1927-04-06

[Stage Direction]
Fourth and fifth reports of the select standing committee on banking and commerce-Mr Hay.

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

Mr. LOVIE:: 1.	Were any requests or representations by correspondence or otherwise made to the government of Canada by any of the provincial premiers, previous to the Interprovincial conference of 1926, asking to have the said conference called9
2.	If so, what are the names of the premiers who made such request?
3.	What reasons were given by each for having such conference called?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING:: I will answer this question verbally. As far as I have been able to discover, there is nothing on the files of any of the departments of the government in the nature of correspondence requesting such a conference. There were verbal conversations passed between some of the provincial premiers and myself regarding the possibility of the provinces holding an interprovincial conference. I cannot at this time recall what the representations or the replies were, beyond saying that I am sure that the position I took was that an interprovinciai conference was a matter for the provinces themselves to arrange, and not a matter in which the Dominion was primarily concerned.


INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES
Mr. SPENCER:: When the Income Tax department is incorporated into that of National Revenue will the employees come under Civil Service Commission?


Hon. Mr. EULER:: No.



PUBLIC SERVICE RETIREMENT ACT

Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	Under the Calder Act were the "prevailing rate" men, permanently employed by the Public Works department or other departments, eligible for retirement with pension?
2.	Are these men eligible for retirement with pensions under the Superannuation Act?
3.	If not, what provision does the government plan to make to provide for this class of employees?


Hon. Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Under the Public Service Retirement Act (Calder Act) hourly rate employees of the
Questions

Department of Public Works and other departments, were made eligible for retirement with retiring allowance provided by an act from June 1922 when the amendment (chapter 12-13 Geo. V) was passed to chapter 67, 10-11 Geo. V.
2.	No.
3.	The employees referred to will be eligible for benefits under the Superannuation Act when they comply with the provisions of section 2 of the act.
validity op insurance act, 1917


Mr. YOUNG (Toronto Northeast):: 1.	Has the minister given instructions to appeal the decision of the appellate division of the Supreme Co.urt of Ontario, delivered the 19th February, 1926 (re Insurance Contracts, 58, O.L.R. 404) which held the licensing and other sections (11, 12 (1), 71, 71 (a), 134 and 134 (a) ) of the Insurance Act, 1917, ultra vires the legislative competence of the parliament of Canada?
2.	If not, why?
3.	What effect, it any, does the government propose to give to the following resolution unanimously adopted at the interprovincial conference in Ottawa in June, 1926, when six provincial premiers and ministers of the crown from every province except Alberta, convened to discuss matters of mutual concern:
"This conference is of opinion that the Dominion should repeal its legislation regulating contracts of insurance and the business of insurance as ultra vires the legislative competence of the parliament of Canada, or, in the alternative, take immediate steps to appeal the decision of the Ontario courts to the judicial committee of the Privy Council."


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: This question is to be
answered orally. The answer to No. 1 is: No. The answer to Nos. 2 and 3, is: So far as the minister is aware none of the resolutions of the interprovincial conference said to be held in June last has ever been submitted by the conference to the government.



MAIL CONTRACTS IN RICHMOND, NOVA SCOTIA

Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: 1.	Who has present contract for carrying mails between Grand River and L'Ardoise in the county of Richmond. Nova Scotia?
2.	When was such contract given and for what amount?
3.	Were there more than one tenderer for the contract, and if more than one, what were the amounts of the various tenders?
4.	Has any contract for the conveyance of mails between St. Peters and Lower L'Ardoise been made, if so, what is amount of such contract, and if not, what arrangement now exists for such work?


Hon. Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Alex Cameron of Grand River.
2.	15 December, 1926-8500 per annum.
3.	3-$500, $560 and $633 per annum.
4.	Yes:-$950 per annum.
(Mr. RinfretJ



POSTMASTER AT BRAGG CREEK

Hon. Mr. BENNETT:: 1.	Who is postmaster or postmistress at
Bragg Creek?	.
2.	When was he or she appointed?
3.	On whose recommendation?


Hon. Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Mrs. Mary Wilson.
2.	20th January, 1927.
3.	Recommendation of government candidate for constituency.



EMPLOYMENT OF FRANK HUTCHINSON

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Mr. B-ENNETT:
1.	Is Frank Hutchinson employed in the post office at Edmonton, Alberta?
2.	If so, when was he employed?
3.	At what salary?
4.	Oil whose authority?
5.	Has he passed any civil service examination?
6.	If so, when?
Hon. Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	No.
2.	3. 4. 5. and 6. See answer to No. 1.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Might I ask permission, Mr. Speaker, to return to motions with respect to certain private bills in order to help expedite their passage, if thought desirable. I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Robb:
That private bills, Nos. 118, 148 and 179 to 213, both inclusive, and 216 to 223, both inclusive, and No. 165. being unopposed divorce bills which have been reported from the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, be now read a third time; and that rule 28 be suspended in relation thereto.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Carried by unanimous
consent.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: On division, Mr. Speaker.
Motion agreed to on division.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That said bills do now pass and that their titles he as on Ihe order paper.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, in order to facilitate the passing of similar measures for the balance of the session, I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Robb:
That for the remainder of the session all private bills from the Senate when received from that House be read a first and second time and referred forthwith; and that rule 103 respecting the posting of bills be suspended in reference thereto.

Motions to Expedite Private Bills


Hewitt Bostock: By leave of the House.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, before the
motion passes I should like to make a few remarks in reference to it. Again and again private members have protested against this way of passing divorce bills. As a member of the private bills committee I know the practice there is simply to receive the bills as they come from the Senate. The evidence is submitted to us in pamphlet form, but it is rarely read, and the bills go through the committee and the House without any consideration whatever. Occasionally bills that are controversial in character are held up, but that is very seldom. This session we have between 100 and 150 divorce bills going through all the stages of parliamentary procedure without any real consideration from this House. I understand that a bill has come to us from the Senate and has passed first reading in this House that would go a long way towards obviating the pre^nt method of conducting business-which is little less than a public scandal. The purpose of the Senate bill is to take away very largely from parliament the granting of divorces and transfer this to the courts, where it belongs. I would urgently press upon the government that, instead of setting aside the rules of 'this House, in order to get over this difficulty they should afford facilities for passing this measure, and thus put an end to this scandalous condition that for many years has prevailed.


Mr. A. M. CARMICHAEL (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Prime Minister that there are some other private bills in which some of us are interested and would like to see expedited. I have particular reference to Bill No. 177 to incorporate the Free Methodist Church in Canada. This bill has been reported from the private bills committee, but under the ordinary procedure it will not come before the House until Friday between eight and nine o'clock, and if then we should have a recurrence of what happened last night there is little hope of the bill being considered. Is there any possibility of having this bill placed in such a position that it may be disposed of by this House in the very near future, so that the Senate may have time to consider it before prorogation?


Mr. GEORGES PARENT (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the hon. gentleman is aware that the bill to which he has reference was reported last night, and following the ordinary course of business it should become law before the end of the session. Everything is being done to expedite the passage of this and other bills.


Archibald M. Carmichael: I understand that
quite well. But the point I make is this: Can any special consideration be given to this bill as well as to a number of divorce bills, so that instead of having it blocked again on Friday night, thus having it held over until next week and failing to be enacted, something can be done to take care of it.


Hon. LUCIEN CANNON (Solicitor General) :: Mr. Speaker, last night a report was
brought in by general consent of the House, and there is no doubt that arrangements could be made in order to expedite bills which are not considered to be contentious. Last night business was held up, I understand, on a bill which in the opinion of some members is contentious. I have been following the business of the private bills committee carefully, and I can assure my hon. friend that I will do my very best to help along the consideration of his bill.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: Mr. Speaker, will all the bills which have been reported by the committee be passed in this House if they are approved by the Senate and so become law before the session ends, or will divorce bills only get this consideration?


Lucien Cannon: All bills.


Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, I introduced Bill No. 107, which came before the committee of the whole House last evening, and was talked out. If that bill comes to a vote I have no doubt that it will meet with the approval and support of a majority of the members of this House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Well, let us vote on it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think there is no doubt
about that. Now, when a private bill is obstructed the only safeguard which a private member has with respect to his bill is to insist that all private bills must be held up in like manner. I have no objection at all to Bill No. 107 going to a vote, but I do not think it fair and equitable that other private bills

Private Bills

should be given precedence. As a matter of fact, I at once withdraw all objections to giving precedence to Senate bills, dealing with divorce, for I think we should help the orderly progress of the work of the House towards the close of the session; but with respect to any other private bills, I think they should keep their place on the order paper so that we may have some opportunity of securing a vote of the House on the private bill in which I am interested.


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


Mr. COOTE:: On division.


Hewitt Bostock: Carried on division.



' THIRD READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 118, respecting certain patents of James McCutcheon Coleman.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 148, respecting a certain patent owned by Chester Earl Gray and Aage Jenson. -Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 165, for the relief of James Edward Bamaby (as amended).-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 179, for the relief of Helen Pettit Bruce.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northwest).
Bill No. 180, for the relief of Hugh Devlin. -Mr. Pettit.
Bill No. 181, for the relief of Charles Wilson. -Mr. Kaiser.
Bill No. 182, for the relief of Josephine Rae Ennis.-Mr. Ladner.
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Della Laurel Cox.-Mr. Kaiser.
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Rose Glucks-berg.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 1S5, for the relief of Murray Richard Minler.-Mr. Speakman.
Bill No. 186, for the relief of John Leslie MacLellan.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 187, for the relief of Elizabeth Brown.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 188, for the relief of Matilda Emily Cantrell.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast.
Bill No. 189, for the relief of Mary Ellen Walker.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 190, for the relief of Edwin Walter Wood.-Mr. Matthews.
Bill No. 191, for the relief of Harriett Robinson.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 192, for the relief of Homera Emilie Hodgson.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).

Bill No. 193, for the relief of Paul Elestet Scarr.-Mr. Luchkovich.
Bill No. 194, for the relief of Ronald Lome Johnston.-Mr. Goodison.
Bill No. 195, for the relief of Eva O'Neill. -Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 196, for the relief of Mabel Beatrice Nash.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Bill No. 197, for the relief of Isabella Emily Blue.

Mr. McGregor.
Bill No. 198, for the relief of Cherie Amy Aston.-Mr. Preston.
Bill No. 199, for the relief of Ida Gertrude LeFevre.-Mr. Spence (Parkdale).
Bill No. 200, for the relief of Inez Mary Pitcher.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill	No.	201,	for	the relief of Charles
Murray Mutch.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill	No.	202,	for	the relief of Estelle
Henrietta Cartwright.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 203, for the relief of Ronald Ross File.-Mr. Lennox.
JJill No. 204, for the relief of Grace Mantle. -Mr. Church.
Bill No. 205, for the relief of Emma May Ryan.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill	No.	206,	for	the relief of Muriel
Martha Hammond.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 207, for the relief of Anna Mae Francis.-Mr. Tummon.
Bill No. 208, for the relief of Harold James Hubbard.-Mr. Spence (Parkdale).
Bill No. 209, for the relief of Indiaetta Muriel Taylor.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill	No.	210,	for	the relief of William
Arthur Dillabough.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto).
Bill No. 211, for the relief of James Alfred McCabe.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill	No.	212,	for	the relief of Frederick
George Jones.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 213, for the relief of Manford York. -Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 216, for the relief of Queenie Isobel Parks.-Mr. Bothwell,
Bill	No.	217,	for	the relief of Charles
Shedrick Phillips.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto).
Bill	No.	218,	for	the relief of Lavina
Harrison.-Mr. Bell (Hamilton).
Bill	No.	219,	for	the relief of Marretta
Isobelle Grose Leach.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill	No.	220,	for	the relief of Mabelle
Amelia Bulmer.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto).
Bill No. 221, for the relief of John Lauron Garfield Evans.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto).

Confederation Bilingual Stamps
Bill No. 222, for the relief of Ernest Arthur Kingston.-Mr. Young (Toronto).
Bill No. 223, for the relief of Norah Louise Patricia Campbell Chauvin.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: Is it the intention of the government to prepare a "Hansard" of the evidence taken before the Tariff Advisory Board and to supply every member of the House with a copy thereof?


James Alexander Robb: That question has been discussed by various people, and we have been urged to have a "Hansard" prepared. As my hon. friend knows, however, there has been given in the press fairly complete publicity to the inquiry-


George Gibson Coote: No.


James Alexander Robb: -and at the moment we are not convinced that any good purpose could be served by printing the evidence which is taken from time to time. That is one reason why the evidence has not been printed1. Another reason is the considerable expense it would mean to the country. I trust my hon. friend will not urge his request this year. Let us try the present method for another year so that we may ascertain in the meantime whether it is really necessary to have the evidence printed. If there are any cases in which hon. gentlemen are particularly interested we shall be glad to supply them with typewritten copies of the evidence, but I know that lobbying is going on to have this printing done for the benefit of persons who are interested in translating and in the obtaining of printing contracts.



NATURAL RESOURCES-WESTERN PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Lucien Cannon: The question was adked yesterday by
the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) whether judgment had been rendered by the Supreme Court in the Alberta school reference. I may inform my hon. friend that judgment has not yet been given.



CONFEDERATION BILINGUAL STAMPS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Addington) :: I would direct the attention of the
Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) to a statement in an article in the Montreal Gazette of the second instant, copied from the French press; to the effect that it had been decided to issue bilingual postage stamps in connection with the sixtieth anniversary of confederation. Has the government decided to issue bilingual postage stamps and if so, is such an issue to be confined to the year 1927 in commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary of confederation, or is to be permanent?


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):: In consequence of representations made to the committee in charge of arrangements in connection with the forthcoming celebration, a resolution was unanimously adopted by that committee in favour of the issuing of bilingual stamps for the occasion. The Postmaster General has decided to meet the wishes expressed in the resolution and to authorize the issue. So far as the future is concerned that must remain a matter for consideration.


John Wesley Edwards: May I ask
the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) whether the government has any intention in further commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary of confederation of appointing a special committee to design a bilingual flag for the country?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I may say to the Postmaster General-


John Wesley Edwards: I want an
answer to my question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: "Bilingual flag" is a contradiction in terms.


John Wesley Edwards: I knew that my right hon. friend' would appreciate that point.


George Halsey Perley: I understood the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) to say that the resolution to which he has referred was unanimously adopted by the Jubilee committee. As I remember the discussion we had on the subject, the general opinion was that the stamps to be issued might take some special form for this year, the words to be used being such as were common to both French and English- "Confederation-Canada", for example. ' That is the way I understood the resolution.
Canada Grain Act


Peter John Veniot: Had I known that this
question would come up to-day I would have had the resolution with me. As I recollect it, the resolution does suggest, as my hon. friend says, that these words should, as far as possible, be common to both languages.


George Halsey Perley: Not "as far as
possible" but actually.


Peter John Veniot: No, the resolution does not say that.


George Halsey Perley: Will the Postmaster General get the resolution?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: I should like to see it.



EMPLOYMENT OF DISABLED VETERANS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. F. WHITE (London):: On Monday last the Postmaster General informed the House that he was preparing a statement in answer to the accusation that amputation cases had not been justly dealt with. In this regard I have on the order paper some questions which have not yet been answered and I should like to know when the information will be given to the House.


Peter John Veniot: The statement may possibly be ready to-day. I may inform the House, pending the return of the answer, that the situation has been wrongly stated in the press. I will give the complete details later, but at the moment I may observe that the question arose out of the fact that certain vacant positions in the postal service were advertised for which it would be impossible to engage returned men, who were amputation cases, to fill. The statement was made by the Civil Service Commission to that- effect respecting this particular class of employment, and in that way the rumour got out that the postal service had decided that in the future it would not take on amputation cases. That is not so; it is not the policy of the department. The policy is, so far as possible, to meet the wishes of the Canadian Legion who I understand represent the returned men, and wherever it can be done to accommodate amputation cases. There are instances in which this is impossible, but that is the general policy of the department, and we are not departing from it. In the case of vacancies occurring in positions held by amputated men the appointment will certainly be given to soldiers who have undergone amputation.
[Sir George Perley.l


Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City):: Is this
the statement which the Postmaster General intended giving the House, or may we expect a further statement in regard to amputation
cases?


Peter John Veniot: It will be supplemented.


Arthur Edward Ross: It is hardly
fair to treat all amputation cases alike.


Peter John Veniot: That is right.



CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: There has arisen a serious situation which it is my duty to call to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) in the hope that he will give an answer. I am informed that when the amended grain bill, which passed through this House recently, came before the Senate, that honourable body or some members of it took it upon themselves to suggest that the Minister of Trade and Commerce was not in favour of the amendment and in support of that assertion stated that a letter had been written by him to the Board of Grain Commissioners for a suggestion as to a modified amendment. I understand that such an amendment was submitted to the minister, and I now desire to give him an opportunity of putting himself, as I suggest it is his duty to do, in keeping with the policy of the government in this matter. I would ask him whether he was opposed to the amendment which was introduced and passed in this House. He should dissipate these rumours.


Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The hon. member is correct in saying that I wrote to the chairman of the Board of Grain Commissioners asking him for suggestions as to the proposed amendments to the Grain Act. It is true he submitted certain amendments to the act and it is also true that representations were made to me by the producers. The Grain Act is a producers measure, and after hearing the representation of the producers, of the board and of the trade, I considered, and this was the opinion of the government, that it was wiser to introduce such amendments to the act as we submitted. No one has any right to offer any further comments.



