunning, that in item 452 all the words after "hereby appointed" down to and including "or amendments thereto" be struck out, and that the item be reduced by $13,560.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
John Evans: Before this vote is passed I would like to direct a question or two to the Speaker of this House. I would like to know if the position of leader of the opposition is a constitutional appointment, and by what right the leader of the Conservative party or of the Liberal party becomes the leader of the opposition, entitled to receive an added salary. Under what parliamentary rule does he get that right? Seeing that there will now be three parties perhaps more evenly balanced in the future than they are to-day, I think some definite rule should be made with regard to this matter. Less than two years ago the present official opposition was a smaller party than the third group in this House. I would like to know by what rule and right this is done?	.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I would like the hon. gentleman to tell me if the group over there considers itself in opposition to the government?


Hewitt Bostock: In answer to the hon. gentleman, if he will look at the House of Commons Act, Chapter 69, 10-11 George V, he will see the following under section 39:
To the member occupying the recognized position of leader of the opposition in the House of Commons, there shall be payable in addition to liis sessional allowance an annual allowance of ten thousand dollars.


Robert Gardiner: I would like to ask His Honour the Speaker-
Supply-House of Commons


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Before the hon. Mr. ROBB: I think it >is fair to the Ri<*ht gentleman speaks, may I ask the hon. mem- Hon. Mr. Meighen to say that when the ber for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) for an answer Prime Minister learned in October that he to my question?	had not been paid for a period while he was


Robert Gardiner: In view of the statute, which His Honour the Speaker has just read, may I ask why it is necessary for this item of $424.59 to appear in the supplementary estimates as salary to Mr. Meighen as leader of the official opposition?


Hewitt Bostock: This item, as I understand it, was submitted to the Minister of Finance and not to myself. I know that after the election there was some little talk about the balance of salary due to Mr. Meighen. No application was made by Mr. Meighen but it was reported that I should give orders that he be paid as leader of the opposition from the date of his resignation as Prime Minister. Therefore he was paid from the day of his resignation as Prime Minister up to the day of the swearing in of the new minister. The new leader of the opposition was selected in the month of November, I think.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: On October 11th.


Hewitt Bostock: Very well, October 11th.
I was ready to pay the right hon. gentleman, but Colonel Cameron, who is accountant of the House of Commons, pointed out to me first of all that no application had been received from Mr. Meighen. In the next place he referred me to the statute which I have just quoted. I was familiar with it, of course, because I was in the House when the act was passed. Under that statute the allowance is only paid to the member occupying the recognized position of leader of the opposition in the House of Commons. The main estimates provide for what I could not legally pay. What is provided for here is the balance which is claimed from the day Mr. Meighen resigned as Prime Minister until the day when the hon. gentleman who now occupies the position of leader of the opposition was elected by his party. It is a very small amount. The request was made I understand, to the Minister of Finance, and this amount was placed, and properly placed, where it is in the estimates. That is all I know about the matter.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Did I understand you to say, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. gentleman had made application for this money?


Hewitt Bostock: He never made any application to me.

leader of the opposition, provision was made to pay him, and a cheque was sent to Mr. Meighen. Then on the 2nd April last, Mr. Meighen wrote directing attention to the fact that he 'had not been paid for that period from the date of the election until October 11th. We calculated the period from September 26th to October 11th, when my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) was made leader, and an amount of $434.59 was put in the estimates to clean the matter up.


John Livingstone Brown: Is it in accordance with the statute that a man who was not a member of the House of Commons should be paid as leader of the opposition?


James Alexander Robb: I have not gone into that
phase of the matter.


Robert Gardiner: Is it to be understood
that this is in the nature of a compassionate allowance? Surely that is not the position we are going to place the late Prime Minister of this country in.


James Alexander Robb: I should like to make it clear that the government is not putting Mr. Meighen in that position. It was Mr. Meighen who directed our attention to the fact that he was entitled to that amount of money, and we are submitting the item to the House.


John Warwick King: Perhaps I
should say that this is another case, in which I think the Commons itself will have to assert its own right and authority. After the general elections when Mr. Meighen retired from office though still continuing in the position of leader of the opposition I was informed by an hon. member of this House that Mr. Meighen had been refused the use of a frank, that he had been told that his secretaries could not receive any payment, and that his own salary as leader of the opposition had been cut off. It was represented to me that in Mr. Meighen's mind I was responsible for that very summary procedure. I confess I was very surprised when I discovered that Mr. Meighen had been treated in this manner and I communicated with His Honour the Speaker requesting that Mr. Meighen should be given the rights and privileges to which I thought he was entitled.
I received word from His Honour the Speaker that Mr. Meighen could not legally be paid any amount on account of the statute governing the situation. I recognized that the

Supply-House oj Commons
situation was a difficult and complicated one, and I personally spoke to Mr. Meighen about it. Mr. Meighen expressed some surprise at what had occurred and seemed to feel that the government that had just taken office was not acting towards him in a manner that in the circumstances was justified. I told him that what had occurred was contrary to anything in my own mind, and that if his own frank was not recognized he could use my frank; that if payment could not be made for his secretaries I was prepared to provide a secretary for him from my own office or arrange to have his own secretary paid; that if he did not receive his salary as leader of the opposition, I would ask parliament to vote the amount if the statute or some existing regulation did not permit the Speaker to pay it. My impression at the time was that the salary was voted to the leader of the opposition, whether still a member of parliament or not and Mr. Meighen was still leader of the opposition. He was not a member of parliament and I presume that not being a member of parliament technically and in fact legally, as we have just heard, he would not have been entitled to his salary as leader of the opposition for this period. But he filled the position and did the work of leader of the opposition until he resigned the leadership of his party and my hon. friend opposite was elected to the position of leader of the opposition. Under the circumstances I think it is only right that this House should allow Mr. Meighen that proportion of the salary of leader of the opposition that would have gone to him if he had been a member of the House, seeing that he was performing at that time the duties of leader of the opposition.


Robert Gardiner: I appreciate very much the explanation the Prime Minister has given, but I would call his attention to the unfortunate fact that this is the second time we have had to have in the estimates such a sum for the leader of the official opposition, and unfortunately the present vote applies to Mr. Meighen. I appreciate the circumstances and I have no objection to the amount named in the estimate, but I do think it is placing the former leader of the opposition in a very humiliating position to have these amounts placed in the estimates and have such explanations given on these two occasions. I would therefore suggest to the Prime Minister that during the recess he take into consideration the desirability of revising that part of the statute so as to prevent repetition of such a thing as we have witnessed on the two occasions alluded to. One more question with regard to this item. I understand
that in the House of Commons Act provision is made for the salary of the Deputy Speaker. Now I notice in the supplementary an item of SI,193 to provide for the salary of the Deputy Speaker from December 14, 1926, to March 31, 1927, inclusive. Would the Speaker be good enough to explain why this amount appears in these estimates?