TYPHOID EPIDEMIC IN MONTREAL

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. T. E. KAISER (Ontario):: I would like to ask the Minister of Health (Mr. King) whether the Dominion Medical Health C-oun-

Chicoutimi Harbour Commission
cil has been called together to consider the epidemic in Montreal and the conditions which made that epidemic possible. If that has not been done, why not?


Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Health):: The Dominion Medical Health Council has not been called together. The epidemic in Montreal is being dealt with by the local board of health in cooperation with the provincial board of health. The Department of Health at Ottawa have been in touch with the local organization and with the provincial board, but outside of that we have not taken any action, as it is not within our province so to do.



CHICOUTIMI HARBOUR COMMISSION LOAN OP $500,000 FOR TERMINAL FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved the third reading of Bill No. 272, to provide for a loan to the Chicoutimi harbour commissioners.
George Gibson Coote: I would like to ask the minister if this bill has been printed; it does not appear to be on file.


Mr. CARDIN:: It is true that the bill is
not on file, but it was put through last night. This bill is in absolutely the same form as those bills which provide for advances to the harbour commissioners of Montreal and Vancouver; it provides for an advance of $500,000 to the new harbour commissioners of Chicoutimi, and the terms of the advance are the same as those which apply to the advances made to the harbour commissioners of Vancouver and Montreal.


George Gibson Coote: Is it not printed yet?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that it is
printed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



DEBTS DUE THE CROWN


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 122, respecting certain debts due the crown.
George Gibson Coote: Would the minister please
explain?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: The amendment simply provides that the records of these transactions shall be brought down in a report to this parliament annually, as other reports are brought down.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, April 1, consideration in committee of Bill No. 230, to amend the Special War Revenue Act, 1915 -Hon. Mr. Robb-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: All the sections of this bill have been adopted in committee with the exception of section 8.
Section 8 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSION LOAN OF $4,000,000 FOR TERMINAL FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved the second reading of Bill No. 215, to provide for a loan to the Vancouver harbour commissioners.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Loan of $4,000,000 to harbour commissioners for terminal facilities.
George Gibson Coote: I do not want to express
any opposition to this bill, but at this time I would like to draw the attention of the minister to certain operations of the Vancouver harbour commissioners and to suggest that the result of those operations would lead the House to believe that we should have some different system of auditing the accounts of our harbour commissioners. Of course I will have to confine myself to those matters relating to the Vancouver harbour commission. I think that a year ago the minister advised the committee of this House that there was no item in the estimates under which the operations of the Vancouver harbour board, or in fact any harbour board, could be discussed here, and that as a matter of fact the only time when we could review the expenditures of harbour commissions was when these bodies came before parliament asking for a grant of money to carry on or to extend their operations. I have here a report brought down a couple of years ago showing the earnings and expenditures of elevator No. 1, operated by the Vancouver harbour commission, for the crop year ending July 31, 1923. This return shows that the harbour commissioners received a revenue from the operations of the elevator of $203,477.96, whilst the expenditure was $106,329.10, disclosing a net operating revenue in that year of $97,148.86. Notwithstanding their large net revenue that year, the commissioners
1962	COMMONS
Vancouver Harbour Commission
advanced the handling charge from one-half cent a bushel to one cent a bushel for the following year. I have here the auditor's report of the operations of the elevator for the crop year ending July 31, 1924, which shows an operating revenue of $791,186.65, and overages for the year valued at $191,006.31. I may remark here that these overages are not shown in the balance sheet made up by the auditor but they appear under separate items. That makes total receipts of $981,192.96 for this elevator in that year, or almost a million dollars. The operating expenditure is given as $481,295.51. The total investment made by the commission in this elevator is given as $1,327,787.22, showing the operating surplus to be 36 per cent on the investment. The handling charge this year, as I said before, was one cent per bushel. There was an amount set aside for sinking fund of $71,985, leaving a net surplus of $409,310.51. Notwithstanding this very large surplus the board, in the fall of 1924, increased the harbour dues on grain from one cent to ten cents per ton. The only inference I think which can be drawn from this is that the Vancouver harbour commissioners have been using the elevator to collect from the shippers of grain a toll which is not justified by the necessities of the elevator, and, as will be shown probably later on, the harbour commissioners have used a large percentage of the revenue for capital expenditures in the harbour, amounting, I believe, to $1,800,000.
Now, I want to refer again to the auditor's statement which I have here and which I may say was procured from the department last year. On the expenditure side there is an amount of $71,284.11 for water front charge on grain handling. I hope the minister will give us an explanation of what this charge is for. There are no details given for the amount of $55,544, except to say that it is for miscellaneous expenses including administration. This seems to be rather a large amount. Then we have miscellaneous expenses, including administration and office salaries, totalling $37,674. It seems as though "administration" is included in both these items. The operating expenses are shown as $213,064, but there are no details given for this amount in the auditor's report. It appears to me, therefore, that the auditor's report cannot be considered to be complete if such a large amount is given without any details. I have been told that there were no les than three audits made of the operation of this elevator during that year, that is the crop year ending July 31, 1924, in an endeavour to show the revenue from the elevator
[Mr. Coote.l
as small as possible. Then I should like to remind the minister that in the financial statement for that year the overages, estimated at $191,006.31, were not included. The total is simply shown on the statement as "placed in reserve." Then from the operating surplus, exclusive of overages amounting to $290,000, $120,000 is shown as "transferred to reserve fund." I should also like to know now what this reserve fund amounts to. I may say that this is the only auditor's report which I have ever seen concerning the operations of the board of commissioners of the Vancouver harbour, and 1 should like, to emphasize again the necessity of having the operations of the board audited each year, and have the auditor's report available to members of parliament. This matter has been urged upon the minister upon previous occasions, but he has always refused to comply with our request that the operations of harbour commissions should be audited. But if parliament is going to make money grants to any of these boards we surely must have the privilege each year of scrutinizing their expenditures. Certainly as far as the Vancouver harbour board is concerned we are quite justified in requesting that their operations be considered by our public accounts committee.
Another item I would draw to the attention of the minister in connection with this audit is the $20,000 set aside out of the' revenue for the crop year ending July 31, 1924, to provide for overhauling and repairing the elevator for the next season's operations, although the amount of $50,000 was included in the expenditure for preparing the elevator for the season's operations in the year ending July 31, 1924. It would appear as though the commissioners were including this charge for two years instead of one. Then no explanation is given as to the waterfront charge, amounting to $71,284, except to say that it was authorized by the board at the rate of one-quarter of a cent per bushel.
The auditors also state that they have examined the various insurance policies as to amounts only and not as to wordings. Surely the auditors should have carefully examined the wording of these policies. If not, I do not see how the audit can be considered to be a complete one. The auditors also state that in the grain shipped out there were included screenings to the extent of 25,762,990 pounds, and they estimate this at 268,255 bushels. This would show the weight per bushel of screenings to be about 90 pounds. As a matter of fact screenings weigh more nearly 30 pounds than 90 pounds to the bushel; but even if we take the weight at

Vancouver Harbour Commission
60 pounds to the bushel, this would show a difference of 143,000 bushels.
The auditors' report shows that the grain handled represented an operating revenue per bushel of 1.488 cents; the operating cost per bushel was .941 cents, showing an operating surplus per bushel of .547 cents. In the face of these figures it is not difficult to see that a handsome surplus would be earned for the commission by the operation of this elevator.
I am dealing with the report to this extent in an endeavour to persuade the minister that he should include in this bill some provision for an audit by the Auditor General, or if he prefers, even by the audit board, but that the result of that audit should be included in the report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries or in some parliamentary report, so that we would have a right to examine and discuss the report on the estimates of the department.	[DOT]
I feel that the people of Alberta have almost as great an interest in this harbour as have the people of Vancouver. We are furnishing all the grain traffic for the port of Vancouver, and I notice that in one year, I think 1923, the quantity of grain shipped through that port was about 40 per cent of the total tonnage which was exported through it. If we had all the auditors' reports, I think we could show that more than 50 per cent of the net earnings of the port have been made from grain shipped from Alberta. I am only guessing at these figures, but at any rate a large amount of the earnings of the Vancouver harbour board have been made through the handling of Alberta grain. There has been considerable dissatisfaction in Alberta for several years over the operations of the board. More than a year ago an agitation was commenced in Alberta to have an Alberta man appointed on the Vancouver harbour board and we asked that a representative of the grain producers should be appointed to that position. There was a vacancy on the board at the time and so there was a splendid opportunity to give Alberta a representative on it. However, we were unable to persuade the government that that should be done. I do not want to blame the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for that; I do not believe he had much to say about the matter. I presume the Liberal association in Vancouver was really the body that stood in the way of such an appointment being made.
I think it was in the year 1923 that I was invited to go to Vancouver to be present at the opening of the Ballantyne pier. At that time we could not ship any grain to Vancouver from any point on the prairies because the
elevators at Vancouver were choked and the Canadian Pacific could not furnish us with cars. I went there with the intention of urging upon the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries, the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), that he should recommend to the government the granting of, say, $10,000,000 to the Vancouver harbour commission in order that more storage elevators might be erected at that point. After spending two or three days in Vancouver and looking over the operations of the then harbour board, I did not feel like taking that responsibility upon myself. I did not feel that the men who were handling that board should be entrusted with the spending of $10,000,000 in order to provide that accommodation.
I do not think we have had a satisfactory harbour commission in Vancouver since that time, and I regret that when the present board was appointed a few months ago, the government in the light of past experience did not see fit to recognize the claims of the grain producers in Alberta and to allow them to have a representative on the board. It would have been a good thing for the port of Vancouver if the Alberta grain producers had been allowed a representative on that board; it would have given the producers confidence that their interests in Vancouver were being properly looked after, and they would be much more anxious than they are at present to ship their grain through that port. Seeing that the board has been appointed I do not know that anything can be gained by urging it again upon the government at this stage; but before this bill goes through, I hope the minister will agree with us that some yearly audit should be made of the operations of this board and that these reports should be made available to parliament each year. I shall be pleased if the minister in his remarks will indicate his willingness to have this done, and as a matter of fact I would rather see him include in this bill some provision under which such an audit would be furnished to parliament each year.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Dealing first with the
revenues coming out of the grain which is shipped through the harbour of Vancouver, I may say that for 1926 those revenues amounted to $769,815.99. The total revenue of the harbour was $2,193,670, so that the revenue from handling grain through Vancouver formed about one-third of the total revenues of that harbour. I mention this, not with any intention of minimizing the importance of the grain shipped through Vancouver, but only to illustrate that the other receipts are also somewhat important.
1964	COMMONS
Vancouver Harbour Commission
I have no objection to agreeing to a very large extent with the request of the hon. member for Macleod in regard to an audit of the operations of the Vancouver harbour commission. I may remind him that at present the business of the harbour commission is looked into in three ways. First of all the harbour commission have their own firm of auditors looking into their business every month during the year.


George Gibson Coote: Is that Wilson and Wilson?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. This audit is of
course for the information of the harbour commissioners themselves so that they may know exactly in what position they are, but the report of those auditors may be made available to all parties interested. Second, there is an audit made by the Department of Marine and Fisheries itself. The officers of the department have been getting information throughout the year in regard to the operations of the harbour commission. Third, we have the authority of the audit board which can be directed to make an extensive audit of all the business of the harbour commission and the report of the audit board must be tabled as soon as the session opens. Over and above that, under the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act we have the authority of the Auditor General to go into the affairs of the harbour commission and to make all investigations which he thinks fit to make. So that practically we have at our disposal all facilities for an audit of the affairs of all the harbour commissions. It is true there is nothing in the law to make it compulsory to have an audit every year, but it is within the power of the government to have a special audit of the affairs of the board whenever it thinks it proper to have it, and I can assure my hon. friend that if a request were made to the government by any member of the House interested that the audit board be directed to make an audit of any of our harbour commissions the government would be pleased to grant it.
The suggestion that the report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries should contain information relative to these harbour commissions which could be made the basis of discussion by a member of the House who desired to discuss the affairs of a particular harbour is worth considering. The harbours that we have all over the country are developing and the government is making large loans to harbour commissioners. I can see that there is a great deal in the request of my hon. friend and I am quite ready to consider it and to try to convince my 
colleagues-I do not think I will have very much trouble in that respect-that we ought to make a reference in the report of the department to the affairs of the harbour commissioners. I believe this request can be acceded to.
As far as the charges are concerned, certain criticisms have been made in regard to the increase in the rates last year. I may say that the harbour commission of Vancouver is not entirely responsible for the increase in the rates. The increase from one cent to one cent and a quarter was made by those operating private elevators. The request for an increase was made to the grain commission which agreed to it, the rate was increased in the private elevators, and this having been done, the harbour commissioners thought it only proper to have their rate placed at the same figure as that which had been agreed to by the grain commission.
With reference to supplying information to members of the House, I think the harbour commissions are issuing every year a very complete report covering all their operations during the previous year, and this report is available to all the members of the House. It is a public document issued by the harbour commission with a view to giving information and a certain amount of advertisement in regard to the harbour. I can assure my hon. friend that the department, and the government are absolutely serious in the effort to check as much as possible the expenditures of these harbour commissions. We shall do everything possible to protect the interests of the public in relation to the operation of these harbours.


George Gibson Coote: It was just a little difficult
for me to follow the minister when he was speaking on the audit. I was not sure whether he said there was now a yearly auditors'report made to the government.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, there is no yearly audit made by the audit board, but it is within the power of the government to have that audit made by the audit board. What I said was that there is an audit made by the auditors of the commission, and secondly, there is the departmental audit which is made by the officers of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. All the information we have is available to every member of the House, and there is the power which is given to the audit board by the legislation of 1925. This audit board can be directed by the treasury board to make a yearly audit, or to make one whenever they think proper to do it. We have that power at present, if we

Vancouver Harbour Commission
think it good policy on the part of the government to ask the audit board to make an investigation or an audit every year. I said that if any request for an audit were made by any member interested in the affairs of these harbours, the government would be disposed to ask the audit board to make it. But my hon. friend will realize that to have an audit every year of all the harbour commissions in Canada would mean the establishment of a very costly staff, and probably with no practical result or advantage. It would mean large expense on the part of the government to keep the audit board working during the year, and it would take practically all the year to cover all the harbour commissioners we have at present, only to show what has been shown in most cases by the audit made by the auditors of the harbour, or to supplement the information that is already in the hands of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. I think it is better to continue as at present; leave the power in the hands of the government to have a special audit whenever they think proper to have it; because otherwise I am afraid the Minister of Finance, who is always very strong on economy, will be opposed to the appointment of a permanent audit board working all year and practically covering the audit which would have been made by the officers of the board and the officers of the department.
I think we have all the safeguards required _ in the power now given to the government. If a request for an audit is made and not granted the government will be open to criticism especially if there is ground for believing there is something wrong with the administration of any of the harbours. I think the public is absolutely protected. Suppose we ask the audit board to make an audit every year, it will be an audit made after the expense has been incurred and it will be only in the form of a criticism passed upon the operations of the commission, although no doubt it would serve as a deterrent to prevent a recurrence of anything that might be called in question. But this audit will not help the administration in checking up the expenses of the harbour. This is done by the regular audit firm and by the officers of the department.


George Gibson Coote: I am anxious to know if there will be a detailed statement available to members of the House each year. I understood the minister to say there was an audit by the officers of the Marine department. That would be quite sufficient for our purpose, and of course if we were not satisfied we could ask for an audit by the audit board.
But if the officers of his own department make any kind of an audit of the operations of these boards I would like the minister to assure us that that would be available to the public each year and to members of parliament. Then we would have the details before us to show how the operations of the commission are being carried on and whether any changes should be recommended. At present we have nothing, unless we ask for some report. We sometimes get the auditor's report. On the only occasion that I ever asked for an auditor's report-well, perhaps I should not say it, but I think the information was given to me with great reluctance by the officers of the department, and I naturally feel that we should place it beyond the power of the department to say that this report shall be furnished to you or it shall not. As parliament is granting the money under which the board is operating, surely we should have a detailed report of their operations. That is what I am asking for.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I see no objection to my hon. friend's request that the reports in the department should be made available to hon. members.


George Gibson Coote: The minister gave us the revenue from the elevators last year compared with the total receipts of the harbour. Could he give us the amount of grain handled by the government elevators and by the private elevators?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: I should also like to have the net revenue from the operations of the elevators.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am afraid that I am not in a position to give my hon. friend the information separately; I have only the totals. The total receipts from the elevators amounted to $638,705.33. Of course, in the statement given to me there are certain charges incident to the handling of grain. The total revenues, as I said, on the handling of grain amounted to $769,815.99. During 1926 elevator No. 1, with a capacity of 2,050,000 bushels, shipped 9,220,037 bushels; elevator No. 2, with a capacity of 1,625,000 bushels, shipped 6,037,028 bushels; Spillers' elevator with a capacity of 2,000,000 bushels, shipped 20,012,152 bushels; elevator No. 3 with a capacity of 650,000 bushels, shipped 7,936,027 bushels. So for the calendar year 1926 the total shipments amounted to 43,205,244 bushels.


George Gibson Coote: How would that compare
with the two previous years' operations?

Vancouver Harbour Commission


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have not the details for
last year, but I think there is an increase.


George Gibson Coote: But there would be a decrease in the amount handled by the harbour commissioners' own elevators?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, but there is an increase in the shipments from the other elevators. I may repeat that the 'business of the harbour commissioners for 1926 was rather good.


George Gibson Coote: I take it that only No. 1 and No. 2 elevators were operated by the commission last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: Have agreements been entered into for the leasing of these two elevators?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My information is that the parties are practically agreed.


George Gibson Coote: Is either lease completed?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, the leases have not
been completed yet, but I am informed an understanding has been reached in regard to the terms.


George Gibson Coote: Does the government admit that it would be good policy to lease the elevators? I ask the question because I am advised that one of the privately owned elevators, Spillers handled last year twenty million bushels, while the commission's own elevators handled only about fifteen million bushels. Personally, I think the commission made a igreat mistake when in the first place they decided to lease what is called the old Woodward elevator. I think they should have pursued the policy laid down at Montreal of having all the elevators owned by the commission. As it is now, with certain elevators privately owned, these get all the grain when it is coming forward slowly, and the commission's elevators are used only when the privately owned elevators cannot take' care of the business. The harbour commission made a mistake in leasing the Woodward elevator, and they made a further mistake in granting a lease for the property on which Spillers' elevator was erected at a rental so low that it does not cover the interest on the money invested in the property. I think this shows the necessity of having all matters of expenditure and policy-for instance, in granting leases-subject to the approval of the minister, so that he may justify the expenditure and the policy before parliament. The \'anoouver harbour commission I think have been very unwise in their elevator policy.

They constructed their elevators at too great a cost. It has been discussed in past years and I do not want to go into it again now, but that cost alone is a handicap. The granting of favourable terms to private companies to come in and operate elevators of their own was another mistake. But now there are two elevators, one privately owned and one under lease to the United Grain Growers, and I think it is a good policy on the part of the department to consider the leasing of one of the other two. I have no hesitation in saying that the government should give every possible consideration to the Alberta Wheat Producers' Association, which is seeking to lease an elevator in that city. Both major political parties have stated through their leaders that they are willing and anxious to grant assistance to the farmers in cooperative marketing. We have in Alberta the first cooperative effort among wheat producers on a large scale to market their own product. I regret that a year ago the government were not able to see their way clear to lease to the cooperative Wheat Prdoucers' Association one of the elevators at Vancouver. I wish to commend them for their action in leasing the elevator at Prince Rupert. I think that has been good business for the government, for Prince Rupert and1 for the producers' association, and I hope they will give the producers' association just as favourable consideration in connection with the leasing of an elevator at Vancouver, which I know the association are very anxious to secure. Seeing that the Alberta producers are not to get representation on the board, I think it is the next best way of assisting them in the handling of their own product and the marketing of wheat at Vancouver. Will the minister be good enough to give us information with regard to the purchase of the Hastings mill site? Who were the former owners, what amount was paid for the site, and what use has been made of it since it was purchased?


Mr. BENNETT:: The problem of marketing the wheat products of Alberta through Vancouver is one which it was endeavoured to solve in the first instance by the creation of the harbour commission and the construction of a large number of elevators. There is nothing that so concerns a great many people as the facilities provided at Vancouver for the shipping of grain from Alberta. While many matters are of importance to a great many people in Canada there is nothing that concerns so many people as the facilities at Vancouver-that is, people in Alberta and part of Saskatchewan. And to the extent to which excessive charges are made at these

Vancouver Harbour Commission
elevators for the service rendered, to that extent is there a direct injury to the farmers of those provinces. I say direct, because if they pay more than they should they suffer that much. The theory on which these facilities were provided is a simple one; the country guaranteed or practically put up its money to the harbour commission to enable it to provide facilities at cost-not at profit, but at cost. After providing for interest and proper allowance for depreciation and management, these facilities were to be available at cost to the people of the country, and just to the extent to which more than necessary was expended in the construction of facilities, to that extent the service rendered costs more than it should to those who use it.
I think the minister is fully aware of the intense interest which the farming population of those provinces take in these facilities. I will not enter into a discussion regarding the cost of the elevators, because that is past. But I will say this with respect to the increase that took place in the rate a year ago, that the government as such should have pressed the grain commission not to make that increase. It is true that there was no increase in the charge by the government s facilities until after the grain commission had granted an increased rate to privately-owned enterprises. Thereafter the rate was increased. That meant an excessive charge on the farmers for the handling of grain. It is said that the charge was not greater than that imposed at Fort William, and that is true. Vancouver, however, is a port open all the year round and the very facilities that are provided there by the harbour commission were provided on the assumption that, the port being available every month of the year, the cost of operation and the incidental cost of rental and interest on investment would be less than at Fort William. That is true. But what happened? We have the government acquiring the Woodward elevator, so called. That was offered to many private interests who declined to accept it, and the Board of Grain Commissioners were induced after much effort to take it over. They leased it. I want to ask the minister now whether or not that 8100,000 odd which we discussed the other day is to be paid out of this $4,000,000? The bill says that the money is to be available: -as may be required to enable the corporation to complete the construction of terminal facilities in the harbour of Vancouver, for which the plans, specifications and estimates have been approved by the governor in council betore the passing of this act; and to construct such additional terminal facilities as may be likewise approved as necessary, further to properly equip the said port.
There is nothing in that language which contemplates the payment of money for any claim that might be made by a private enterprise against the harbour commission. The minister was good enough to say the other day that he would advise me as a result of inquiry just how the matter stood. I protest against the money being used in that way. I protest against any claim being paid until it is made good in a court of law, because the company that put forward the claim^ never had any legal existence. It had a capital of $1,000,000 and, according to the grain commission, $20,000 of that sum has been paid up, whereas the law requires that before the company may function 10 per cent of its capital shall have been paid up.


Mr. BLATCHFORD:: The company was
legally incorporated and capitalized at $250,000.


George Gibson Coote: How much was paid up?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The report says $20,000 was paid up.


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: I know, my dear sir, but that was before the company thought of operating. The elevator was not running until two years after that. _


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is one of the directors.


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: Yes, sir.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And therefore can speak with authority. In some tribunals he would not speak at all, but I am content that he should proceed.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: The minister intimated some time ago that it was the policy of the department to do everything possible to develop our harbours, and in my opinion any money invested in this work in Canada is well spent. An enormous amount has been voted for the Vancouver board during the past three or four years. The sum of $10,000,000 has already been voted and this bill provides for another $4,000,000, making S14,000,000 in all." Large sums have also been voted for the port of Montreal and Toronto harbour. There was voted $5,000,000 for the port of Quebec to inaugurate a considerable scheme of development, and I may tell the minister that the Quebec harbour commission will soon come before this House for more money to continue operations. I hope that when our request is made it will be favourably considered.
_	COMMONS
Vancouver Harbour Commission


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: I want to make a few corrections in view of the fact that I am a member of the company. It seems to me that the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) should retract the statement he made regarding the financial position of the company. The report of the Turgeon grain inquiry commission gives the facts in connection with the incorporation of the company.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What page is the hon. gentleman referring to?


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: Page 25. According to the report of the commission, under date February 2, 1924, the company was incorporated under Dominion charter with a capital of $250,000, with myself as president. As to capital stock, $40,000 was issued, $20,000 being actually paid up. I feel somewhat embarrassed addressing the Chair for the first time and, in so doing, defending myself and my associates in this matter. But I am not ashamed to make that defence. It was suggested the other day that these gentlemen were political friends of the party. Let me cite their names and tell the committee who they are so that hon. members may judge for themselves. The first member of the company I may mention is Mr. S. G. Tobin, for twenty-five years a business man and farmer in the district of Edmonton, Alberta. He was a member of the Alberta legislature.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And a member of this House last session.


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: He was a member r the Alberta legislature for twelve years and two years after becoming a director of the corporation he was elected to this House. You cannot blame him for that, can you? Another director of the company is Colonel James K. Cornwall, known as the apostle of the north. He has blazed trails into the north country for thirty years, and has done more to open up northern Alberta than any ten men on the prairies. He was a Conservative member of the legislature ten years ago, and today operates a line of steam boats and trading posts in the far north, the arctic.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was never a Conservative.


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: Another member ot the organization is Senator P. E. Lessard, one of the oldest and best known and most respected business men in the west, a member of the Alberta legislature for years; he was made a senator long after this company was incorporated. So far as I am concerned, I 
*was elected to the House of Commons this year, and the company was incorporated three years ago.


Mr. KELLNER:: Is Mr. Walker on the directorate?


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: He is not, and I
would ask the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Kellner) to withdraw that statement, because I see by Hansard that there was a mistake made in that connection when the hon. member was discussing the question.
The early history of the Woodward elevator is as follows: A man by the name of Mr. Woodward went to Vancouver and started to build an elevator. He failed financially and the elevator was considered a white elephant on Burrard inlet. The people of Vancouver insisted that the harbour commissioners complete the elevator and put it into operation to handle grain from Alberta, because they had handled 54,000,000 bushels of grain through elevator No. 1 that year and there was a blockade; the permit system was put into effect, embargoes were placed up and down the railway line, and grain could not be moved. We needed more elevators. They made overtures to different grain companies-including the Alberta Pacific, the company of which the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) is a director, and here is what the report says:
Woodward and Company, Limited, were unable to finance to its completion the building of the elevator, and work was stopped with the completion of a working house but without the provision of any storage accommodation. Later the building was looked over by James Richardson and Sons, the United Grain Growers' Grain Company, Limited, and the Alberta Pacific Elevator Company, with a view to taking over Woodward's lease.
They turned down the proposition. Then overtures were made to other people on the prairies who might be able to handle this matter. I was asked to form a company and take it over, which I did. The commissioners were to have the plant completed for operation, grain to be handled by a lighter system in sixty days. We then bought a boat from the United States government and equipped it with the most modern machinery for transferring and handling grain, with oil burning engines and all modern equipment, at a cost of over $80,000 capable of handling 20,000 bushels per hour, with a capacity of 100,000 bushels, and that boat is still lying idle on the Pacific coast. Then I was notified two years later-after making thirty trips to Vancouver in attempts to have the plans agreed upon-that the building would be ready on June 29, and that I could take possession

Vancouver Harbour Commission
on June 30. This I could not agree to; the shipping season was over and the plant was yet unfinished. That agreement originally provided that the plant would cost $660,000 with the storage capacity, the pier, and the belt conveyors to handle grain, and we were to pay a rental of 9 per cent. When the building was completed the cost was just $10,000 less than $1,000,000 which meant that our rent jumped from about $58,000 to about $90,000, and I refused to pay it. I told them I could not function under those conditions, so they gave me forty-eight hours in which to accept the proposition or they would cancel the agreement, which they did. Immediately they closed with the United Grain Growers', for $45,000 per year, the same people who had turned it down in the first place, and who had made overtures to me before the lease was cancelled. We were left with all the cost of incorporating the company, of defending our case before the royal grain commission, of equipping the lighter and many other incidentals, but when we asked for ou* money back there was strong objection. Not a nickel of the settlement money will be left after the bills are paid. We took the matter to our legal advisers, who advised us to enter suit and accordingly we sued for $250,000. The harbour commissioners consulted their solicitors, who advised them to settle; they went to an independent solicitor, Mr. Davis, who also advised them to settle; they brought the matter before the Minister of Justice, and he advised them to settle also. I want to make it clear that I have never lobbied nor have I ever spoken to a single member of this government or of this House in connection with this bill. I met the Minister of Marine and Fisheries once when I went to see his deputy; I asked him if he intended to pay or if they wanted to fight, and the Minister said he would refer it to the Minister of Justice and let me know, and this is the first I have heard of it. .


Mr. CLARK:: Will the hon. member say
whether he has the opinion of Mr. Davis under his hand?


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: No, I have not his
opinion. It was asked for by the harbour board.


John Arthur Clark: Can my friend state which
Mr. Davis it was, what his initials are?


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: E. P. Davis.


John Arthur Clark: And he advised a settlement?


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: Does the hon. member know whether that settlement will be paid out of the vote now before the House?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the point.


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: I cannot answer
that. We have a claim against the harbour board which we intend to take to court unless a settlement is made.


John Arthur Clark: I understand that the hon.
member is presenting to the House reasons why the claim of his company should be settled?


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: No, I am not. I
am stating how the trouble came about, and I am answering the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) who was mistaken in his statements.


John Arthur Clark: I am afraid I misunderstood;
I thought the hon. member was giving the facts to this House to justify us in voting for the second reading of this bill and for the payment of that claim.


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: No, I am not asking you to vote for it; use your own judgment.
I am simply laying the cards on the table.


John Arthur Clark: But the hon. member has
stated that he is the .president of this company, and that if a settlement is made his company will be reimbursed. Is that correct?


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: Naturally we expect to be paid for our trouble and for the money we spent.


John Arthur Clark: And he as a shareholder in
this company, will receive a portion of the proceeds.


Peter John Veniot: Is a cross-examination of
this kind quite proper, Mr. Chairman?


John Arthur Clark: I think it is very vital,
because I think this is violating all the rules of procedure. I think it is quite clear that the hon. member is deeply interested in that settlement and in the receipt of money coming from a vote of parliament.


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: I am simply explaining the case to the hon. member for West Calgary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He knows more about it than you do, apparently.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: He does about
everything.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; the hon. member
for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) has mistaken himself for myself. I do not arrogate to myself the' knowledge of everything, as he

Vancouver Harbour Commission
does; I know something about a few things, which is different. The hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat is quite right in drawing attention to the fact that I spoke of the capital as being $1,000,000. That is wrong; the alleged expenditure was what I meant. The capital was $250,000, of which $20,000 was paid up. Under the Companies Act it is required that 10 per cent, or in this case $25,000, be paid up before the company may exist, so this company had no right to function.


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: The company never functioned; we never operated under the lease. The company was incorporated and it is still incorporated and still in good legal standing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is very delightful. The company never functioned; it had no legal existence since $20,000 was paid up while the law requires $25,000. Therefore it cannot maintain an action in a court of law.


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: We never handled
one dollar's worth of grain, because we never took over the plant.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nearly everyone except my hon. friend understands the facts. There never was a legal company.


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: Certainly there was.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The royal commission
found that only $20,000 of the capital stock had been paid up, while the law requires that $25,000, in this case, be paid. Therefore there was no legal entity entitled to function and to enter into a lease, so any lease thereby secured would be void. The company never was a company; it never existed as such; it had no identity as such and could not maintain an action in a court of law. Therefore this Claim against the harbour commissioners is quite in accord' with the opinion generally held by the public. That is, a few gentlemen favourable to the administration of the day have been able to make the arrangement in question. The hon. gentleman has made perfectly clear that the company never had a legal existence. It does not exist in law, only $20,000 being paid up whereas the Companies Act says that 10 per cent must be paid up before a company can function as such. Therefore there has never been a company. It can maintain no action, no claim; and any money paid by the harbour commission to a company that has no existence should be recovered by those who paid it. That is the story.


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: The hon. gentleman is not correct. There was $40,000 subscribed

and the cheque was in the treasury. Only $20,000 was being used for the simple reason that everything was tied up and the company was unable to operate in view of the fact that the elevator was not completed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The royal commission reported that $20,000 was paid up.


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: I have the particulars right here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Twenty thousand dollars paid up was what the commission reported. They discovered that a company with a nominal capital of $250,000 was endeavouring, with a paid up capital of $20,000, to lease a property which under the law it could not do as it did not exist. There could be no such company as the Pacific & Oriental Company until such time as at least $25,000 had been paid up. I do not care anything about the $40,000 cheque.


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: I am basing my statement on the evidence given before the royal grain commission. I probably should have said there was $40,000 paid up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The commission said


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: The money was in
the treasury. We only had certain expenditures to meet and we were functioning accordingly.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: You said you never
functioned a minute ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The commission found
that $20,000 was paid up. Does the hon. gentleman from Moose Jaw understand that? Twenty thousand only v/as paid up according to the finding of the commission.


Arthur Edward Ross: I did not say
anything about it. The hon. gentleman asserted that I knew everything about the matter. I do not. I do not know anything about this, and I am not getting into the argument at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Ah! It is so delightful; the hon. gentleman has a modesty that is really bewildering. The commission found that $20,000 was paid up. The hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Blatchford) now declares he should have said that $40,000 was the amount. Which statement are you to take? What he says here, or what the commission found after examining him under oath? He gave evidence, he was examined under oath; and this little coterie that tried to get this lease now say they want $100,000 although the company never functioned. They said

Vancouver Harbour Commission
they had $20,000 in the bank but they never took a lease, never functioned the hon. gentleman says now, and now they want this government to pay them $100,000. That is the
story.


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: I took my cue to
enter the grain handling business from Mr. Bennett's successful operations in the same line-the Alberta Pacific-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Bennett is not the
owner of a single share in the Alberta Pacific Grain Company.


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: -when that company was formed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Excuse me. Mr. Bennett has not a single dollar of investment in the Alberta Pacific Grain Company. Mr. Bennett sold out.


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: Quite recently for


Mr. PERRAS:: Which Mr. Bennett?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. R. B. Bennett. Mr. Bennett sold his interest long ago. Mr. Bennett realized that unless the government was going to bonus him he could hardly expect to succeed longer in that industry, in view of the formation of the pool.


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: The Alberta Pacific
Grain Company * was formed through a trust company known as the Alliance Company, and I find according to the record, from the high cost of living investigation of 1919, they had $24,500 in cash.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is wrong. Thej
had a million in cash. That is on record. Just read the record.


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: Later on they
started to do business. Mr. Bennett put in $300,000 of English money, and let me show you the profits they made.


John Frederick Johnston: I really cannot allow
this discussion to proceed.


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: The hon. member
for West Calgary has made the charge that the company to which he refers was not functioning, that the capital was not sufficiently paid up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is true.


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: In the case of the
Alberta Pacific Company the record shows that only $24,500 was paid up, and that they made millions during the war while Canada was fighting for her life.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But your company never
functioned.


John Frederick Johnston: This discussion, which
has gone on for some considerable time, is irrelevant to the particular matter before the committee, and I must ask hon. gentlemen to confine themselves more strictly to the question under consideration.