Hewitt Bostock: It is the balance due to
the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough who occupied the position of Deputy Speaker in the last parliament. / As Deputy Speaker he was entitled to $4,000 a year, and this is to provide for the payment of the balance of his salary.


Robert Gardiner: And is he entitled to
his salary when he is not even a member of the House?


Hewitt Bostock: Yes. I consulted the
Department of Justice on that point and received an opinion from them. I brought the matter before the Board of Internal Economy, and it was decided that his salary should be paid for the balance of the year based on that opinion of the Department of Justice.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to
bring up one point in connection with this question of an official opposition. The Prime Minister referred to the frank being used. At the last election, campaign literature was coming into my constituency under frank in support of candidates of the older parties. In my own constituency I had no opposition from the Liberal party, but 'literature was coming in under the frank of the ri^ht hon. gentleman who is now Prime Minister and who, I presume, was then leader of the official opposition. When there are several groups in this House, it is manifestly unfair that during election time the local candidates of the older parties should be supported by literature sent in under the frank of the government or the official opposition. This is not in harmony with the principle of fair play. I should like to call the attention of the Prime Minister to the need that some arrangement should be made with regard to the franking privilege whereby, if it is granted to one party in the House, it should be granted to all sections of the House.


Hewitt Bostock: After consultation with
the Postmaster General, I am pleased to inform hon. members that they may use the franking privilege eight days after prorogation.
Supply-M iscellaneous


James Alexander Robb: As it is now approaching six
o'clock, if the House has no desire to discuss in detail any of the other items, may I suggest that the Chairman call the items and we can pass them?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To hereby provide for payment to Mrs. Beatrice Williams, widow of late penitentiary guard John Williams, Mrs. Violet L. Jenkin, widow of late penitentiary guard M. B. Jenkin and Mrs. Jean Laird Farrell, widow of late penitentiary guard R. E. Farrell, of an allowance of $600 a year each and so in proportion for any part of a year, to commence from the 1st April 1927 and continue thenceforth during their natural lives, respectively, such allowance to be paid monthly out of any unappropriated moneys forming part of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, $1,800.
James Shaver Woodsworth: I object to items
being put through without our knowing what they are. What is this item?


John Frederick Johnston: $1,800 for a pension.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No objection.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To hereby provide, notwithstanding anything contained in the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act or any other act or law, for payment out of the consolidated revenue fund to Robinson Russell Farrow, of an annuity at the rate of $5,646.40, to commence from August 7, 1926, and to continue thereafter at the above rate during his lifetime, $9,319.57.
Mr. KENNEDY:: Will the minister who is responsible for this item kindly tell us just why it is presented to the committee? We know that last year Mr. Farrow was one of the officials who lost their positions because of irregularities in the customs department. Under the circumstances I want to know the justification for putting him back on a pension.


James Alexander Robb: We will let the item stand
until we send for the Minister of Customs.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I would ask
the hon. member whether or not his committee recommended last year that this same gentleman be given a pension?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Certainly not.


Mr. DUNNING:: The hon. member has
a very short memory.


Mr. PRICE:: Under the heading of "Pensions" I desire to call the attention of the committee to a death which occurred in Kent county, New Brunswick, on October 20, 1926. On that date Mr. Agapit LeBlanc, a fishery guardian, was murdered off the coast of Kent

county in the discharge of his duties. I would like to know from the minister what has been done with regard to provision for his widow. A number of names have been mentioned in connection with pensions, and as this is a really deserving case and one which has had the attention of the department, I should like an assurance that this widow will be provided for.


James Alexander Robb: I can assure the hon. member that I shall have the case carefully looked into, and if the act provides, his request will certainly be carried out.
Item stands.


John Warwick King: It is nearly six o'clock, but I gather that it is the unanimous wish of the House that we continue and that the Speaker should not look at the clock until we have made further progress.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
To provide for salaries and expenses of the Advisers engaged in tariff inquiry. Payments may be made notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act or regulations thereunder, $60,000.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In connection with the tariff inquiry I should like to point out, as I did earlier in the session, that the work of the tariff board might be made more effective if more publicity were given to the evidence brought before the board and to its findings. The fact is that those who apply for changes in the tariff present a memorandum and that memorandum is given to the members, or an opportunity is given to the members to see it, but as a rule that is or has been up to the present time the memorandum of those who are applying for increases in the tariff. Hence we have an opportunity of reading all the arguments in favour of an increase in tariff, but we are not given an opportunity of reading arguments presented in opposition to such an increase. I happened to attend one or two sessions of the board and I found that some valuable evidence was coming in. An abstract of that was being taken, but it was not printed and it is not available to the public. Further, as I understand the matter, since the board is merely a fact-finding body and does not make definite recommendations, there is no reason why the report as presented to the Minister of Finance ought not to be made available to the public. Therefore in view of the importance of the whole field of investgiation we might very well request that there be pub-

Supply-Miscellaneous
lished the evidence together with the findings of the commission, and that such report should be made available to members of this House and to the general public. I would ask if that is not possible.


James Alexander Robb: That' has been brought to our
attention from time to time. Frequently we hear in this House, but still more frequently in the country, that if Hansard were abolished altogether the business of the House would be conducted more expeditiously. What my hon. friend is asking for is really another Hansard, and its establishment involves more than the expense of the reporters. It involves the translation and the printing and the compilation of a lot of books that will be filed away in the garret or the cellar of the Finance Department', as for instance the report of the tariff inquiry conducted by one of my predecessors, Sir Henry Drayton, never to be read by anybody. Only recently we have had a request for certain evidence given in connection with an inquiry in regard to woollen goods, which is not yet completed. I thought we might meet' the wishes of those who asked for this evidence by having typewritten copies made. I find that these wiil cost $25 each. I have now an inquiry as to how much it will cost to print the evidence. I see no objection, in fact I see every reason why the public should have information if it is asked for from time to time; but I should not like to build up a machine that will add very much to the cost of the tariff board without serving any good purpose. I can assure my hon. friend that if he desires to gel' any special information I have no objection to its being furnished.


John Franklin White: Why is this item
increased 50 per cent over last year?