John Arthur Clark: I should like to ask the
minister whether or not the claim of the company of which my hon. friend for East Edmonton is president will be paid out of this vote?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I stated, when we discussed the resolution upon which the bill is based, that this amount was provided for in the $4,000,000. The observation was made that it might have been taken out of the revenue of the harbour commission instead of making it a capital payment. I quite admit that the payment might have been made through the revenue account but, as I said, if this course had been followed parliament would not have been given the opportunity of passing judgment upon it, and we would have been deprived of the views which have been expressed by hon. gentlemen opposite. The fact that we come here and mention this very amount shows that we are quite ready to place all the facts before the House. We were not afraid of throwing complete light upon this transaction, and the position in which the harbour commission finds itself. It is all very well for the hon. member for West Calgary to say that there is no company. I would hesitate to pass judgment as to the effect of the federal law in the case of companies, but according to the laws of my own province, the fact that the whole capital amount has not been subscribed, or that the required percentage of capital has not been paid, does not mean that the company is not legally organized; the directors become personally responsible for the indebtedness of the company. I believe the situation is the same under the federal Companies Act. Under that law the company is obliged to have a certain amount of capital paid up before it starts to do business. If that is not done the directors become responsible personally, but the company exists just the same. I submit that this company was capable of entering into a lease with the Vancouver harbour commission. In cases of losses the creditors of the company would have had their recourse against the directors personally because they started to do business before a ce'rtain percentage of capital stock had been paid up.

Vancouver Harbour Commission


Hugh Guthrie: Would the minister inform me1-I do not know very much about the case-if litigation actually took place? Was an action entered in the court to recover the amount?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I will be very frank in
saying that I have no personal information that an action had been entered in the courts. The hon. member from East Edmonton said that action had been taken for $250,000, and it was following those proceedings that the harbour commissioners consulted their counsel. They received from counsel the opinion that it would be advisable for the commission to try and make a settlement of the claim.


John Arthur Clark: I do not wish to interrupt
in any way but I wonder if the minister could read the opinion given by Mr. E. P. Davis.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is a very long document, but the substance of it is what I have stated. Counsel advised settlement. The first advice was given by the firm of Farris, Farris, Stultz and Sloan, and after having the advice of these counsel the harbour commissioners went to the office of a private counsel, Mr. E. P. Davis.


John Arthur Clark: That is the one I want. I should like to have the gist of his advice.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Mr. E. P. Davis advised that it would be proper to make a settlement of that case. He did not say that the harbour commission had no case; but he expressed some doubt as to the position of the commission, and in view of that he advised that a settlement should be made.


John Arthur Clark: May I have an opportunity of perusing that opinion?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I will hand it to my hon.
friend.


Hugh Guthrie: I understood from the discussion that in some way or another the Justice department had been consulted?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: Have they given an
opinion on that matter and, if so, what is it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They have given an opinion along the same lines. They advise a settlement.


Hugh Guthrie: Was any amount mentioned?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Department of Justice say that they are not in a position to fix an amount. They give advice only on the question of a settlement.


Hugh Guthrie: Would it not clear up the matter if the action were allowed ito proceed and we had the judgment of the court before going any further in the matter? There seems to be some serious contention about liability in this case, and it would satisfy the committee if the minister gave some assurance that this amount would not be paid out of this $4,000,000 which it is now proposed to appropriate for the Vancouver harbour commission, but that the action taken at law would be allowed to proceed. Then if the company is entitled to an award by way of damages or otherwise, by all means let the harbour commission pay it, but a provision should be made that no money shall be paid out until judgment has been Obtained. The hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) takes very strong legal grounds. I do not know enough of the facts in regard to the matter to pronounce upon it, but there is evidently a serious contention.
I am not in favour of settlement of actions out of court in cases in which the government is directly or indirectly involved. It is a great safeguard to the government to have a judgment of a court before it pays out the money of the people of Canada or allows a harbour board to do so. We may by a settlement get off ,a little cheaper; but the propriety of these settlements is always questioned, and it is charged that political influence has brought about such settlements. I could tell a story of some settlements that have been made during the last five years of claims that have been pending for ten or fifteen years in the Justice department. After I '.think every court had been tried in the matter and no judgment obtained, finally in order that the matter might be got rid of, a very large amount of money was paid. These settlements are always open to a good deal of criticism, and it is far more satisfactory for the government, the harbour commissioners and the members of this House that we have a judgment on which we may rely. If my hon. friend's company has a valid claim in law, by all means let it be paid; but I would suggest to the minister the propriety of inserting in the bill some provision, or giving to this House some assurance, that no settlement will be made until we get a judgment and that this money will not be used for the purpose of settling this claim.
The minister said, in regard to the question of the hon. member for Macleod respecting an audit, that there was a departmental audit which would be available to hon. members. There is also an audit made at the instance of the Board of Harbour Commissioners

Vancouver Harbour Commission
themselves, and the auditors in that case are the firm of Wilson and Wilson. I think the minister said that their audit would be available to hon. members v^ho desired to examine it. In what way will it be jnade available? Can any hon. member merely make a request to see the audit of Messrs. Wilson and Wilson, because some are anxious to see it? If the minister will explain how that report may be obtained, the committee will be satisfied.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It may be obtained upon
the request of an hon. member interested in the operations of the board.


Hugh Guthrie: Shall we make the request through the minister?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: And he will see that we
get the report?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. As regards the other point, if we can proceed with the bill, I have no objection in saying that, in view of the discussion which has been held here, I will take the necessary steps to see that this amount of $112,000 is not paid out of the $4,000,000.


Hugh Guthrie: Nor out of any other
moneys until we receive the judgment of the court.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, but I would not like to make an amendment to the bill to that effect. There is much in the argument of the hon. member for West Calgary that under the section the amount cannot be taken out of the $4,000,000.


Hugh Guthrie: As long as we have a
clear understanding that the harbour commissioners are not authorized in any way to settle this claim until a judgment of the court be had in regard to it, that will clear the matter up.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have no objection.


Hugh Guthrie: That will be more satis-facory to the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Blatchford) and his company, the department and the Board of Harbour Commissioners themselves. If we have that understanding clearly and distinctly, I do not see that we need take up the time of the House any longer in discussing the matter.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.-


George Gibson Coote: I asked the minister before
recess to give the committee some particulars in regard to the purchase of the Hastings mill site. I would be glad if he would give us that information and also terms of the present lease of the property.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Hastings mill site was the property of the British Columbia Mills Timber & Trading Company. The harbour commission had bought these properties for the sum of $2,450,000. A cash payment of $500,000 has been made, and the balance is covered by an issue of debentures by the harbour commission, bearing interest at the rate of five per cent per annum for five years. Only a portion of that property was urgently required for developing the trackage facilities in the vicinity of the Ballantyne pier. When the pier was built the erection of an elevator was not contemplated. Owing to the construction of the elevator the trackage facilities of the pier were interfered with. It was considered necessary to extend the trackage facilities and it was proposed to expropriate part of the Hastings mill property for that purpose. But, instead of expropriating a part of that property, it was considered advisable to buy the whole property and the harbour commission have taken for their own use the part of the property that was to be expropriated. The remaining portion has been leased to the British Columbia Mills Timber & Trading Company for a period of five years. The rental paid by this company for the balance of this property is sufficient to take care of the interest on the bonds issued by the harbour commission. Disbursements have been made to the extent of $500,000 and the balance is covered by an issue of debentures which are being taken care of by the rent received from that company. It is well known to everyone familiar with the conditions that this property, by reason of its central location, is one of the most valuable in the harbour. It will be required in the very near future, and the companies which are somewhat interested in the development of the harbour at Vancouver, the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National railways both suggested to the harbour commission that they should acquire that property. The amount has been fixed by arbitration.


George Gibson Coote: Will the minister tell us just what work is proposed to be done cn that property?

1974	COMMONS
Vancouver Harbour Commission


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The commission has -proposed to make developments there in the way of the construction of a coastwise pier and warehouse and quay wall. They propose to spend 1385,000 in building the coastwise pier and warehouse there.


George Gibson Coote: Practically $2,000,000 of debentures are outstanding against this property?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: That will be in addition to the bonds which the Dominion government hold for the harbour commission?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, exactly. With reference to the elevators, it is proposed to lease No. 1 elevator to what is called the Stewart interests for twenty years at a rental of $165,000, and in addition one-tenth of a cent a bushel in excess of ten million bushels handled for the first five years, subject to a revision of rental every five years. Elevator No. 2 is to be leased for one year at a rental of $100,000 a year with an option of a further lease for four years at a price of $120,000. I was informed this morning that the parties interested have agreed on that. The lease of No. 3 elevator is to be renewed by the Grain Growers. The harbour commissioners are going to spend a substantial amount of money to increase the capacity of this elevator to about one million bushels. They will have to acquire certain property and undertake additional construction. The Grain Growers are going to pay five per cent on the price of the properties to be acquired. All the land will not be required and part of it is going to be used for some other purpose. I understand that some firm is going to erect a building there which will cost $75,000. There is no provision for sinking fund or deprefcia-tion, because there is not supposed to be any depreciation of the land. The Grain Growers are going to pay 7.60 per cent on the cost of the new construction. These are the terms which have been practically agreed to by the parties concerned. The harbour commission is ready to sign the lease on these conditions.


Mr. GARDINER:: Does that 7.60 per cent include the old building as well?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: How will that provide
for the sinking fund? I suppose the interest will be five per cent?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes; 2.60 is to provide for the sinking fund.


Robert Gardiner: Is that sufficient?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is sufficient to -meet the
whole obligation in twenty years.


Robert Gardiner: The minister stated
that the rental for elevator No. 1 would be $165,000, What is the total capital investment in the elevator, and what rate of interest thereon does the rental represent?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The calculation is made
on the same basis for all the elevators.


Robert Gardiner: Then in addition to
that you get one-tenth of a cent per bushel for handling charges?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: On anything over ten million bushels.


Robert Gardiner: You do not get paid
that percentage on every bushel?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, only over ten million
bushels.


George Gibson Coote: What development is to be
undertaken with the $500,000 -on the waterfront of North Vancouver?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The statement given to
me is that this amount is for further development at North Vancouver. The commissioners have expended a large sum of money in extending the terminal railway along the north shore and filling in certain waterfront property. In order to provide revenue for the railway and property it will be necessary that certain dockage facilities be provided, and it is estimated that $500,000 will -be sufficient for the purpose.


George Gibson Coote: Are there any facilities on the north shore at the present time?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, but they are not
adequate.


George Gibson Coote: There are items of $1,308,-
000 and $200,000. I suppose these represent the total amount for development on the north shore?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: An elevator was built
on the B-allantyne pier. What elevator is
that?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No. 1.


Mr. STEVENS:: No. No. 1 is the original elevator at what is now called the Lapointe pier. No. 2 is the new elevator constructed on the Ballantyne pier.


Charles A. Stewart: No. 1. is the old government elevator?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On section 3-Interest during construction to be charged to capital account.
John Arthur Clark: Mr. Chairman, this morning
I asked the minister if he would be good enough to lay on the table the opinion of Mr. E. P. Davis, or at least let me have an opportunity of perusing it. I have sent the page across the floor to the minister, but I have not yet secured the opinion.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Plans, etc. to be approved before work commenced.
Mr COOTE:: This morning we discussed
the $112,000 to be paid to the company that had a lease of the old Woodward property. I understood the minister to say that he agreed to the proposal of the member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) that this money should not be paid until the case was decided in the courts. Did I understand him correctly?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.


William Daum Euler: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this House disagrees to their amendments to section 12 of Bill No 119 to amend the Excise Act, for the following reasons:
That the said amendments niake conviction of the bootlegger or the seizure of illicitly manufactured spirits very difficult and practically impossible.
And that the Clerk do carry the said message to the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved,-That it is expedient to bring in
a measure,-
1.	To provide for a Federal District Commission and to repeal the acts respecting the Ottawa Improvement Commission;
2.	To authorize the payment to the commission of the sum of $250,000 a year for a period not exceeding sixteen years from the first day of April, 1927, and to make provision for borrowing powers, the issue of debentures and the repayment thereof.
Federal District Commission
Robert Gardiner: Explain.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My purpose
at the moment is simply to have the bill introduced so that hon. members may read its provisions before time is taken up with detailed discussion. The purpose of the bill to be founded on the resolution is to extend somewhat the powers of the present Ottawa Improvement Commission by enlarging the area over which it will be authorized to carry on its work, increasing the amount of money at its disposal, and changing its name to conform more accurately with the intent and purpose of the commission. The Ottawa Improvement Commission was established in the year 1899 in order to undertake the beautification of the capital of Canada. From time to time its membership has been increased, as has been also the sum placed at its disposal. This increase has been made for the reason, that with the development of the work of the commission there goes inevitably an extra obligation of maintenance, and I am advised that at the present time the amount voted by parliament to the commission is used very largely for the maintenance of the parks and drivewaj's which have already been constructed.
The country is fortunate in having at the moment at the head of the commission an exceptionally able business executive in the person of Mr. Thomas Ahearn, and the commission have been laying their plans for the further improvement of the capital. They believe they can make better headway with their work il an opportunity is given them to plan operations over a number of years, and for that reason the bill proposes to confer upon the commission that additional power. The amount at present at the disposal of the commission is $150,000 per annum. It is proposed in this bill to increase that sum by $100,000. It is not so much the city of Ottawa as it is the capital of Canada that is being considered. It is a national obligation to make the capital of our Dominion as attractive as possible, and, as hon. members know, for years past the government has felt in that regard, a special responsibility. The use of the term " Ottawa " as applied to the commission is somewhat misleading inasmuch as the environs, the immediate surroundings, are quite as important, from the standpoint of beautification of the capital, as is the city proper. Indeed, it is with the outlying parts of the city including the opposite side of the river that much of the work of improvement will be carried on.
I might add this further feature, as pointed out to me by the chairman of the commission.

Federal District Commission
The capital has grown materially since some of the existing improvements were effected, and many of the driveways are to-day much too small in view of the increased motor traffic. As a matter of fact they are too small to be safe, and they will have to be considerably enlarged. This work cannot be undertaken by the commission until some additional appropriation is made for the purpose. The other features deserving of consideration will,
I think, be apparent once the bill is introduced.


John Wesley Edwards: How much, roughly speaking, has been expended by the government of Canada in the past in this connection? How much have we contributed toward the beautification of Ottawa?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not the details with me but I will endeavour to have a statement prepared and will give my hon. friend the figures when the bill is being discussed.


Hugh Guthrie: For myself, I am heartily in
accord with the proposal contained in the resolution. I have watched the development that has taken place in the city of Ottawa for over a quarter of a century, and my great regret is that the improvement has gone on so slowly. I had the privilege some days ago, of discussing this matter for a few minutes with the chairman of the Ottawa Improvement Commission, and I told him that in my view his request was entirely inadequate for the purpose. I believe the sum now suggested is too small. We should start on a larger scale extended over a longer term of years, and should let it be definitely understood that a certain substantial sum annually shall be set aside to make the capital of the country what it should be and what nature intended it to be. I doubt whether there is a capital in the world so splendidly endowed by nature as is the capital of Canada; and by capital I do not mean the immediate surroundings, but the adjacent country as well. I believe we shall be doing something of which we ourselves shall be proud, and which people of the country will approve, if we adopt even a more extended scale than that submitted by the government. If $150,000 is required for the annual upkeep, the extra $100 000 will not do a great deal in the sixteen years which is fixed in the resolution as the time limit. I hope to live to see this capital something like the capital visualized by Sir Wilfrid Laurier over twenty-seven years ago when he said that he would like to see Ottawa made the Washington of the North. Washington entered upon a scheme involving a 
twenty-five year program with a financial obligation amounting to about $20,000,000 per annum. We of course will not attempt anything like that, but it seems to me that now we are dealing with the matter we might extend the proposal somewhat.


George Halsey Perley: As
I live in the city of Ottawa and always have done so, although I represent a constituency in Quebec, I want to say a few words just to show that I am in accord with the suggestion put forward by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and with the appropriate words which have come from the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie). All of us are, I think, agreed that the natural surroundings of Ottawa are as beautiful as those of any city in the world. I have travelled a good deal and I have yet to see a more beautiful city.


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: What about Halifax?


George Halsey Perley: Halifax too is
beautiful, but I would not put it above Ottawa. And that is high praise indeed. In my opinion, with one exception, Ottawa is as fine a place to live in as any I know of in the world. I will not enter into all the details now, but there is one regard in which this city can be improved, apart from any question of beautification. We have drinking water secured from the Ottawa river and made potable by artificial means, but it seems to me that with so many lakes close by we surely ought to have in this city a natural supply of water obtained from the beautiful lakes north in the Gatineau country. Most of the people in Ottawa who can afford to do so buy Tally-Ho or other waters instead of drinking the Ottawa water, and that is hardly fair to the poor, who should have a constant supply of pure water. I know of nothing more conducive to the health of the citizens than an abundant supply of absolutely pure water. I do not. desire to criticize this resolution or to suggest any changes, but I do say to the Prime Minister that in the very influential position which he occupies and from the fact that he is now bringing in a resolution to provide more money to be used by this commission in doing this service to the city and to the government, he might impress upon the authorities of the city of Ottawa that as the government is assisting in this way and is prepared to go perhaps further in years to come, it is the duty of the city to see that a proper water supply is secured from the northern hills.

Federal District Commission


John Wesley Edwards: The unanimity of opinion
expressed so far from both sides of the House makes me somewhat doubtful as to the wisdom of accepting this proposition without some criticism, because it is always an unhealthy sign to me when I see both sides of the House in such complete agreement as they appear to be with regard to this resolution. The city of Ottawa is the capital city of Canada, and I agree with all that has been said with regard to its beautiful situation, its natural attractions and so on. But, though I may be the only one in the House who takes this, position, I am not altogether prepared to give my assent to the spending of millions of dollars in beautifying this city of Ottawa while there are public works in various parts of the country which are absolutely neglected, and to which no consideration whatever is given. If in connection with the proposition to make this city the Washington of the North in a country of 9,000,000 people as compared with a country of 120,000.000 people it is proposed to carry out those ideas by tearing down such a building as the post office, for instance, which I think is a part of the plan, while people in my constituency must receive their mail in a place not much better than a box car or a packing case, and while I can get no consideration from the government in that regard, then I say that for one I am not prepared to give my whole-hearted support to a proposition of this kind even though it meets with the approval of most of the members on both sides of this House.
We are placed alongside the United States, which is a very large country with a great population and great wealth; we are a small country so far as population is concerned, and I do not think we should forget the fact that we have passed through a war which has left a heavy burden of debt on this Dominion. I know that when members of this House apply, as they have the right to apply in the interests of those parts of the country which they represent, for much needed public works, they are met each time with the figures of the national debt we are carrying and the responsibilities which we have to meet in that connection, But when it comes to providing wider streets for the larger population of Ottawa, to improving the water supply or doing things of that nature to the interest and benefit of those who live in Ottawa, I say it is up to the members of this House to take into consideration other parts of the country which are being forced to wait for matters which are more justly entitled to consideration
than the tearing down of splendid buildings here in Ottawa, which are now serving their purposes and would continue to serve their purposes admirably for many years to come.
Before this bill goes through I will have an opportunity of discussing it, in common with other members, more fully. I do not wish to be understood as opposing a reasonable expenditure in connection with the beautifying of this city; we have certain responsibilities in that regard, but I do say that we should not feel it incumbent upon us to keep in mind these particular responsibilities and utterly ignore those other matters which have been long waiting for consideration.


Mr. W. F. GARLAND (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for the two Ottawa members to speak on this resolution; they have not done so, but since some 15,000 people in the west end of the city are included in my riding, perhaps I might be permitted to say a few words.
In the first place I must disagree with the hon. member for Frontenae-Addington (Mr. Edwards). We must not forget that while this amount of money is spent in beautifying this city, in return the city gives free fire protection, exemption from taxes and so on. I quite believe that to-day the city would be further ahead if it collected these taxes from the government, as it would from any private individual, .and paid for its own improvements. I desire to support this resolution to the utmost of my ability, and I agree with the leader of the opposition when he says that the amount should not be $250,000 but $500,000. To increase the amount by only $100,000 is a mere bagatelle. The driveways in the west end and the bridges which will be constructed to the province of Quebec will take up a great deal of that money, and very little will be left for other things during the next few years. The amount is not nearly what it should be, and I would be very glad if the Prime Minister could see bis way clear to double it.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I would like to ask whether before this bill passes we will have a comprehensive idea as to the way in which this money is to be spent. Have the commissioners any plan in mind, or are we just voting the money to the commission to be expended as they may see fit in the beautification of this city? I am rather inclined to agree in many respects with the hon. member for Frontenae-Addington (Mr. Edwards). We do not begrudge the city of Ottawa anything; we would like to see Ottawa made a worthy capital of this Dominion, but
197S

Federal District Commission
there is a limit to the distance we may go and to the amount of money we may vote without knowing how it is going to be expended. I happen to know that the matter of a pure water supply would be very expensive, but is no doubt very justifiable, and some of this money might well be expended in purifying the air of this 'city as well. One has only to walk down the streets of this city to come to the conclusion that the first thing we should get away from is the smell of brimstone which is always in the air.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.


George Gibson Coote: Might I ask the Prime Minister why it is proposed to give the commission power to issue bonds? I do not suppose that they will be constructing anything which will bring in revenue, so it would seem to me that the money should be provided directly by parliament each year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are certain works of construction to be carried' on, the commission can plan ahead for a few years, ic they have power to issue debentures. The bill provides that any obligations arising out of the issue of securities become a first charge on the moneys appropriated. This simply enables the commission to plan ahead with a greater degree of certainty than if they were dependent upon annual appropriations. The total appropriation by parliament will not as a consequence 'be increased.


George Gibson Coote: If the bill simply provides
for an annual grant of so much to the commission-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is all.


George Gibson Coote: -I was wondering why this
procedure was adopted.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It simply allows the commission to use a part of the grant as the years go by toward meeting payments due on securities they may issue. They will not issue securities unless they igain some substantial advantage by so doing.


Mr. KENNEDY:: I understood the Prime Minister to say that it was the intention to enlarge the area over which the commission would have control. How large an area is the commission to be given control of under this proposal?


An hon. MEMBER:: Peace River.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think the commission will attempt to deal with Peace River. The purpose is not to confine the work of the commission to the city of

Ottawa but to include -the suburbs of the city and the city of Hull across the way. Before the commission can extend the area, they will have to submit their proposals to the governor in council and those proposals will have to be approved. I assume that the commission has no thought of going beyond the immediate suburbs of the city. I have seen some mention in the press that this bill would include provision for a national park. That is an idea entirely separate; it has nothing to do with the present measure at all. I want to make that clear. I should like to say, however, that I do think a national park in the vicinity of Ottawa is something that is very much in the public interest, and that provision should be made for it at once, but that has nothing to do with this particular measure.


George Gibson Coote: I do not want to oppose this resolution in any way. I should like to say, however, that every time I walk down from the parliament buildings I cannot help but feel that Canada has not been very well served by her politicians in years past so far as beautifying the national capital is concerned. There is not a street in Ottawa from which the main entrance to the parliament buildings can be seen until you reach Wellington street.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hear, hear.


George Gibson Coote: It seems to me that our
legislators and our governments for the past twenty years have been very remiss in their duties in that they did not, before Sparks street was built up with such expensive buildings, expropriate the property for about three blocks between Wellington street and Sparks street, and open a wide thoroughfare immediately opposite the main entrance to the parliament buildings. The rest of that property could have been used for government buildings in which to house the different public departments-buildings of a character which would beautify the capital and would be in harmony with the architectural design of the parliament buildings themselves. I do not know whether it is too late to do anything of that nature. I suppose those who come twenty years after will say that we might have done it. Possibly the state of the public finances to-day would not permit the necessary expenditure, but I think it is something that the commission might very well consider. The commission have done a lot to beautify the city of Ottawa, but I sometimes think they have not taken advantage of the improvements they have made in the

Federal District Commission
capital. They have constructed miles of beautiful driveways, but they have never secured control of the property along those driveways. Once a driveway is completed the property adjacent to it becomes very valuable residential property, and the value which is created by the construction of the driveway has gone to benefit private individuals. Most of the people who bought that property and constructed homes are benefiting from the unearned increment accruing from the increase in the value of the land. I think if the improvement commission are going to construct other driveways they should secure control of the property along those driveways. If that is done they will secure some revenue from the increase in the value of the property. I do not want to indulge in any destructive remarks with respect to this proposal. I would prefer to make suggestions of a constructive nature. I hope the commission, with the approval of the government, will go so far at least as to secure control of the property along any new driveway they may construct, and thus secure some revenue from these improvements.


Mr. PETTIT:: I would ask if a comprehensive scheme has been adopted by the commission looking to the future, when this city will have a population of 500,000 or more? Failure to do that on the part of large cities to-day, both in Canada and the United States, has resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars, yes millions, to the municipalities concerned. No doubt the eminent business men on the commission have looked into this matter, but it is just as well to point out the situation to them, and sound a note of warning as to what is likely to happen if a comprehensive scheme is not adopted.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The commission have taken the very course which my hon. friend has indicated should be taken. I have in my hand, submitted to me by the chairman of the commission, some of the plans the commission wish to be free to carry out. I do not think it would be in the public interest to disclose these proposals at present, but they do reveal exactly what my hon. friend has in mind, namely, foresight on the part of the commission in laying out constructive plans for future developments.


John Wesley Edwards: May I ask the Prime Minister if he considers it proper to give us an idea of how far afield that foresight goes? He intimated it might carry us to Hull. There is the town of Aylmer, Quebec, where I think some improvements might be made. There is also the town of Cornwall, and other places within a hundred miles of Ottawa. I wonder how far the environs spoken of aTe supposed to extend? Perhaps they will take in Sydenham, where I hope the Minister of Finance will see his way clear to provide a decent post office, when he is providing money for this scheme to beautify the city of Ottawa.


Mr. HANSON:: Will the Prime Minister be good enough to tell us what the capital expenditure will be in connection with this proposal? I have a good deal of sympathy with the desire to beautify the city of Ottawa, but it would be a good thing if my right hon. friend would visit some of the back communities in this country who have been trying to get rural mail delivery, or some improvement in their postal facilities, in order to keep people on the land, something they are trying to do in every province in Canada. I tell my right hon. friend that these people deserve sympathy and consideration from the public treasury first, before the city of Ottawa. I think we ought to do something for them. If we are going into a huge capital expenditure, and this grant is to be mortgaged for the future to pay interest for twenty-five or thirty years, I think we ought to go pretty slowly, or know at all events what we are going to do.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the resolution
carry?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; I think we ought to know what the capital expenditure will be.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say
that the commission is expected to keep within the amount that is appropriated by parliament. Before bringing the proposal to the House, I asked for a statement as to how it was proposed the moneys would be used, and the proposals of the commission relate and are confined to the grant which parliament is putting at their disposal.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What are the proposals with respeot to capital expenditure and how much are they going to mortgage the future of the country for?


Lucien Cannon: The bill provides for
14,000,000 and it states that this $4,000,000 will be paid within a. period of sixteen years at the rate of $250,000 a year. The advantage of this is that the commission know beforehand exactly how much they will receive and thus they can finance more easily. Last week I had the pleasure of meeting Sir George

Federal District Commission
Garneau who is at the head of the Battlefields Memorials Commission. He was suggesting that we should adopt for his commission the same system and that, instead of voting yearly the sum of $100,000, we should once for all make it statutory so that the banks and other financial institutions might know exactly how much the commission received and how much they could expect to get. This bill will cover that in this case.


Mr. HOCKEN:: I do not think the government is going far enough. What should be done now is to declare Ottawa and such part of its suburbs as might be thought desirable, a federal district, to appoint a commission to govern the city of Ottawa, and to treat the people of the city as the people of Washington are treated. If we are going to make the city of Ottawa a great capital, attractive in all its physical features, the way to go about the matter is to appoint a commission now to take over the city. Lest this government manage and govern it. We have a splendid precedent for that across the border and that precedent could be followed with great advantage to the country.
What is proposed, as I understand this legislation, is to make a grant of $4,000,000 covering sixteen years. That looks to me as though the creation of a federal district in Ottawa will be postponed for at least sixteen years. If there were as much foresight in the government as there seems to be in the commission that is about to be appointed, what I am proposing should be done. Instead of appointing a new commission now and making new conditions for the commission to act upon, we should at this time decide the question: Shall Ottawa foe a federal district? If the answer is in the affirmative, then we should proceed to appoint a commission, take over the government -of the city and direct its affairs in the same way as is done in Washington.


Mr. FONTAINE (Hull) (Translation):: I
entirely differ, Sir, from the opinion of the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Hocken) who suggests creating a federal district. On the other hand, it is with pleasure that I support the resolution of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) by which it is proposed to spend in Ottawa, Hull and their surroundings a sum of $4,000,000 in the course of the next sixteen years.	, ]

On behalf of my constituents I am absolutely opposed to the city of Hull becoming part of a federal district, because it would despoil us of our most cherished rights. We are perfectly content with our fate and we wish to remain a part of the province of Quebec. The resolution introduced by the right hon. Prime Minister to establish a commission having very extensive authority and empowered to spend money over the whole district, is approved by all, but I do not think it in any way necessary to create a federal district which would include Hull, this would, I again state, deprive us of the rights which we have enjoyed ever since confederation.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Mackenzie King thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 280, respecting the Federal District Commission.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill	No.	273	(from	the	Senate)	for	the
relief of Charles William John Walker.
Bill	No.	274	(from	the	Senate)	for	the
relief of John Stewart Walker.
Bill	No.	275	(from	the	Senate)	for	the
relief of Percy Ashley Davis.
Bill	No.	276	(from	the	Senate)	for	the
relief of Edward Henry Ball.
Bill	No.	277	(from	the	Senate)	for	the
relief of Mary Saranchuk.
Bill	No.	278	(from	the	Senate)	for	the
relief of Dorothy Ruth Hoffman.
Bill	No.	279	(from	the	Senate)	for	the
relief of Frederick Wilson McLean.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. M. YOUNG (Saskatoon) presented the ninth report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines as follows:
Your committee recommends that the fees and charges paid on Bill No. 174, to incorporate the Red Lake and Northwestern Railway Company, be refunded, less the cost of printing and translation.
He said:	I beg to move that the ninth
report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Dominion Elections Act

[Stage Direction]
Hon. LUCIEN CANNON (Acting Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 260, to amend the Dominion Elections Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Appointment and salary of Chief Electoral Officer.
Lucien Cannon: As I explained when the resolution was before the House, the object of the bill is to provide for the appointment of a successor to Colonel Biggar, who at present is the Chief Electoral Officer. Colonel Biggar has intimated his wish to relinquish the office. Section 1 provides that the Chief Electoral Officer in future shall be appointed by a resolution of the House of Commons and that his salary will be $6,000 a year. When discussing the resolution the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-lSt. George (Mr. Cahan) raised the question as to tenure of office of the Chief Electoral Officer, and upon examining the bill as it is drafted I discovered that provision has not been made for that. I have placed an amendment in the hands of the Chairman. I move to add the words "per annum" to the second paragraph of section 1, so that it will read:
The Chief Electoral Officer shall be appointed by resolution of the House of Commons and shall be paid a salary of $6,000 per annum.
That is the section as it stands in the bill, plus the words "per annum." I also propose to add the words:
He shall hold office on the same tenure and shall he removable only for cause and in the same manner as a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Adding these words removes any possibility of the post of Chief Electoral Officer becoming somewhat of a political position and the holder being removed by resolution of the House, without any of the guarantees that should surround such an office.


John Wesley Edwards: Will the
minister tell me:	When the chief electoral
officer w'as appointed, at what salary, and if he vacates the office will he receive a pension, and if so how much?


Lucien Cannon: Colonel Biggar was the
first Chief Electoral Officer under the new electoral law passed in 1920. I will give the House the reason for the amending act. By
consulting the Dominion Elections Act hon. members will see that the name of Colonel Biggar was inserted in the clause when the bill was originally passed, so that Colonel Biggar was appointed in 1920. The salary which he is receiving is $12,000 a year. He was performing, in addition to the functions of Chief Electoral Officer, the duties of counsel for the government. When he retires Colonel Biggar will be entitled, in common with every officer or official who retires, to a certain leave of absence. We provide in this bill that the vacancy Shall occur on June 30. He will receive no pension after his retirement.


John Wesley Edwards: I am very
glad to hear that, not that I have anything against the Chief Electoral Officer, but I think that principle might have been adopted more generally than it has been in times past. I have sometimes been led to think that we have almost as many pensioned civil servants as we have active civil servants in the country. In spite of the fact that I -may arouse the indignation of some members of the legal profession, I say that I have felt, whether rightly or wrongly, that they have certainly looked after men of the legal profession when it came to the fixing of salaries for judges and looking after the retirement of these judges. They leave the bench very often, because, as they tell us their health would not stand the strain of the work on the bench, and they have actually left the bench with good big pensions. I might name the former Minister of Justice the Hon. C. J. Doherty, who left the bench under these conditions.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


John Wesley Edwards: My hon,
friend would not be so ready with his " hear, hear ", if I named someone on his own side. But these men have left the bench because they could not stand the strain of the hard work on the bench, and have gone into the very mild occupation of politics-off the bench into politics. When they could not stand the strain of politics they retired and again took judgeships, and if they continue that procedure in time they will be drawing three or four pensions, if they live long enough. As soon as the provinces pass the necessary legislation with reference to old age pensions they will also come in under that act and will be drawing a little more. I say that we have gone to a ridiculous extreme in providing salaries, specially for men on the bench, and providing big superannuation when they retire, probabl.v, in just as good health as any of us in this chamber to-day, I say
Dominion Elections Act

that it would be a good general principle to adopt if we paid a man on the bench whatever he was worth as is done in other occupations, and let him provide for his old age out of the salary he got, just as other people do. It is ridiculous to give a man ten or twelve thousand dollars a year and then make provision for his old age. If he has not sense enough to provide for his old age out of ten thousand a year he has not sense enough to be on the bench. This system of superannuation of officers and judges has been carried on in this country, all because we have a lot of men in this House who are of the legal profession, and are looking ahead to the day when they will step out of politics, drop into a fat job on the bench and then retire on a pension which will keep them for the rest of their days. This thing has been carried to a ridiculous extreme. We have carried this system to the matter of appointments to commissions. Is there a man or woman in Canada, outside of the immediate people concerned, who believes that Newton Wesley Rowell is worth a fee of $290 a day, $20 a day for living allowance and his travelling expenses, while working on that commission? He could not earn that money if he were not working on a commission. Millions of dollars are being spent in that way.
I do not propose to let this matter drop, I will bring it up on future occasions, so that the government will not forget it. I will protest against these expenditures, just as long as there are public works throughout the country which are thrown to one side, absolutely disregarded and nothing done to meet the public needs in that respect, when we have millions to spend for the purpose of beautifying Ottawa and millions to spend providing judges with good fat jobs, millions to spend on them when they get too old or too lazy to sit on the bench, and large amounts to spend on political pets who are appointed to this or that commission, because these men have not provided themselves with a sufficient sum to enable them to retire when they get a little older. That is the slate of affairs in this country and it is a crime.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Who is the appointee?