James Alexander Robb: The increase is for the additional employees required to look after the business. Last year the tariff board only got started; but now it is in operation, it has daily meetings, and it requires a staff to assemble and take care of information with respect to the cases under consideration. If we carry out the wishes of my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth), the vote next year will be increased considerably more than 50 per cent.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If might end in
a saving to the general public.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, $10,000.
George Gibson Coote: Two years ago the government practically promised to increase this grant, but I see it is still left at the same amount.


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friend will look
at the next' page he will find there is a small increase.


George Gibson Coote: I am very glad to hear it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-amount required to provide for grants to be made to the provinces of:
Nova Scotia, $875,000
New Brunswick, $600,000
Prince Edward Island, $125,000 pending consideration of provincial subsidies.
Robert Gardiner: Is this intended as a
yearly subsidy?


John Warwick King: No. I direct my hon. friend's attention to the wording of the item. It is the intention of the government to have a conference this fall between the Dominion and the provinces to consider the question of provincial subsidies. This is merely an interim grant for this year.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: As a member from Prince Edward Island, Mr. Chairman, I would be very ungrateful indeed if I did not show my appreciation of this vote. I do not wish to take much of the time of the House at this late stage. I merely want to express my gratitude not only to the Prime Minister and to every member of the cabinet but also to our friends on the other side.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Soldiers' Civil Re-estalishmeut-operating expense and working capital, $250,000.
James Shaver Woodsworth: What does that
mean?


Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Soldiers' Givil, ReJestafolidhment):: This covers administration services, general and medical, cash advances, travelling expenses, Red Cross shops, telegrams, postage, stationery and so on.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sheltered employment, burial of destitute, transportation of the blind, $175,000.
Mr. ADSHEAD:: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to criticize this vote censoriously. Whan I was last in Calgary, while sitting in the Canadian Legion office with the secretary he received a message that a returned soldier had died. Owing to unfortunate circumstances he
Supply-Miscellaneous

had not been able to save enough to provide for his funeral expenses. A gentleman not connected with the Canadian Legion told me that he has a fund called the Last Post fund, but had not enough money to bury t'he returned soldier and had to send somebody out on the streets to beg for it. It is a disgrace to Canada that we cannot bury our returned soldiers in cases where at the time of their death they had not any money which could be used to cover funeral expenses. I suggest to the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment that he increase this vote, so that when a returned soldier in indigent circumstances dies we will have enough money to bury him. We are voting $250,000 for Ottawa and still we have not enough money to bury our returned soldiers. All the soldiers ask is that the government furnish a little stone slab so that the soldier can be buried decently with the rest of the veterans, and I propose that the minister increase this vote by $50,000 in order to provide for cases such as the one I have referred to.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Edward Joseph Garland: We are
either going to have order or the Speaker will call it six o'clock-one or the other. In regard to this particular matter the government cannot plead that it has not been advised of the situation. A year ago I personally spoke to the Prime Minister about it and wrote him a letter pleading with him to increase the vote in this regard. The Prime Minister expressed sympathy, but had some difficulty in meeting my request. The estimate this year is the same as last year, and it is not enough to meet the requirements of the province from which I come. I do not know what the position is in other provinces, but I have had letters from the honourary president of the Last Post fund of my province protesting pitifully in regard to the situation there. Man after man is buried in the potter's field on account of the lack of a decent sense of responsibility on the part of the government in regard to this particular matter. Before the item passes I ask that the Prime Minister give us his views on the situation.


John Warwick King: I have not
the letter my hon. friend refers to, but I am entirely in sympathy with any provision to carry out in an adequate way what is proposed in this vote, and if the amount is not sufficient for the purpose I would ask my colleague to place an amount in a subsequent estimate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


John Warwick King: The Last Post
fund is subscribed to by those interested in the burial of soldiers who died in such circumstances that no provision had been made for their burial by themselves or by their friends. The government has supported that fund by giving a grant. There is a general secretary in Montreal who administers the fund. An amount of $10,000 has been voted each year, and the burials have been made under that organization. It is true I had reports made this year asking for a further increase of ten, twelve or fifteen thousand dollars. The question I had to consider was whether we wished to continue an organization outside the department and grant to them a certain sum each year. If we are to increase that sum, then the government probably had better assume the whole cost and expenditure. That is a matter I have to consider, and of course that would involve a large expenditure. Under the rules the government had to bury all soldiers on their staS or under treatment, and pensioners who were under treatment. We have not gone beyond that, except in the grant to the Last Post fund which provides for a class who are indigent and have not the means to provide for burial.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Where there are soldiers of that description, will the minister guarantee that they should be buried without charge?


John Warwick King: Yes, we do
guarantee.


Edward Joseph Garland: No.


John Warwick King: What is the question?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: In the case of the returned soldier who dies and there is not enough money in the Last Post fund to bury him, will the government undertake to supply the funds to bury him?


John Warwick King: It would be impossible. We have not the money in the vote.


John Warwick King: I may say on behalf of the government that if any cases such as my hon. friend refers to are brought to the attention of the government we will certainly see to it that an appropriate burial is arranged.


Robert Gardiner: We appreciate what the Prime Minister has said, but that is not enough. We want in the estimates a certain sum of money which may be utilized for that

Supply-Miscellaneous
purpose when required. I suggest that the minister increase the vote or otherwise make provision for such contingency before the House rises.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If this amount is not sufficient, I will undertake on behalf of the government to say that we will ask parliament for a supplementary vote when we next assemble.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railways and Canals-chargeable to capital- Canadian Pacific Railway-original construction, $71.
Edward Joseph Garland: What is this original construction grant to the Canadian Pacific railway, $71?


Charles Avery Dunning: I think my hon. friend has sat in the House a number of years when similar items have been passed. This is to provide for the payment to John Murray for Lot 6, Block 6, D.L. 201, Port Moody, B.C., of an amount of $35.75 and interest at 5 per cent since 1908. Property was expropriated in 1885 in connection with the construction of' the Canadian Pacific railway. The owner was unable to prove title at that time, and the lot has never been paid for by the government. The title of John Murray to property was established in 1908, but this was not brought to the attention of the department until 1919. Subsequent investigations substantiate Mr. John Murray's right to claim compensation, and it is now considered necessary that the money be voted by specific appropriation. Mr. Murray has agreed to accept $35.75 and interest since 1908 in settlement for the property.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canals

Welland ship canal-to provide for payment to P. Lyall and Sons Contraction Co. of compensation on account of washing rock excavated during 1926, from section No. 4- not anticipated at time tenders were called for, $38,823.
George Hamilton Pettit: Will the minister explain
this item?


Charles Avery Dunning: A large portion of the
rock to be moved was dirty, intermixed with clay. Inasmuch as the contract called for the contractor to take out the rock of another section of the canal to be used in connection with cement work, it was necessary to provide for the washing of the dirty rock. My hon. friend is familiar with the situation in that regard. The amount here has reference to the rock taken out and washed during 1926. There will be a further quantity of approximately 100,000 cubic yards in 1927.


George Hamilton Pettit: Where is the work being done?


Charles Avery Dunning: The rock which is washed is excavated from section' 4 before being crushed for concrete for sections 1, 2, 3 and 4.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers, Quebec, $1,135,643.05.
Edward Joseph Garland: I do not
suppose there is the slightest use in a lone voice being raised in protest against the present method of passing estimates. I have no knowledge whatever of the merits of these items, and I do not know what the object is in spending these enormous sums of money. However, I do not wish to delay or obstruct in any way the obvious and deliberate intention of both parties to get done.


Charles Avery Dunning: Your own included.


Edward Joseph Garland: Again I protest most vigorously against the passing of these estimates without proper consideration.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We are sent here presumably to scrutinize the estimates but we have no opportunity of doing so. Some of us are anxious to get home but we owe a duty to the people and if we allow the estimates to go through now in this manner it ought to be on the distinct understanding that early next session the estimates will be submitted to the proper committee for close scrutiny in detail. The deputy ministers could then be examined. The present method of rushing the estimates through is a farce and the public is beginning to realize it. We can no longer be mere rubber stamps to O.K. these estimates. I suggest that the government should give us an undertaking that next session the estimates will be submitted early to an appropriate committee.


Mr. CANNON:: Any member who wishes to do so is always at liberty to ask the public accounts committee to investigate any expenditure.


Edward Joseph Garland: The Solicitor General is pleasingly ironical. He knows that such a process of examination is like closing the door of the barn after the horse is stolen. I have never heard such a childish proposal coming from a minister.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member's own party agreed to it. Why this hypocrisy?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I was one of those who objected to rushing the estimates through.
Supply-Miscellaneous

I have just overheard the minister's remark accusing us of hypocrisy. I was never consulted in the matter and I would ask the Minister of Railways to take back that insinuation.


Edward Joseph Garland: I take the same position.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is beneath the dignity of a minister to make that statement and equally beneath the dignity of this House to let it go without protest.


Charles Avery Dunning: I said that the other parties had agreed to it and I asked, why this hypocrisy. If my remarks did not apply to the hon. gentleman I do not know why he
needs to take offence. I did not mention him.


Edward Joseph Garland: Only two members have protested, the hon. member (Mr. Woodsworth) and myself, and neither of us was consulted. The remarks of the minister were, obviously directed to the two of us and in so far as they were I ask that they be withdrawn. It is an impertinence unequalled in this House to declare that any member is guilty of hypocrisy.


Mr. POULIOT:: I was not consulted either.


Edward Joseph Garland: Just wait a moment; I have the floor. I ask the Minister of Railways to withdraw the reference to hypocrisy so far as I am concerned.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall withdraw nothing; I made no reference to any member of this House as an individual. I asked, "Why this hypocrisy;" I intend to stick to it, and it is not out of order.


Edward Joseph Garland: Then I would ask the committee to rise and report progress, as it is now six o'clock.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: May I just say a word?


John Frederick Johnston: No, I must put the
motion.
Motion negatived.


John Campbell Elliott: May I just say a word
by way of explanation to my hon. friend?


Edward Joseph Garland: May I interrupt the hon. gentleman?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is it not
customary that a request to continue after six o'clock must be unanimous?


John Campbell Elliott: No, I think the House
is master of its own deliberations. In order

that there may be no misunderstanding, let me say to my hon. friend that the estimates we are now passing are almost all revotes of items which were in the supplementary estimates of last year, and which we were unable to spend. If there are any particular items on which my hon. friends would like any information I shall be pleased to give it, but they are all for dredging and repairs to wharves and so on, work deemed to be absolutely essential, and unfortunately we were not able to do nearly as much as the engineers reported to be necessary.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Now, Mr. Chairman, may I have some answer to the question which I put before, as to whether when these supplementaries are passed we may have some assurance that next year the estimates will be referred to an appropriate committee early in the session?


John Warwick King: If my hon.
friend moves that any estimates now being passed should go before a committee at the next session, the House will have the right to pass upon that motion and the government will be only too glad to abide by the decision of the House.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: Just before we pass that item, there was such a din and uproar in the House that I did not have an opportunity to say what I desired. I notice an item in which I am particularly interested, and concerning which I have made very strong representations not only to the present Minister of Public Works but to his predecessor. This item provides for very urgent harbour improvements at Port Hood in my constituency, and is for 816,500. I am not criticizing the minister at all, in fact I commend him for making this appropriation. I desire to impress upon him, however, the urgency of this work and wish to ask if it is the intention of his department to commence work during the early summer, because the fishermen of this community for a distance of some ten miles along the sea coast, are deprived of any safe harbour and have been so deprived for a number of years. They have made representations through their representatives in parliament that this work be done, and this item will fill a long felt want.


John Campbell Elliott: In answer to my hon.
friend I would say that nearly all these items were voted in the supplementaries last year, but because we were working under governor general's warrants we could not proceed with them. Of this vote $1,196,000 was included in the supplementary estimates, and

Supply-Miscellaneous
$1,268,000 in the main estimates of last year. All this work is most urgent, since only that urgent work is being done, and the instructions from the department are to carry it out at the greatest possible speed, because much of it is work which should have been done last year.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Then I take it that the work will be commenced this summer?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, it is the intention
that everything in this list will be commenced this summer.


George Reginald Geary: I would like to ask the
minister to carry his figures one step further and tell us how much of these estimates are new and find themselves placed here for the first time. They should be taken up separately, item by item, because it is no way to pass estimates en bloc.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the item carry?


George Reginald Geary: Mr. Chairman, I am not
going to be shut off in that way. I have asked a question of the Minister of Public Works, and I would like an answer.


John Campbell Elliott: I might say that the total of these items voted last year in the main estimates is $1,268,000, and the total amount voted in the supplementaries last year is $1,196,335. That means that we have approximately $2,500,000 of last year's estimates included this year.


George Reginald Geary: But I want to know how
much of this vote is new?


John Campbell Elliott: The difference, including
the legation and improvements in Ottawa, will be nearly $2,000,000.