Lucien Cannon: The House will appoint
him by resolution.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Who -is it to be? You
will not accept his nomination from this side?


Lucien Cannon: The Prime Minister stated on Monday that before introducing a resolution providing for the appointment of Colonel 
Biggar's successor he would confer with the leader of the opposition in order that, if possible, all parties might agree on a man who would give satisfaction.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That is all right.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 2-Duties as counsel for the crown.
Lucien Cannon: Colonel Biggar besides
being Chief Electoral Officer has acted as counsel for the government. We are amending the act so that the Chief Electoral Officer to be appointed under this bill will confine himself to his duties as such. This is the reason for reducing the salary of $12,000 to $6,000. I am quite sure my ihon. friend from Frontenac will rejoice in the reduction,


Some hon. MEMBERS:: He has gone out.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-When office vacant.
Lucien Cannon: I move to amend clause
3 by inserting in the two blanks the words "thirtieth" and "June".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: There is another clause.


Lucien Cannon: I propose to add another
clause, for this reason. The bill provides for the selection of the Chief Electoral Officer by resolution of the House. But the bill can be put into effect only when it is sanctioned, and it will not be sanctioned before the end of this session. Colonel Biggar will not vacate his position as Chief Electoral Officer before June 30. In order to meet this situation I move that the following section be added as number 4:
The successor to the said Oliver Mowat Biggar as Chief Electoral Officer shall be the person who has been designated as such during the present session of parliament by a resolution of the House of Commons, and shall take office on July I, 1927.
Colonel Biggar will vacate his position on June 30. There is this further paragraph:
In the meantime subsection 5 of section 19 of the Dominion Elections Act, chapter 46 of the statutes of 1920, shall apply to such person as if he were actually filling the office of Chief Electoral Officer.
This is necessitated because the Dominioj Elections Act provides that if the 'Chiel Electoral Officer dies or becomes unable tc.

Naturalization of Women
fill the position the Chief Justice of the Supreme court may appoint a substitute. But hon. members will realize that after a resolution of this House shall have been passed designating a successor to Colonel Biggar who is to vacate office on June 30, in the event of that person dying before July 1, after June 30, there would be no Chief Electoral Officer. In order to meet that eventuality I have introduced this paragraph. In case the person so designated should be unable to take office on July 1, he will be considered as having filled the office, and it will be possible to appoint a substitute, so that there will be no break in the continuity of the office.
New section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



NATURALIZATION OF CANADIAN WOMEN MARRIED TO ALIENS

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the House go into committee of supply.
Miss A. C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):: Mr. Speaker, there are many Canadian women who resent the injustice which women who are British subjects, but married to aliens, suffer in regard to naturalization. A woman may be a Canadian, she may be the grandchild of Canadians, but if she marries an alien she ceases to be a British subject. She may not resume her British nationality until her husband chooses to become naturalized; and if he dies or the marriage is dissolved the woman remains an alien until she makes a declaration and obtains a certificate from the Secretary of State. It would seem that such treatment makes naturalization of small account. It must be of little importance if adults can be naturalized without satisfying the condition as to desirability and without being required to take the oath of allegiance, and it certainly is insulting to women to assume that their allegiance can be transferred without their own consent.
Under the present law marriage and citizenship are very much mixed up. I don't think the two should be so closely related, if related at all. There are scores of British women resident in Canada who, having married aliens, find themselves citizens of no country, unable to claim the protection of any government, unable to vote, unable to teach or to accept any civil position should the need arise, and, in the event of their husbands' death, unable to participate in the mother's allowance for
the benefit of their children. Because of their statelessness they find it almost impossible to obtain a passport. I have * a letter from a woman in Ontario received when the resolution in regard to this subject appeared on the order paper. She lives in Prince Edward county and pays taxes, but at the last election on December 1 not only herself but twenty-five other women in the county were prevented from voting. She tells that her great grandfather was an officer in the Revolutionary war and a British subject and she describes how loyal they had always been; yet after marriage to an American, although they live in Canada and she owns large property and pays taxes, she finds herself unable 'to vote in any election in this country. She writes protesting against such treatment.
Last year I tried to get a passport for an *Ontario girl who was married to an alien. I could not obtain the passport and she had to *cancel her trip. Many other members of this House could tell similar stories. I have heard them in private conversation and if they had the opportunity to speak I am sure they could tell of experiences such as I have described. When it is considered that, in western Canada particularly, we are receiving from many shores aliens who are marrying women of British nationality, this is a matter of vital concern to Canada.
The right of women to retain their British nationality although married to aliens was enjoyed until the year 1870. Previous to that time the common law of England contained two principles: first, that a British woman who married an alien should retain her British nationality, and, secondly, that an alien woman who married a British subject remained an alien. Women were regarded as chattels; *after marriage they had no right to their property, which passed into the control of their husbands. They did not possess the franchise and generally they were in a humiliating and subordinate position as compared to the status of women to-day. Yet until 1870 they had the right to retain their nationality. In that year the law was changed to provide that a married woman should be deemed to be the subject of the state of which her husband for the [DOT]time being was a subject. When this change was made the women of Great Britain-for this is British law-were not consulted at all, and the subject received very little debate in [DOT]the House of Commons, through which it passed very hurriedly. The law was amended in 1914 to read:
That the wife of a British subject shall be deemed to be a British subject and the wife of an alien shall be deemed to be an alien.
Naturalization oj Women

In the amending act of 1914, however, women did make certain gains. In the British nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, women gained the principle, excluded since 1870, that a woman might be of different nationality from her husband's. If her British husband should change his nationality, she might under the act declare that she would remain British; and a British-born woman with a foreign husband may now apply, on the dissolution of her marriage by death or divorce, for readmission to British nationality without complying with the requirements as to residence.
In 1922 Lord Danesfort brought forward a bill, which passed its second reading, contain-' ing two "important principles: first, British women should have the right to retain their nationality when they married aliens; and, second, that an alien woman should not by the mere act of marriage with a British subject become a British subject. Dissolution of parliament prevented anything further being done, but in 1923 a' select committee of the Lords and Commons was appointed to consider the subject. This committee, comprising five commoners and five lords, agreed that a change was necessary. But, one of the lords dissenting, no recommendations were made when the report was presented. The objection advanced by this dissenting lord was that the change would result in trouble in the home. Men and women, it was urged, were one. We all know that, but the thing I want to know is, which one? If it is going to disturb the harmony of the home to have any change of nationality on the part of either husband or wife, let the husband take the nationality of the wife. It is as fair that way as the other.
I have no great fear that the home will be disrupted if women are given the vote, or if they go to work, or if they retain their nationality. Every advance made by woman has been frowned upon because of this very fear of the home being disrupted. Men are always worried about this consequence, but it does not happen, for the simple reason that the real home is a community of interests so strong that it will take more than any change of nationality, more than the vote or any of these things to disrupt it. We need not worry about the home on that account.
The matter was brought forward again in the British House of Commons in 1925, when Major Harvey introduced a resolution, which was carried, to the following effect:
'that in the opinion of this House a British woman should not lose or be deemed to lose her nationality by mere act of marriage with an alien, but that it should be open to her to make declaration of alienage.
[Miss Macphail.l
During the course of the debate on that resolution the Under Secretary of State informed the House that after the meeting of the joint committee of the Lords and Commons to which I have referred, no agreement having been reached, the matter had been raised at the imperial conference of 1923. It was referred to a sub-committee of the conference, as will be found at page 1213 of that conference. The suggestions of the sub-committee of the conference as well as those of the joint committee of the Lords and Commons were submitted to the dominions in the autumn of 1924, but up to the time when Major Harvey was taking part in the debate on the resolution I have quoted, only one of the dominions had expressed itself on the subject. I wonder why Canada did not reply. I believe that public opinion in this country favours a change. I have no doubt it is the desire of the people of this Dominion that a British woman married to an alien shall have the right to retain her British nationality. Mr. Hurst, speaking to Major Harvey's resolution in 1925, said:
I do not believe we ought to wait until the principle adopted in this resolution has been accepted by all self-governing dominions. On July 14, 1921, I put a question to the then Prime Minister on this subject and I was told that no decision could be arrived at until the dominions had been consulted with. That is four years ago and we are not one inch further along the road to legislation than we were then.
From the beginning we can conclude that the British House of Commons on various occasions has wanted to do something about the matter. As I have pointed out, they referred the question of the dominions, from only one of which they received any reply. I cannot see why they did not hear from our Dominion, and I think it is time the parliament of this country took whatever steps are' necessary to make it possible for British women married to aliens to retain their own nationality.
The United States tried the law which we now have for the period from 1907 to 1922 when, by the Cable act, the law was changed to read:
A woman citizen of the United States shall not cease to be a citizen by reason of her marriage unless she makes a formal renunciation of her citizenship before a court having jurisdiction over naturalization of aliens.
It was further enacted that:
Any woman who marries a citizen of the United States shall not become a citizen by reason of such marriage.
By this law an American girl who marries a Canadian becomes a British subject while still remaining a citizen of the United States, but a Canadian girl who marries an American

Naturalization of Women
ceases to be a British subject and does not become a citizen of the United States, and is therefore a citizen of no country. There are many practical examples of this, and I am sure every member of this House is aware of some of them. The republics of Argentine, Brazil and Chile have similar naturalization laws to those of the United States. Belgium in 1922 gave women the right to retain their nationality after marriage if they so desired. In 1924 Sweden gave women the same right, so long as they remained in Sweden, and other Scandinavian countries have followed the same procedure.
Resolutions asking for this change have been passed by women's organizations in Canada for many years past, among those outstanding being the National Council of Women, who have time and again asked that women be naturalized of their own right, and that marriage to an alien should not affect them in any way. The Canadian Council of Agriculture have presented this question to the cabinet almost times without number. The Womens' Institutes of Canada have taken a firm stand upon it, together with the Social Service Council of Canada. The Alberta legislature on two occasions adopted resolutions dealing 'with this problem, one of which was introduced last session by Hon. Irene Parlby and seconded by Mrs. Nellie McClung, but no action was taken in this House. As
on looking at the order paper I found the resolution touching this subject appearing under the name of the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail). Upon inquiry of the Clerk of the House I found that the hon. member called yesterday at the office of the Clerk and asked that the notice be dropped, in order to enable her to bring up the matter. The order was given, but the printer neglected to make the change.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I merely rise for this purpose. I did not desire to interfere in any way, or to prevent the hon. member from bringing her case before the House, which is the reason I remained in my seat while she was speaking. I do think, however, that the House should take note of the fact that this discussion is out of order and is a violation of the rules, in order that in future this incident may not be taken as a warranty for another evasion of the rules.


Hewitt Bostock: I noticed the fact as the hon. member was rising, but I did not interrupt her. I sent for the Clerk, however, who told me that it was a mistake on the part of the printer and that the hon. member called in at the Clerk's office yesterday to request that the order be dropped.


Mr. IRVINE:: Might we not expect a statement from the Prime Minister in connection with this matter?
I have already pointed out, Great Britain adopted Major Harvey's resolution in 1924, and I do not see why the parliament of Canada has not taken some stand on this question.
I realize that this is an international matter, but after all it will not be dealt with in an international way until all the countries affected deal with it first, and I appeal to the members of this House in the name of the womanhood of this country to see that this injustice is removed and that women have the same right of citizenship accorded to men. I think women love their country as much as men, and since women are not to-day property as they were thought to be in days gone by, but thinking individuals, I appeal to this House of Commons to take the first opportunity to do all that can be done in this matter. Let it be taken up by the League of Nations or the next Imperial conference; let us do anything that can be done in order to remove this injustice.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was assuming that the Speaker had ruled to some extent that the discussion was out of order, and I did not wish to add to it. If the House gives its consent, however, I have no doubt the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) will be only too pleased to add a few words.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Out of order.


Hewitt Bostock: I cannot declare the remarks made by the hon. member out of order, because the fault lies with one of the employees of the House. The notice is considered dropped, because the hon. member asked that it be dropped yesterday, as she had a right to do.


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to
press my right to speak because I have had occasion to ask the chair to uphold the rules of the House, and I think it is very important that we do so. While the hon. member was


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I did not do so before because I thought it would not be very gallant.


Hewitt Bostock: If the hon. gentleman will allow me, I was just about to remark that
speaking I also thought that the whole procedure was not in order but, wishing to be as gallant as (he hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has been, I did not wish to press the point until I arose myself-It was my intention to draw the attention of
Naturalization of Women

the House to the fact that the discussion was not in order so long as the motion of the hon. member still appeared on the order paper. Having given some study to this very interesting question I am only too sorry that the hon. member did not have an opportunity to bring it before the House in another way, but I quite realize that private members days were practically blocked by one private bill during much of the time of *the session, and that was the main reason why this particular motion was never reached. The House will also understand that at this stage of the session, and considering also the way in which this motion has been taken up, it is not my intention to go fully into the question, but rather to state very briefly the policy of the government in this regard.
I wish to make a distinction between the principle involved in the question brought forward by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) and the practicability of making any amendment to the Naturalization Act at the present time. As to the principle entailed in this question, I am quite willing to state that the government is fully in accord with the attitude of the hon. member. We believe that it would be desirable that women of British nationality should be entitled to retain British nationality aftei marriage to an alien, if they so desire. At the same time the House will appreciate the fact that the Naturalization Act in Canada is based upon the imperial act and' that it would not be wise to amend it in any way of our own accord, without taking into consideration the effects of such an amendment within the empire. The existing act in Canada is the result of what may be called a contract entered into between Great Britain and the dominions at the Imperial conference of 1911. I will not give the full agreement, but will mention only the most important points, one being that imperial nationality should be world-wide and uniform, and the other that the imperial act should be so framed as to enable the self-governing dominions to adopt it. Inasmuch as the act in Canada is based upon the imperial act it may be interesting to note the evolution of the latter statute. My hon. friend (Miss Macphail), in the course of her very interesting remarks, has referred to some phases of that evolution. It is noteworthy that in early days the situation in England approached more closely to what my hon. friend now desires than what it does to-day. By the common law of England, prior to 1844, the nationality of a woman was not affected by her manage. If a British woman subject married an alien, she remained British.
[Mr. Kinfret.)
If an alien woman married a British subject, she remained an alien. It was not until 1844 and 1870 that the act in Great Britain was amended. The amendment brought forward in 1S44 was to the effect "that any woman married or who shall be married to a natural-bom subject or person naturalized shall be deemed and taken to be herself naturalized and have all the rights and privileges of a natural-bom subject." This did alter one phase of the situation in this respect, that an alien woman marrying a British subject by that fact became herself a British subject. In 1870 the other side of the question was taken up and this amendment was enacted in Great Britain that a "married woman shall be deemed to be a subject of the state of which her husband is for the time being a subject". That is to say, by these two amendments in 1844 and 1870 the British parliament had departed altogether from the original common law. In 1914, as my hon. friend has pointed out, the law was reenacted in simpler and dearer form, and it was stated that "the wife of a British subject shall be deemed a British subject, and the wife of an alien be deemed to be an alien". But from that date until now the whole trend of opinion in the British parliament has been to depart from the act of 1914 by making a number of exceptions to this ironclad rule.
I do not think I should go into the matter very fully to-day except to state that in 1923 a select committee in England took evidence on the matter. They were not unanimous in their report, but the majority of the committee were in favour of amending the law according to the principle invoked by my hon. friend to-day, and according to the motion that she placed on the order paper. In 1925 Major Harvey moved a resolution in the British House of Commons to the effect that a British woman should not lose or be deemed to lose her nationality by the mere act of marriage with an alien, but it was to be open to her to make a declaration of allegiance. That resolution was adopted. In the following year, in 1926, a similar motion was moved and adopted by the Australian parliament. Therefore it will be seen that the trend of opinion in the empire is against the iron-clad provision that was enacted in the British parliament in 1914, due no doubt to the situation created by the war at that time. I would, however, point out that in both the British parliament and the commonwealth of Australia it was made very clear that the whole question should not be decided separately by either parliament, but that it