Mr. KAISER:: May I ask the minister if
the vote of $5,000 for Oshawa is a revote or a new vote?


John Campbell Elliott: That is a new vote.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: It is no doubt more than
we deserve, but I want to point out that twenty-six years ago the Liberals started to build us a harbour; and I understand it will take twenty-one years more, or in all fifty years to build a little pier.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Works-Saskatchewan and Alberta, $36,000.
George Gibson Coote: I would like to draw to the attention of 'hon. members of this House, who
are always telling us how much Canada has done for the west, the difference between the size of this vote and the amounts voted for the other provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Works-British Columbia, $259,000.
Charles Herbert Dickie: I wish to say a few words
in connection with this item. I do not wish to strike a discordant note at this stage of the session, but I am quite prepared to speak, if necessary, on the life history of the teredo and the barnacle, the injurious effects of which the minister knows. I have just- one little matter to bring up for consideration. In the little town of Port Washington it has been recommended by Mr. Ford, the District Engineer, that $3,500 be expended in the construction of a wharf or in the repair of the existing wharf. I know that amount is justified, and I do not like to see these people penalized because they may have made a mistake in the way they voted in the last election. I would like to have an assurance that this money will be expended, otherwise I will be compelled to talk for about two hours and a half on the life history of the teredo from the time it emerged from the primordial ooze down to the present.


John Campbell Elliott: I know my hon. friend
does not intend to be unfair, but if I am correct, all these votes are in ridings which did not vote perhaps as wisely as they might have voted in the last election. In regard to the matter my horn, friend speaks of we have a certain general vote to take care of wharves and harbours. He mentions an item of $3,500. That is a fairly 'large amount to be taken out of the general vote but if it is possible I would be glad to have the work done provided1 it is more urgent than anything else which needs attention.


Mr. BRADY:: I do not intend to keep the minister more than one minute, but I feel that it is my imperative duty to draw the attention of the minister to the state of the Prince Rupert fishing fleet.


John Campbell Elliott: I think that is what my
hon. friend spoke to me about before. I have it in mind.


James Charles Brady: I have only one request
to make and it is this-that by a happy, I will call it fortuitous, amendment, vote 452 was rescinded by tile House half an hour ago and it totals $13,560. Now if the minister would only transfer that $13,560 to the task of caring for the floats at Prince Rupert, where

Supply-Miscellaneous

there are 300 fishing boats worth over a million dollars, I would be indeed gratified in the interests of the fishing fleet. I ask the minister now if he will be so kind as to get the Prime Minister to do that.


John Campbell Elliott: I think my hon. friend
knows my views on this subject, because he cannot be charged with any neglect of this harbour or any of the other harbours in his section of British Columbia. There is a general vote provided and it cannot all go to my hon. friend nor to any other hon. member, but I may say to him that it will be utilized to the very best possible advantage.


James Charles Brady: I would point out to the
minister that there are 300' vessefe ait Prince Rupert, and it is of the greatest importance that provision be made for their safety. I therefore ask that the vote in question be transferred for the float in question to help to protect their craft.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To hereby provide, notwithstanding anything contained in the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, or any other act or law, for payment out of the consolidated revenue fund to Robinson Russell Farrow, of an annuity at the rate of $5,646.40, to commence from August 7th, 1926, and to continue thereafter at the above rate during his lifetime, $9,319.57.
Mr. EULER:: In the report of the parliamentary committee appointed last year to inquire into the Customs department a recommendation was made providing for the retirement of certain officials of that department. Among them was the then Deputy Minister of Customs and Excise. That report did not contemplate dismissal so that the official should lose his retiring allowance, but duirng the course of the ddbate a member of the House moved an amendment that the official be dismissed with the result that his retiring allowance would be lost to him. I have no particular criticism to make of that amendment except to say that I (believe we did something less than justice to the deputy minister at that time. The House I need not say was in a state of considerable excitement and I am inclined to believe-in fact, I do believe-that the report of the committee was perhaps a better considered report than the opinion expressed by the House on that memorable evening. The gentleman for whom an allowance is proposed to be made under this item served in the department ever since he was a boy-to be exact, for a period of forty-five years. During the last five years he was in office he made application for super-
annuation but his retirement was not permitted although he could have left the government service during any one of those five years and received an allowance.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Had he been paying into the superannuation fund?


William Daum Euler: He had been making payments for many years into the superannuation fund, and it seems to me that it is merely a matter of justice that we should restore to him now the rights he would have had if the report of the committee had been accepted.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Is this the full amount that Mr. Farrow would have received had he retired?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The point I wish to make is that by this vote we are establishing the fact that a member of the civil service of Canada may allow his department to get into a state such as this department was found to be in last year by the Customs inquiry 'Committee. Section 6 of the report of that committee reads as follows:
The evidence submitted to the committee leads to the general conclusion that for a long time the Department of Customs and Excise had been slowly degenerating in efficiency and that the process was greatly accelerated in the last few years.
And yet in spite of that expression of opinion we extend to this former official the same kind of treatment as if his department had been run in the most efficient manner. Under the circumstances I wish to protest against the passage of this item. There surely should be some distinction drawn between an official who manages his department honestly and efficiently and one who does not.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: In the report of the Customs inquiry committee last year, at page 3062, I find the following:
Mr. Kennedy moved: That the following clause be added to the report, viz:

That the name of R. R. Farrow, deputy minister of Customs and Excise, be included in the list of those officers who have been delinquent in their duties, and whose services it is recommended should be dispensed with.
For that motion Messrs. Doucet and Kennedy voted. Those who voted against were Messrs. Bell (Hamilton), Bennett, Donaghy, Goodison, St. Pere, and Stevens. I hope the hon. gentleman is proud of the company he was in on that occasion.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not think the reflections of the hon. gentleman will help this matter very much, and so I will pass them over. But

Supply-M iscellaneous
when a civil servant has been in the employ of this country up to a stage where he is entitled to an allowance if no misdemeanour has occurred, if a misdemeanour occurs on his part, I think he should be allowed, having paid into the pension fund during the time of his entire employment, to retire with an allowance equal to that which he would have received at the time he was entitled to retire before the misdemeanour occurred.


James Shaver Woodsworth: As one who moved in this House last year a resolution along this line, I feel that I ought to say a word. I moved that resolution after consultation with the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy)-who on that committee represented more or less the independent members. It was because of his report of the revelations in the committee that some of us felt that this matter could not be passed over, and so I moved the resolution. The resolution was rejected, but this clause in it was afterwards included in another motion, and passed by the . House. It read:
And also in clause 13 to add the name of R. R. Farrow, Deputy Minister of Customs and Excise, to the list of those who are recommended that their services be dispensed with.
That resolution was passed by this House. This vote is being proposed a year later over the head of a resolution passed by the last parliament. That in itself is a serious situation. Further than that, some of us who felt that we had to take some position to discipline, shall I say, those who are responsible for conditions in the Customs department, made it clear that we did not want to be hard on any. of those men. The under officials were summarily dismissed. The deputy minister, according to the recommendations of the committee, remained eligible for full pension. I urged at that time that a certain amount of clemency should be exercised, and that recommendations should be brought in to provide that the men who were dismissed should receive some consideration; that they should not be turned, as it were, on the street. Again I suggest that it is a serious matter, if, after a man has been shown to have been to no small extent responsible for a number of years for the condition in the department, he should then receive no punishment whatever, but rather should be permitted to enjoy his full pension just as if he had been an honourable and efficient servant to the end. I cannot but remember that there are to-day men who are spending years in our gaols and penitentiaries on account of small thefts, slight irregularities in their conduct, and yet to-day we propose not merely to refuse to punish this man in
any way, but to retire him on full pension. I feel that unless we are going to rise to that point where we are willing to remit all penalties and treat tlhe poorest in our land in this generous fashion, some of us can not let this vote pass without a decided protest. It was not pleasant for me to take this position. Although I have not known Mr. Farrow personally I understand he was for many years a respected official, and he has already suffered much. But I feel the impression must not be permitted to go throughout the country that a man who is highly placed is to be given one type of treatment while the poorer or subordinate offender is discriminated against.


Leslie Gordon Bell: As one who
served on that committee I quite concur, as a matter of generality, in the stand that was taken by the hon. member for Peace River. It is only fair to say that he was consistent in that stand, but it should also be stated that, before the report of the committee was brought in, the case of this particular official was given earnest consideration for a matter of two or three days, and the majority report of the committee was reached only after the most careful consideration of his case. Having regard to all that then came before the committee and all that we have heard that has occurred in connection with the matter, I can only say as a member of that committee that I endorse every word which the Minister of Customs has just stated to the House.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I want to reply to the statement made by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) who referred to the company which I was keeping last year. Let me tell him that I am as proud of the company I kept last year on the customs committee as the company I kept this year on the railway committee, and that is not saying anything against either of them. I wish simply to protest and to put myself on record as holding the view that, by this appropriation, we are not dealing fairly with officials in the civil service who maintain their record clean and efficient' to the end. I know, because of the feeling of the House, it is of no use moving a motion to reduce this item or to strike it out; but notwithstanding that, a principle is involved, and I want t'o go on record as saying that the action that is being taken is wrong.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I want to support the
hon. member for Peace River in his conten-. tion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions reported.
[Stage Direction]
Supply Bill

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded t'o consider certain resolutions reported from committee of supply-
Resolutions concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Ways and Means.
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
James Alexander Robb: Resolved that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1928, the sum of $234,934,632.06 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolutions reported and concurred in. Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 340, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending March 31, 1928.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first and second time.
James Alexander Robb: That the said bill be now road a third time.


Hugh Guthrie: That all the words after "that" in the motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor, namely:
The bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions to the said committee that it have power to reduce vote No. 467 schedule C, by the sum of $475,000.
This matter was discussed when a similar motion was made in the committee last night. I do not need to repeat what was then said; I simply wish to have the opinion of the House taken in regard to it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am prepared to follow the example of my hon. friend, and to say, I do not think it is necessary to add anything to what was said last night, and I hope the House will vote on this amendment as emphatically as it did in the committee.


George Reginald Geary: I was paired with the hon.
member for Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Mercier). Had1 I voted, I would 'have voted for the amendment.


Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough (Mr. Duff). Had I voted, I would have voted for 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.


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


Air. GOTT:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Rheaume). Plad I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


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


Leslie Gordon Bell: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Henri (Mr. Mercier). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. MARCIL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
Motion (Air. Robb) agreed' to on same division reversed, and bill read the third time and passed.


MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SECRETARY
Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following message:
Ottawa, April 14, 1927.
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. F. A. Anglin, acting as the deputy
Prorogation

of the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber on Thursday, April 14, at 8.15 p.m. for the purpose of proroguing the present session of parliament.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. C. Pereira,
Deputy Assistant Secretary
to the Governor Genaral.
At 7.40 p.m., Mr. Speaker declared the sitting suspended until 8.15 ip.m.
The House resumed at 8.15 p.m.


PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT
[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
In the Senate chamber, the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in His Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

[Stage Direction]
An Act to amend The Food and Drugs Act, 1920.
An Act for the relief of Dorothy Helen Murray.
An Act for the relief of Lotta Maria McGregor.
An Act for the relief of Harriett Louisa May MacCarthy.
An Act for the relief of Adelaide Mildred Maguire.
An Act for the relief of Dmytro Pushkedra.
. An Act for 1he relief of Muriel Helen Louise Dunn.
An Act for the relief of William Henry Poultney.
An Act for the relief of Cecil Chester Richardson.
An Act for the relief of Bertha Amelia Bertelet.
An Act for the relief of Evelyn May Bateman.
An Act for the relief of Fannie Louise Dance.
An Act for the relief of Sarah Simpson.
An Act for the relief of Percy Compton.
An Act for the relief of Hazel Green Anderson.
An Act to incorporate Gatineau Transmission Company.
An Act respecting certain patents owned by Albert P. Frigon.
An Act for the purpose of establishing in Canada a system of Long Term Mortgage. Credit for Farmers.
An Act respecting Commercial Travellers Mutual Insurance Society.
An Act to amend an Act to provide compensation where employees of His Majesty are killed or suffer injuries while performing their duties.