Naturalization of Women
should be decided unanimously by all the .parliaments within the empire, it being desirable that unanimity should be observed in the framing of naturalization acts throughout the empire. The reason for that is very plain. We could, even within the agreement of 1911 to which I alluded at the beginning of my remarks, frame our act separately and according to our own views, but the effect would be to grant naturalization only within our own borders, and would create a confusing situation which I think my hon. friend himself will admit is not at all desirable. It is for that reason that the whole question was submitted to the Imperial conference in 1926 with the hope of arriving at a common solution. I regret to say that the hope was not realized, although I am informed that during the discussion the Canadian repesentatives not only took a stand favourable to the principle we are discussing to-day but they advanced the situation somewhat towards a solution. I refer my hon. friend to the report of the Imperial conference of 1926, page 32, which contains the conclusion of the conference on that matter:
The committee also considered the question of the nationality of married women. On this matter some divergence of view was disclosed and the committee were unable to arrive at a unanimous conclusion. Since, however, they attached great importance to the maintenance of uniformity throughout the various parts of the empire in the law relating to British nationality, they decided to recommend to the conference that further consideration of the question should be postponed pending the report of the committee of experts referred to in the report of the Inter-imperial Relations Committee which, it is proposed, should deal with various matters connected with the operation of Dominion legislation, and in view of the possibility of an attempt being made to regulate the problem of dual nationality and no nationality by international agreement. The conference adopted this recommendation.
That is wheTe the matter stands, and I think I might well conclude my remarks now, by stating that the government is fully in accord with the hon. member for Southeast Grey as to the principle of her motion, but we believe that no attempt to amend the Naturalization Act should be made now. It would be better merely to proclaim that principle, and make it known to the imperial authorities and to other parliaments within the empire that on this matter Canada stands with the British and Australian parliaments. But we desire uniformity in the matter of this law, and we think that no specific amendment should be considered at present.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I say just a few words
in support of the proposal of the hon. member for Southeast Grey. I quite realize that there are many complicated questions arising with respect to naturalization. No question is in fact more difficult. But may I suggest that if we insist that we can do nothing in Canada until there be uniform action all over the British Empire it may mean that a very great hardship may be worked on a great many of our own Canadian citizens. The hon. membeT for Southeast Grey called attention to the situation in which some of our own people find themselves. I have had letters on the subject. I think of one in particular from a woman in British Columbia who was married to an American. Her husband deserted her and she was left in a most awkward position. She has no standing as an American citizen under the American law. Under the Canadian law she is not a British subject although she is Britiish-born. Short of the death of her husband, which apparently is not likely to take place for some time, there seems to be no way by which she can regain her Canadian citizenship. One case of that kind <is sufficient to point out the need of some action on our part. I can understand that in Great Britain where social distinctions between England and Europe are considerable, they may not have such practical difficulties as we have in Canada. But in this country, when we have 3,000 miles of an international boundary with two peoples of the same race and the same language living along this border, when hundreds of thousands of United States citizens are coming to Canada and hundreds of thousands of Canadians are going over to the United States, our problem is a somewhat peculiar one. I received from one organization in the west a resolution urging that if no step could be taken to give relief by means of the Imperial conference, we should develop some sort of distinctive Canadian citizenship which would enable us to safeguard the interests of our Canadian citizens.
As a matter of fact we have developed a distinction between British citizenship and Canadian citizenship, in that, according to the United States laws, native-born Canadians may cross the international boundary without any difficulty, whereas citizens who are not Canadian-born must submit to the quota law prevailing in the United States. Hence in practice we are developing somewhat of a distinction between those two classes of our citizens. In passing I may say that if we had any national self respect in Canada, we would not allow such a distinction to continue. I would urge that on this American continent, with the proximity of two great races so similar in their characteristics, we ought not
1988	COMMONS
Supply-Trade and Commerce
to allow purely imperial considerations, however good they may be in their place-and those of us who travel abroad recognize the value of imperial citizenship-to prevent us from meeting the practical needs that exist in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Trade and Commerce-The Copper Bounties Act, 1923, administration of, $500.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Is this for copper refining?


James Malcolm: This is for the
copper bounty.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The Hemp Bounties Act, 1923, administration of, $500.
Hugh Guthrie: Is anyone earning anything under this bounty?


James Malcolm: The amount is very
small. Last year the amount earned was less than $100.


Mr. FANSHER (Lambton):: Who receives these bounties?


James Malcolm: I am sorry I have not
the names of the claimants.


William Russell Fansher: Is it the
manufacturers alone or the growers?


James Malcolm: The manufacturers.


William Russell Fansher: Does the minister not think this bounty should go further than that and the growers should be considered?


James Malcolm: The bounty was paid to assist in the manufacture of! twine from Canadian hemp, but so far advantage has not been taken of it to any great extent.


William Russell Fansher: Why has advantage not been taken of it? Is it because hemp is not produced here from which the manufacturers can make these twines? It may be that the bounty is not going to the right people.


John Franklin White: 
James Malcolm: The only statement that I can make to my hon. friend is that the act was passed in 1923 to encourage the growing of

hemp in Canada by giving a bounty to manufacturers who would use that hemp. The bounty was on a sliding scale, the first year one and one-half cents per pound, dropping one-eighth of a cent each year and expiring in 1933. But so far the bounty has not apparently induced the growing of hemp for twine purposes to any great extent.


James Dew Chaplin: Is it not true that at the time we granted this bounty we had before us manufacturers who were willing and who told the minister of the day that they were prepared to go ahead and manufacture twine from Canadian hemp?


James Malcolm: I cannot say that. I do not know.


James Dew Chaplin: That was my understanding of the matter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think the inception of this bounty was an effort near Portage la Prairie to grow hemp and they grew some hundreds of acres successfully. They asked for assistance of this kind, namely an encouragement to the manufacturers and then, so far as I can learn, they grew no more hemp.


Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: If no advantage is being taken of this particular bounty, why is it included in the estimates?


James Malcolm: The act did not come into force until 1925 and this is only the second year in which it has been in operation. It has not been thought advisable to drop the item, because the act providing for the bounty is still -in force, if any one likes to take advantage of it during the period that it remains in force.


Robert King Anderson: Was any
amount paid last year?


James Malcolm: 


Robert King Anderson: To whom?


James Malcolm: I am sorry I cannot give the names of those to whom payments were made. They were so few.


Mr. LUCAS:: Has any amount been paid out in bounties?


James Malcolm: In 1925-26 there was paid out $248.33, and last year $60.15.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British and Foreign News Service, $32,000.
Mr. RYERSON:: Will the minister explain this item?
19S9

Supply-Trade and Commerce


James Malcolm: This is a vote to Reuters News Service for giving publicity abroad to Canada by sending despatches to all their correspondents. I have under my hand a list of journals including a whole page of foreign publications. The number of despatches of Canadian interest was as follows:
1923-	24	
3,9041924-	25	
11,9841925-	26	
9,3341926-	27	
11,481
That is up to December 31, for the year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The Canadian Grain Act, administration of, $1,504,600.
Hugh Guthrie: Why the increase of
$74,000?


James Malcolm: I may inform the House that what appears here is rather misleading. The main estimates for 1926-1927 were SI .430,000 and the supplementary estimates $350,000, the total requirement being $1,780,000. The Board of Grain Commissioners asked for $1,654,000. Council reduced their request by $150,000, so that the actual decrease in the main and supplementaries as against last year is $275,000*


Robert King Anderson: This is quite a large sum for the administration of the act, even if ft is the Grain Act. What is the explanation of the large amount?


James Malcolm: It is a very large and a very profitable business for the Dominion of Canada. The Grain Act is administered by the board, and I can explain in a few words what hon. members often refer to, namely the very large surpluses. The surpluses appear to be larger than they really are, because no account is taken of the cost of public buildings, which is provided for by the Public Works department. No provision is made for depreciation in Tespect of these buildings, and no interest is charged. It was estimated by the board last year that, taking account of all these things, the government earned four per cent on all its investments as well as all its expenditures. There was a surplus during the last year of which we have a record of $492, 935 in the administration of the act. It is a branch which not only gives service but produces some revenue on the capital invested.


William Thomas Lucas: The committee on agriculture is at present sitting and some members have given attention to this matter and would like to discuss this vote. Perhaps the minister would let this item stand.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let the next item stand. Item stands.
Management, operation and maintenance of elevators, $593,000.


William Thomas Lucas: This is an important item. Would the minister let it stand?


James Malcolm: I would like my hon. friend to be reasonable. Any discussion that members of the committee on agriculture wish to make on the Canada Grain Act would be pretty much the same as they would make on the elevator item. I would prefer that this item be passed. I am leaving one vote which would give hon. members the privilege of speaking on all of them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Commercial intelligence service, including miscellaneous expenditure in connection with the development and extension of Canada's trade, $425,000.
Mr. JELLIFF:: Will the minister explain the increase of $50,000?


James Malcolm: It is brought about
largely by the opening of new offices and the general enlargement of the commercial intelligence staff, the statutory increases in the salaries of our trade commissioners, and the increase in staff in order to provide service for the growing export business of Canada. The commercial intelligence vote is a vote that is liable to increase as the trade of the country increases, and I can give no further explanation. It is a gradual increase all along the line of the services rendered.


Mr. HARRIS:: Where are the new offices?


James Malcolm: There is one new office opened in Dublin.


George Gibson Coote: Are there any trade agents, and if so, how many in the United States? Does that come under the item?


James Malcolm: Mr. Hudd is our trade commissioner in New York.


George Gibson Coote: Just the one.


James Malcolm: Yes, sole agent for
Canada in the United States, and there is a commercial intelligence agent at Washington.



REVISED EDITI.OJ4 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Trade and Commerce
George Gibson Coote: How many trade agents are there altogether?


James Malcolm: Twenty-four.
Mr. iCOOTE: The minister might very well consider this year increasing the number of trade agents in the United States. The United States is the largest customer we have and one of the wealthiest nations of the world. It seems to me that we should have more trade agents in the United States if we are maintaining twenty-four altogether. Possibly we are overlooking the increase of trade with our nearest neighbour who should be our best customer.


Arthur Edward Ross: Has the minister a representative in this service in China, and what is he doing at the present time?


James Malcolm: One man in Shanghai.


Arthur Edward Ross: In view of the increase of one in the number of agents, does the minister not think he could make a decrease of one in the case of China?


James Malcolm: We just heard from our agent in Shanghai telling us to go ahead and ship all the merchandise we like.


George Gibson Coote: I would like to express the opposite view from that expressed by the hon. member for Kingston. Those of us in western Canada are looking towards China as the place where we will find greater markets for our agricultural produce, and I would suggest to the minister that instead of removing the representative from China he should do all he can to find new markets for us in that country and do everything possible looking to the development of our market there. Our governments, whether Liberal or Conservative, have insisted on one thing, and that is that they must bring in a large number of people to exploit the vacant lands in Canada and increase production, but they do very little towards finding a market for that increased production, and naturally it becomes a problem for the producers. If the government are going to spend any money on trade commissioners they might very well endeavour to increase trade between this- country and China.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion Bureau of Statistics, including 1926 census, $250,000.
Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What is the explanation for the decrease?


James Malcolm: The quinquennial census work of course necessitated a larger vote last year. There is less money required during the coming year for this work.


Mr. HEAPS:: What was the expenditure on the census?


James Malcolm: From April 1, 1921, to March 31, 1925, the total cost was $2,122,000. For the last census the expenditure to date is $429,000, but there is still work to be done in compiling and publishing the returns.


George Gibson Coote: I do not know whether the question should be raised on this item, but I should like the minister to enlighten the committee in regard to it. The census enumerators as a rule will not accept the answer that a person is a Canadian; they say he must be described as Scotch, Irish, English. German, Ruthenian, and so on. Is it necessary that a Canadian should trace back his ancestry until he finds from what particular country his forebears came?


James Malcolm: My hon. friend is quite correct, and he would assist the Bureau of Statistics by furnishing a definition of what constitutes a Canadian. The statistical department is trying to compile its information on racial lines. It is a difficult question, and I think the committee would be willing to hear suggestions at the right time.


Mr. WARD:: Why should there be any difficulty? Are we not proud of our. country? Are we not satisfied to call it Canada?


James Malcolm: Is a Chinaman born in Vancouver a Canadian?	*


George Gibson Coote: I am a little doubtful myself about this. I understand, although of course I could -not verify it personally, that my greatgrandfather was born in Ireland. I do not know whether anyone would ever suspect it.


Mr. DUNNING:: There is no doubt about it.	_


George Gibson Coote: On the other hand, my mother was born in the Orkney islands. Now, should I insist on telling the census enumerator that I am a Canadian, or should I say that my origin is Scotch or Irish? I would suggest to the minister that at any rate a person- born in this country, one of whose parents was also born here, should be entitled to describe himself as a Canadian.


Joseph Henry Harris: I should like again to draw the attention of the minister to a point that has been raised on several occasions since 1921 in regard to our manufacturing institutions filing all manner of returns with the govern-

Supply-Trade and Commerce
ment which are more or less a duplication. For instance, the census of industry asks for a report as to the conduct of business, the hours of labour, the number of employees, the rates of pay, and so on. A month later the Department of Labour will ask for similar information. Then a subdivision dealing with chemical and metallurgical industry will ask for practically the same particulars as have been already supplied to the census of industry. It was urged in this House in 1922, and again in 1923 and 1924f that this work should be consolidated so that business institutions would not be bothered with this duplication of returns. In 1923 it was suggested that an attempt be made to cooperate with the provincial governments, which in most cases require similar information from business institutions in connection with the Workmen's Compensation Act and similar legislation. I would also point out to the minister that in the income tax returns a good deal of information has to be given that has already been furnished to the census of industry. Is any effort being made to coordinate this work and so save our business and manufacturing institutions a lot of unnecessary labour?


James Malcolm: I am glad to be able to
tell my bon. friend that a good deal of progress has been made towards eliminating the duplication of statistics. That was primarily the idea in creating the bureau. More and more the various departments of government are centralizing their work. Not only so, but the Dominion Statistician is endeavouring to cooperate still more with the provincial governments in order to avoid the necessity of making two sets of vital statistics. I agree with my hon. friend as to the character of the returns required from manufacturing concerns -some of the statistics required by the bureau are very difficult of compilation, I took the matter up with the Dominion Statistician, and he told me that he had very little trouble in administering the act. Where he has found it work a hardship on smaller business people he has not made himself at all objectionable.


Mr. ARTHURS:: What about other departments?


Joseph Henry Harris: Has there been any coordination with other departments?


James Malcolm: We are working on
Labour statistics at the present time in order to get them all under one bureau. The Fisheries statistics have been taken into the bureau, also all the trade statistics and the Customs and Excise statistics.
32649-126i


Joseph Henry Harris: As a matter of fact, more
statistics are asked for to-day by the Depart-* ment of Labour than by all the other departments. Would the minister tell us the cost of operating the department which has to do do with securing returns from chemical and metallurgical industries? And why the necessity for this branch when the census of industry covers the same ground?


James Malcolm: We have never attempted to segregate the cost of any particular branch of work of a general staff.


Joseph Henry Harris: Is it not a fact that the census of industry branch has one head and one staff carrying on a line of investigation similar to that conducted by the chemical and metallurgical branch of the Bureau of Statistics which also has a head and a staff? Are they not accumulating the same information and is it not true that one of these branches was established within the last five years?


James Malcolm: I do not think that is correct but I shall be glad to look into the matter to see whether there is any overlapping. We have 'been endeavouring to eliminate any duplication. There are not two staffs engaged in metallurgical work.


Joseph Henry Harris: I do not want to be misunderstood. I did not suggest that, there were two staffs in the metallurgical branch but I do say that the census of industry obtained the same line of information as is secured by the chemical and metafiurgical branch of the Bureau of Statistics.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is the hon. member not referring to the Mines branch?


Joseph Henry Harris: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Very often two departments set up offices to obtain the same information. For example, the Customs department very largely duplicates the report of the Trade and Commerce department. I was wondering whether my hon. friend referred to the metallurgical branch of the Mines department.	.


Joseph Henry Harris: No. They are both under the Bureau of Statistics.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That should not be.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Is it intended to provide the Bureau of Statistics with a decent building in the near future? The building in which the bureau is now housed is pretty much of a box car.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


James Malcolm: If the Minister of Public Works will provide a better building, no one will be more pleased than myself.


William John Ward: I represent what may be called an extremely cosmopolitan district and the enumerators in taking the census two months ago met with a great deal of difficulty in eliciting from Ukrainians any admission that they were Ukrainians. They insisted that they were Canadians. They said, "You teach us Canadian ways and you insist on our becoming Canadians, and yet you want us to admit that we are Ukrainians." We are making ourselves most ridiculous in trie eyes of these people; we are not fair with them and I see no reason in the wide world why, during all these years, we should have continued the present anomaly. Simply because our forebears may have come from parts of the universe where we may be utterly unknown *we are bound to describe ourselves as of this and that nationality. The time has come when, as a duty to these new Canadians, we should establish a distinctly Canadian nationality.


Arthur Edward Ross: This question is one that concerns not only the newer parts of Canada but the oldest organized sections as well. No father or mother in Ontario, or any other province, though Canadian-born, can register a child as a Canadian; it does not matter whether the parentage is Canadian for two or three generations back, unless some change is made the name "Canadian" means nothing.


John Gordon Ross: During the last census this summer the Bureau of Statistics did endeavour to do some work along this line, and I believe a new definition of Canadian citizenship is now fixed. There is a regulation in this regard. The idea, I believe, is to define as a Canadian anyone bom of the third generation of natives.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Last year on two or three
occasions I interviewed the Bureau of Statistics on this question, which is one I have had under consideration for some time. We should be able to define precisely what a Canadian is. It is a lamentable fact that those of us who have to write out birth and death certificates are unable to say that a man who die3 or a child who is born is a Canadian; the certificate must give this or that nationality. It would be well to decide that anyone born in Canada should be regarded as a Canadian, and in our statistical tables there might be a special column to
[Mr. Kennedy.1
show that, with another column indicating racial origin. Certainly we should start at some' point and say what constitutes a Canadian.


James Malcolm: I agree with my hon.
friend. In a general way there is no reason why those of us of English extraction, those of us of the white races at least, should not be called Canadians if born in Canada. When I looked into the matter, however, I appreciated the difficulties with which it bristled and with which the Census bureau must cope. It is our desire, just as it is the desire in the United States, to have some record of the number of people from foreign countries who have become Canadians. We want, for instance, to keep track of the number of Chinese in Canada, and there are Chinese and Japanese on the Pacific coast, bom of the third generation in this country.


James Arthurs: Plow many?