An Act to amend an Act respecting the Construction of a Canadian National Railway Line, being a joint section from Rosedale southeasterly in the Province of Alberta.
An Act respecting a certain patent of Enos Henry Briggs.
An Act to incorporate The President of the Lethbridge Stake.
An Act respecting The Bronson Company.
An Act respecting Joliette and Northern Railway Company.
An Act to amend "An Act respecting The Brandon, Saskatchewan and Hudson's Bay Railway Company."
An Act respecting the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec.
An Act for the relief of James Edward Barnaby.
An Act for the relief of Helen Pettit Bruce.
An Act for the relief of Hugh Devlin.
An Act for the relief of Charles Wilson.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Josephine Rae
Ennis.	.
An Act for the relief of Della Laurel Cox.
An Act for the relief of Rose Glucksberg.
An Act for the relief of Murray Richard Minler.
An Act for the relief of John Leslie MacLellan.
An Act for the relief of Elizabeth Brown.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Matilda Emily
Cantrell.
An Act for the relief of Mary Ellen Walker.
An Act for the relief of Edwin Walter Wood.
An Act for the relief of Harriett Robinson.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Homera Emilie
Hodgson.
An Act for the relief of Paul Elestei Scarr.
An Act for the relief of Ronald Lome Johnston.
An Act for the relief of Eva O'Neill.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Mabel Beatrice
Nash.
An Act for the relief of Isabella Emily Blue.
An Act for the relief of Cherie Amy Aston.
An Act for the relief of Ida Gertrude LeFevre.
An Act for the relief of Inez Mary Pitcher.
An Act for the relief of Charles Murray Mutch.
An Act for the relief of Estelle Henrietta Cartwright.
An Act for the relief of Ronald Ross File.
An Act for the relief of Grace Mantle.
An Act for the relief of Emma May Ryan.
An Act for the relief of Muriel Martha Hammond.
An Act for the relief of Anna Mae Francis.
An Act for the relief of Harold James Hubbard.
An Act for the relief of Indiaetta Muriel Taylor.
An Act for the relief of William Arthur Dillabough.
An Act for the relief of James Alfred McCabe.
An Act for the relief of Frederick George Jones.
An Act for the relief of Manford York.
An Act for the relief of Queenie Isobel Parks.
An Act for the relief of Charles Shedrick Phillips.
An Act for the relief of Lavina Harrison.
An Act for the relief of Marretta Isobelle Crosse Leach.

Prorogation
An Act for the relief of Mabelle Amelia Bulmer.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	John	Lauron
Garfield Evans.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Ernest	Arthur
Kingston.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Norah	Louise
Patricia Campbell Chauvin.
An Act to amend The Soldier Settlement Act, 1919.
An	Act	respecting certain	debts due the
crown.
An Act respecting certain patents of James McCutcheon Coleman.
An Act for the relief of Amelia Chester.
An Act for the relief of Elsie Adams.
An Act for the relief of Frederick George Elliott.
An Act for the relief of Sidney Alfred Tyers.
An Act for the relief of Margaret Ann Hall.
An Act for the relief of Electa Minerva Meades.
An Act for the relief of George Allan Swift.
An Act for the relief of Kathleen Maud Cotton.
An Act for the relief of Gertrude Thompson. An Act for the relief of Jessie Isobel Davidge.
An Act for the relief of Zelpha Evyleen Root.
An Act for the relief of May Alice Moor-house.
An Act for the relief of Charles Auguste Brosseau.
An Act for the relief of Celia Kornblum. An Act for the relief of Alice Elizabeth r egan.
An Act for the relief of Della Bishop.
rr4in	for tlle relief of Cecilia Lucy
Holloway.
An Act for the relief of Carl Stanley Kyerse.
An Act for the relief of Samuel Clement Askm.
An Act for the relief of Pearl Lavinia Borke. An Act to amend the Post Office Act.
An Act for the relief of Jessie Wright.
An Act	for	the	relief	of	Audrey Idelle
Knowles.
An Act for the relief of William Edward Couch.
An Act for the relief of Clara Cairney. donsmith* ^ ^ relief °f Annie SoPhi* Gor-Chambenf ^ ^ relief °f May Elizabeth
Cocker	f°F	the	relief	°f	Violet G]a<lys
An Act for the relief of Mary Eleanor Kennedy Lodden.
An Act	for	the	relief	of	Arlee Lillian
Helmsley.
An Act for the relief of Merton Egbert Ellsworth Kittredge.
An Act for the relief of William Newton Anglin.
An Act for the relief of Annendale Ramsden. An Act for the relief of Willie Rosenberg. An Act for the relief of John Henry Fisher. An Act for the relief of Leo Bruce Burley. An Act for the relief of Hilda Parker.
An Act for the relief of Gladys Ivy Turner. An Act for the relief of Rose Ann Hill.
An Act for the relief of Annie Mary Ann McCulloch.
An Act for the relief of George Holvil Fleet.
An Act respecting the Halifax Harbour Commissioners.
An Act relating to the Harbour of Saint John in the Province of New Brunswick.
An Act to encourage the Production of Domestic Fuel from coal mined in Canada.
An Act to amend an Act of the present session intituled "An Act respecting The Department of National Revenue."
An Act to provide annuities for the Widows of Certain Civil Servants.
An Act to amend The Canada Grain Act.
An Act to amend The Loan Companies Act, 1914.
An Act to amend the Winding-up Act.
An Act to amend The Trust Companies Act, 1914.
An Act to provide for a loan to the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners.
An Act to amend The Special War Revenue Act, 1915.
An Act to amend The Insurance Act, 1917.
An Act to provide for a loan to the Chicoutimi Harbour Commissioners.
An Act to amend the Trade Mark and Design Act.
An Act respecting the Canadian National Rail-ways and the tariffs of tolls to be charged on certain Eastern lines.
An Act to amend the Act respecting the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
An Act to amend The Fruit Act.
An Act to amend The Chicoutimi Harbour Commissioners' Act, 1926.
An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
An Act to amend the Excise Act.
An Act to amend the Dominion Elections Act.
An Act to amend the Customs Act.
An Act to incorporate The Premier Guarantee and Accident Insurance Company of Canada.
An Act respecting a certain patent owned by Chester Earl Gray and Aage Jensen.
An Act to amend The Live Stock and Live Stock Products, Act, 1923.
An Act for the relief of Gordon Hiram Langford.
An Act for the relief of Amanda Leona Chowns.
An Act for the relief of Edwin George Winfield.
An Act for the relief of Beulah Faye Wood.
An Act for the relief of Jane Rennie.
An Act for the relief of Dora Louisa Eliza Maxwell.
An Act for the relief of Lillian Moir.
An Act for the relief of Gertrude Isabell Middlebrook.
An Act for the relief of George James White.
An Act for the relief of Maud Cummings.
An Act for the relief of Wilhamina Susanna Annis.
An Act for the relief of Dorothy Mildred Jeffery.
An Act for the relief of Sadie Feder Gelfand.
An Act for the relief of Orma Mauuder.
An Act for the relief of Isabella Jane Boyes Brew.
An Act for the relief of John Falko.
An Act for the relief of Mary Edna Thompson.
An Act for the relief of Charles Edward Thompson.
Prorogation
[Stage Direction]
An Act for the relief of Halsey Vanderleith Welles.
An Act for the relief of Henry Raymond Mugridge.
An Act for the relief of Laura Gertrude Sutherland.
An Act for the relief of Edith May McColl. An Act for the relief of Katherine Alison Pomphrey Weldon.
An Act for the relief of Marion Scott.
An Act for the relief of Lillian Maud Oram. An Act for the relief of Arthur James Carey. An Act for the relief of Janies Robert Kendrick.
An Act for the relief of Richard Thomas Keeth Stinchcombe.
An Act to incorporate Commerce Mutual Fire Insurance Company.
An Act respecting the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company.
An Act respecting a certain patent of R. T. Vanderbilt Company.
An Act respecting The Sterling Trust Corporation.
An Act for the relief of Charles William John Walker.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	John Stewart
Walker.
An Act for the relief of Percy Ashley Davis. An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Edward Henry
Ball.
An Act for the relief of Mary Saranchuk.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Dorothy Ruth
Hoffman.
An Act for the relief of Frederick Wilson McLean.
An Act respecting certain patents owned by the Sealright Company, Inc.
An Act to incorporate Guardian Trust Corporation of Montreal.
An	Act	to	incorporate The Independent
Order "Fior d'ltalia."
An Act respecting The Midland Railway Company of Manitoba.
An Act to incorporate The Free Methodist Church in Canada.
An Act to incorporate "La Congregation de Saint-Dominique du Tiers-Ordre enseignant." An Act to incorporate North American Relations Foundation.
An Act respecting The Subsidiary High Court of the Ancient Order of Foresters in the Dominion of Canada.
An Act respecting the Federal District Commission.
An Act to amend The Three Rivers Harbour Commissioners' Act, 1923.
An Act to regulate the Sale and Inspection of Agricultural Economic Poisons.
An Act to amend The Civil Service Superannuation Act. 1924.
An Act for the relief of Fanny Mayer.
An Act for the relief of Joseph Albert Georges Lachance.
An Act to amend the North West Territories Act.
An Act to amend The Pension Act.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1928.
To these bills the royal assent was pronounced by the Clerk of the Senate in the following words:

In His Majesty's name the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General doth assent to these bills.
Then the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons addressed the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General as follows:
May it please Your Honour:
The Commons of Canada have voted supplies required to enable the government to defray certain expenses of the public service.
In the name of the Commons I present to Your Honour the following bill:
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1928.
To which bill I humbly request Your Honour's assent.
To this bill the Clerk of the Senate, by command of the Right Honourable the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, did thereupon say:
In His Majesty's name, the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General thanks his loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence, and assents to this bill.

[Stage Direction]
After which the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General was pleased to close the first session of the sixteenth parliament of the Dominion of Canada with the following speech:
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
I desire to express my appreciation of the expedition with which you have discharged your duties in a Session marked by much important legislation. The revision by the House of Commons of its rules should serve to expedite the transaction of public business at future Sessions.	,
Important government measures which passed the House of Commons during the last Parliament, but which failed to become law have now been passed by both Houses, and have received the Royal Assent. They include provision, in cooperation with the provinces, for a system of long term mortgage loans for farmers and for old age pensions. Amendments have been made to the Canada Grain Act, affecting the grain growing interests, and equally important amending legislation has' been enacted affecting live stock interests.	,
The increasingly satisfactory showing of the Canadian National Railways' net earnings affords concrete evidence of our expanding trade and commerce. The extension of the Canadian National railway system by another comprehensive program of branch line construction, will make possible the rapid development _ of communities hitherto lacking railway facilities. Further substantial provision has also been made for work on the Hudson Bay route. The Agreement concerning the Grand Trunk Pacific Debenture Issue has been approved.
The expansion of our trade, which is rapidly penetrating the diversified markets of the world, is further reflected in the increasing lm-

Governor General's Speech
portation of raw material for the use of our manufacturers and a corresponding increase in our exportation of manufactured goods. Our exports of food products continue satisfactory. Supplementing the work of the Empire Marketing Board, provision has been made to assist in a substantial manner the marketing of Canadian produce in Great Britain. Arrangements are also nearing completion for the improved steamship service to the British West Indies.
The favourable consideration given the recommendations of the Royal Commission appointed to examine and report upon conditions in the Maritime Provinces, has been received with general approval throughout the Dominion. The substantial money grants made to these provinces, the reduction to be effected in their freight rates, the encouragement given the production of domestic fuel from coal mined in Canada, the provision for a Deputy Minister of Fisheries, and for Harbour Commissions at Halifax and St. John, together with other administrative measures contemplated in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission, will, it is confidently expected, materially assist in furthering the economic prosperity of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, and in advancing the welfare and unity of the whole Dominion.
The protection of the public revenues has been enhanced by the heavier penalties provided for violation of the Customs and Excise laws and by the consolidation of the Customs, Excise and Income Tax branches of the public service into one Department of the Government to be known as the Department of National Revenue.
Additional protection for the public has been afforded by the amendments made to the laws respecting insurance, loan and trust companies.
Amendments of importance to ex-soldiers have been made to the Pension Act, extending the period for filing pension claims, and making provision for a second appeal in case of newly discovered evidence.
The position of the Civil Service of Canada has been improved with respect alike to salaries and superannuation.
To aid in the celebration of the sixtieth anniversary of Confederation, a National Committee has been incorporated. Its efforts have been directed to securing, in cooperation with the provinces, a worthy commemoration of this important stage in our national development. Especially appropriate is the constitution at this time of a Federal District Commission with enlarged jurisdiction and powers in respect of the permanent beautification of the Capital of our Dominion.
Members of the House of Commons:
It is gratifying to know that you have been able to effect further substantial relief from taxation. I thank you for the provision you have made for the public service.
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
The Minister Plenipotentiary accredited by His Majesty to represent the Dominion of Canada in the United States has presented his credentials and has entered upon his duties. The President of the United States has appointed the former United States Ambassador to Belgium as Minister Plenipotentiary in Canada; the new Minister will shortly take up his duties at Ottawa. This exchange of representatives will undoubtedly help to maintain and develop the existing good relations between the two countries.
. The prosperity which Canada so happily enjoys at the present time gives every indication of continuing in increasing measure. For this, and many other blessings upon our land, I join with you in heartfelt thanks to Divine Providence.
This concluded the first session of the sixteenth parliament.

[Stage Direction]
*1/