James Malcolm: I have not the figures.
I think it is just as well for us to retain this information. I have no doubt the whole subject will be found quite interesting, if any hon. member cares to look into it. It has been given a good deal of consideration and I can assure the committee that I will take the matter up with the bureau before the next census is taken in 1931.


Arthur Edward Ross: The minister refers tc Chinese and Japanese, but he fails to appreciate the difficulty in which Canadians find themselves.


James Malcolm: I appreciate it.


Arthur Edward Ross: In recording the
birth of a child there is only one comprehensive definition possible, and that is Nordic. You may use that term and be perfectly safe, but you cannot call the child Irish unless both parents are full-blooded Irish. The same thing applies to Scottish people, and yet for the sake of a few Chinese and Japanese all 'our records are wrong. I do not know of any classification under which you would put a Canadian other than Nordic.


James Malcolm: I would suggest that this subject should be discussed under a resolution. The hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) is quite right; he knows the difficulties of the 'medical profession, but that is a matter of provincial record, where the same difficulty arises as in the census record.


James Arthurs: I think the main difficulty 'in the past has been that we had a few Indians in Canada and they would be naturally the first Canadians. At present they are all

Supply-Trade and Commerce
on the other side, so that we do not need to worry about them. As far as true Chinamen of the second and third generation go, I do not think that is any argument. I do think something should foe done whereby a man born in Canada, one or both of whose parents were also born in Canada, should be classified [DOT]as a Canadian.


William Russell Fansher: I see that the reduction amounts to $375,000, and I would [DOT]like to know if that is wholly accounted for by the census which was taken?


James Malcolm: That was by far the
largest item.


William Russell Fansher: The work of the bureau is not being impaired?


James Malcolm: No, it is being slightly increased. I think if the general vote were treated by itself there would be a slight increase.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act, administration of (export of electrical energy), $1,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the minister be good enough to state the amount of electrical energy exported last year; whether any new contracts were made, and if so, where?


James Malcolm: I can inform the committee there were no new contracts entered into last year, although there is one contract being held up at present at the request of the Premier of New Brunswick. The revenue has not changed much; it was $2S8,000 for 192526, and $270,000 for 1926-27.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How much energy is exported?


James Malcolm: I am sorry I have not the total. I have the list but it is not totalled.


Henry Herbert Stevens: While those figures are
being compiled would the minister say whether it is increasing or decreasing?


James Malcolm: It is decreasing. There may be a slight increase in the export by the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario, how'ever. In the renewal of their contract they requested that they be allowed to export 100 per cent of their off-peak power, and the department granted that request. Their old contract only allowed them to export 75 per cent of that power, but there was no advantage in keeping them from selling the other 25 per cent, so there may be a slight increase. I can now inform my hon. friend that the export last year amounted to 289,000 kilowatts.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Gold and Silver Marking Act, $6,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: There was a recommendation made last year by the special committee investigating the customs department which I think would come under this act, and I was wondering whether that recommendation has been observed?


James Malcolm: I do not remember the recommendation, and I do not believe it has been called to my attention since I came into the department.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think I recall it. Certain seizures have been made of jewellery, gold and silver stamped goods, and I think the suggestion was that these goods should be turned over to the mint to be melted down into bullion rather than be sold on the market in competition with bona fide goods. Would that come under this vote?


James Malcolm: I am informed that that would not come under this act.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Honorary Advisory Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, $170,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I desire to say a word in connection with this item. I see that this vote has been slightly increased, but I want to express my opinion to the minister that after a good deal of sympathetic study of this question I believe the amount is altogether too small. I think the time has arrived when Canada should take a definite stand on the question of establishing a bureau of standards and a fully equipped research laboratory. Members of the House will recall that about 1918 a committee of this. House made a very complete report on this subject and recommended the establishment of such plants here, similar to the Mellon Institute in the United States, in order that this great country with its remarkable opportunities and vast quantities of raw materials may bring science and industry together, as I heard one of the leading scientists of the country put it last week, and in order to derive the fullest possible advantage of the application of science to industry. It is too late to do anything this session of course, but I would like to appeal to the minister- and I know I am appealing to sympathetic ears-that during the coming recess a definite scheme should be worked out and if necessary a special bill introduced into this House- some time early in next session, in order that it may be given full consideration-providing for the establishment of such a bureau of standards and research laboratory in Canada. In this country we turn out some of

Supply-Trade and Commerce
the best educated young men in the world, hundreds of whom go to the United States when they finish their schooling here. They each cost us perhaps from $10,000 to $20,000 for their education, then they go to the United States where they enter the big industries and where they are giving wonderful service. I am told that approximately 60 per cent of the honour graduates of one university-the very cream of Canadian young manhood, and I suppose the same thing would apply to almost all our universities- find positions south of the line after they have received their schooling in this country. At the same time we have waiting for solution in this country problems which are not exceeded by those of any other country in the world. I am not offering this suggestion in a spirit of criticism at all, but rather as a wholly non-partisan matter, something which is not political but which is national in its importance. I am offering the suggestion so that next year parliament may be in possession of some definite suggestion by the government for the establishment of such a bureau here. I have in mind this: that Canada ought to vote forthwith-not this session, I presume that is impossible; when I say forthwith I mean at the earliest opportunity -say a million dollars for the establishment of a first-class, highly equipped plant here, and then give the committee a grant of say $250,000 or $300,000 a year for its operation. Of course, a moderate fee should be charged those who use the plant in any proposition which they bring to the institute for solution. Some revenue will be received, although not enough, of course, to pay the cost. I urge the minister, if he will take the suggestion from me, that perhaps the greatest service that could be rendered to Canada during the next decade would be the erection of such a plant in Ottawa, or whatever suitable place may be chosen, and I hope that next year we may have in the estimates, or in the form of a special bill, provision for such an establishment.


Arthur Edward Ross: May I ask the
minister if he will leave this item over until after recess? It is one of the most important items in the whole estimate. I spoke a year ago on this work of a bureau of standards, and what it actually means to the manufacturer and to the consumer-more to the consumer than to the manufacturer. I should like to take the matter up in connection with the report of the research committee to-night.


James Malcolm: I can assure my hon.
friend that I shall be pleased to leave the item over if he wishes to make any comments fMr. Stevens.]
in line with the comments made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. I know the committee will appreciate the difficulty that I as a new minister necessarily experienced in taking up any comprehensive scheme in the first few months I was in charge of the department.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Quite.


James Malcolm: May I say that I am
entirely sympathetic towards the idea. I do not believe that we have expended in Canada anything like the amount of money we might on industrial research, or even on agricultural research. There is a slight increase in the vote this year, and there will likely be an increase in the supplementaries for some work that is being arranged for. I shall be delighted indeed to hear and to consider any comments favourable to the work that hon. members wish to make in committee.


Charles A. Stewart: Perhaps
this would be the proper place to announce what is being done in Montreal. So important has this matter become to the pulp and paper men that the present quarters at McGill university having proved inadequate they have subscribed $350,000 of their own money to provide more suitable quarters which they will turn over to the university at the end of twenty years. The officials who are engaged in scientific research work in connection with pulp and paper will be established in these quarters, and we hope that possibly some arrangement may be made in connection with the wood industries generally. I wish to add' my testimony to what the hon. member for Vancouver Centre has said, that no one can overestimate the value of scientific research.
I think we have delayed long enough in the establishment of a central bureau here. Not only should we do that, but we should utilize the services of every university in Canada, as is done now under the scientific research bureau, and thus bring into play all those activities that will mean so much for the development of science and industry in this country and will perhaps, as my hon. friend has said, provide employment for a great many more of our young men who take this special training.


Mr. TOLMIE:: I wish to say a word in
support of this proposal to increase our research facilities in Canada, having in mind particularly that phase of the question which has reference to the contagious diseases of animals and the necessity of pathological research along these lines, so as to obviate the great loss from which we suffer in this coum

Supply-Trade and Commerce
try from these diseases, and effect a large saving in the compensation which has to be paid. I wish to commend the government for the construction of a large pathological laboratory near Hull, which is a step in the right direction. A few years ago we had an outbreak of disease amongst horses in the province of Saskatchewan, and in one year we paid $47,000 in compensation. The gentleman in charge out there at that time, having his headquarters at Lethbridge, was Dr. Watson, now the head of the pathological laboratory across the river. Dr. Watson was able to discover a blood test which he applied to these horses so as to diagnose the disease before the ordinary symptoms appeared. In about six years, by carrying on work along this line, he reduced the amount of compensation paid from $47,000 to $300, and the next year to $70. Since then nothing at all has been paid. Thus this work resulted in a complete saving to the country and it is only a little illustration of what it is possible to do along this line. I think that everyone who has the good of Canada at heart, and realizes to anything like a full extent the wonderful opportunities for research work in this country, will stand strongly behind any policy brought down by the government which has that object in view.


Mr. EVANS:: What research work is being done in connection with the various grades of wheat?


James Malcolm: I understand that the
facilities at the Winnipeg laboratory are being increased. New equipment is being added, and I hope to ask for an increase in the supplementary estimates to continue the work on an even larger scale than we anticipated when the main estimates were brought down.
Item stands.
Motion picture bureau, 535,000.


George Gibson Coote: I wonder if the minister
would explain what work this bureau is carrying on?


James Malcolm: The vote is to meet the salaries of employees and the travelling expenses of officials, and provide facilities for the production of motion pictures, lantern slides and photographic enlargements. The expert technical knowledge of the staff of the bureau is now available to any branch or department of the federal government desirous of making use of its services. A great saving is effected by having all the photographic work of the department in the one building. I may say that the service to the other departments is on a cost basis. The motion
picture bureau has taken a great many films which are used to advertise Canada, and which are sold under contract to exhibitors in various parts of United States and in other countries. There is of course some revenue received from the bureau. The revenue for 1925-26 amounted to $22,000. The revenue for the first half of 1926-27 was $10,500. We anticipate that by reason of some new contracts we have been able to make-our director having returned from Hollywood with certain contracts in his pocket-we shall have a largely increased revenue from the motion picture bureau this year as compared with the previous year.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It will be practically selfsustaining.


James Malcolm: As the hon. member says, it will be practically self-sustaining and will probably show a profit.


George Gibson Coote: Do they take only Canadian pictures?


James Malcolm: Altogether Canadian
pictures.


George Gibson Coote: Have they charge of motion picture work for the Parks branch, or is that separate?


James Malcolm: The motion picture bureau does the work for the Parks branch.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Weights and measures inspection, including International Bureau of Weights and Measures, $315,000.
George Gibson Coote: What is the revenue in connection with this branch?


James Malcolm: This is another selfsustaining branch. The excess last year of receipts over expenditures amounted to $14,864. The branch has been on a revenue basis for the last few years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Halifax elevator, towards construction of, $185,000.
Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I thought this elevator was completed.	[DOT]


James Malcolm: This amount is required to provide for installation of new grain conveyors, fees for the engineer for supervision of same, and to provide for the balance due on the conveyors being installed in 1926-27, also for the engineer's commission for supervision and for any contingencies which might arise. The total amount of $185,000 completes the elevator, putting it into condition so that three boats can load at one time. The

Supply-Trade and Commerce
problem with the elevator was to get enough conveyors to load the boats quickly, and new conveyors had to be installed after the elevator was equipped, taken over and operated.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: How much grain went through the elevator last year?


James Malcolm: I have not the exact figures, but if my memory serves me rightly about 5.000,000 bushels went through if last year and the loading was very slow.


George Gibson Coote: I understand that a harbour commission has been established in Halifax. Is the elevator to be turned over to that commission for operation, or will it be operated separately by the Board of Grain Commissioners?


James Malcolm: At present the Department of Trade and Commerce is operating the elevator. Whether it will be turned over to the newly formed Halifax harbour commission or not is a question of future policy and discussion. It has not been considered as yet.


George Gibson Coote: What is the cost of this elevator, including this last amount, and what is its capacity?


James Malcolm: The cost of the elevator to date is $808,000, including these extra conveyors. The superstructure cost practically $600,000, the foundation practically $20,000, and the balance was for equipment and conveyors. It has a storage capacity of 1,000,000 bushels, a cleaning capacity of 40,000 bushels per day, a loading capacity on cars of 60 care per day and an unloading capacity of the same quantity. It has a boat-loading capacity of
300,000	bushels per day. Its bagging plant takes care of 24,000 bushels per day.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed' at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Civil government-Immigration and Colonization-salaries, $265,850; contingencies, $45,000.
Arthur Edward Ross: What are the increases in the staff?


Hon. ROBERT FORKE (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: The details will be found on page 79 of the estimates. There is an increase of four.


Robert Gardiner: I notice that the minister has in the department a deputy minister,

an assistant deputy minister, a commissioner of immigration and a commissioner of colonization. Will he explain the different duties of those four officials?


Robert Forke: I do not suppose it is necessary to give the duties of the deputy minister. There is an assistant deputy minister and a pretty large staff. The activities of the department are very wide. The deputy minister, of course, at times has to go away on different duties in connection with the department, and it has been found necessary to have an assistant deputy minister.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is his name?


Robert Forke: F. C. Blair. There are three divisions, eastern, middle and western, and the commissioner of immigration has charge of 'the different divisions. The commissioner of colonization is in charge of the different activities of his department.


Arthur Edward Ross: We know the
definition of colonization. What are the commissioner's duties?


Robert Forke: He has charge of the work
of placing farm labourers in positions and locating farmers.


Robert Gardiner: I presume he would act between immigrants guaranteed positions and applicants for farm help.


Robert Forke: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: Where does the
work of the commissioner of immigration end and that of the commissioner of colonization begin?


Robert Forke: The commissioner of immigration is directly interested in attracting immigrants, which necessitates his keeping in touch with all the overseas offices of his department. The commissioner of colonization is more particularly interested in immigrants after their arrival here.


George Gibson Coote: Is not the Soldier Settlement Board now really a colonization board? And does this item include the staff of that board?


Robert Forke: There is a separate estimate for the Soldier Settlement Board.


George Gibson Coote: The colonization branch?


Robert Forke: There is a land settlement
branch in connection with the Soldier Settlement Board, which is a distinct branch, although the two work in unison.

Supply-Immigration


George Gibson Coote: Is there a division of work, the land settlement board looking after certain settlers and the commissioner of colonization looking after others? To an outsider there seems to be a good deal of overlapping in this department.


Robert Forke: There is no overlapping,
although of course they may be brought in touch with each other occasionally in the course of their work. The land settlement board is more particularly concerned with the three thousand family scheme for the settling of British farmers, and other schemes. The officials are really connected with the Soldier Settlement Board.


George Gibson Coote: Could not all the work of
the land settlement board and the Soldier Settlement Board be handled to much better advantage under the one department?


Robert Forke: They are under the Department of Immigration and Colonization, although at the present time there are three commissioners of the Soldier Settlement Board. Ultimately I hope to bring them all directly under the control of my department. I have no complaints on the score of efficiency, but I do think it would be better to have these two branches of the service under one control.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Hear, hear.


George Gibson Coote: It seems to me that probably for the past three years the Soldier Settlement Board has been engaged in straight colonization work. I know a great many people are asking why we need that board to carry on virtually the same work as the department of colonization. One department ought to be sufficient.


Robert Forke: I would point out to the
hon. member that the land settlement board and the Soldier Settlement Board have practically the same officials. The supervisors of the Soldier Settlement Board look after soldier settlers and also after farmers who have come to us under the three thousand family scheme; in fact they supervise all the activities in connection with colonization. There is no overlapping, for the Department of Immigration has no officials doing that particular kind of work. Undoubtedly those officials are very helpful in placing settlers on farms and looking after them for a few years.


George Gibson Coote: Is it too much to expect
that in the next year or two we shall be able to get along with fewer commissioners? The
minister said there Tvere three in the Soldier Settlement Board, and two are mentioned in this list. To an outsider five commissioners to look after our colonization work is suggestive of overstaffing.


Robert Forke: I should not like to say
that. Of course,.when we come to the Soldier Settlement Board it will be a matter of legitimate criticism as to whether it is the best possible organization for the work it handles. It must be borne in mind that I have not yet had time to become thoroughly familiar with the ramifications of my department, which extend not only throughout the Dominion but all over the United States and in many of the countries of Europe. In fact, we are in touch with every civilized country in the world. So far I see no reason to believe that these officials are not absolutely necessary. We have a commissioner for the eastern division who certainly has to cover a very large field, and the same remark applies to the commissioner of the central and western divisions. In fact, these and other men have a great deal more work to attend to than those outside the department would imagine.


Robert Gardiner: Does this item refer only to the Ottawa officials?


Robert Forke: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: Has the minister the information as to the number of juvenile immigrants brought in during the past year? Or would he rather deal with this under another item?


Robert Forke: There were 975 brought to Ontario.


George Gibson Coote: All from Britain?


Robert Forke: Yes. The department gives after-care to a great many of the boys brought out, and it is a part of the duties of the commissioner to see to that.


Mr. CANTLEY:: It is impossible for us over here to hear what is being said. This seems to be a private conversation.


Robert Forke: There were brought out to the country last year in all 1470 boys, 975 of whom came to Ontario.


Arthur Edward Ross: In connection with juvenile work the minister seems to have come into collision with the Salvation Army. Will he explain why he has taken such a stand against the work of the Salvation Army?
199S
Supply-Immigration


Robert Forke: I cannot very well answer that question because I deny having taken any such stand. If hon. gentlemen cannot hear me perhaps it is because of my Scotch accent.


Arthur Edward Ross: There is no need to laugh. This is an interesting question and I have a right to hear what the minister says.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no need to insult the minister.


Arthur Edward Ross: If the Minister of
Railways will come and sit over here he will see how difficult it is for us to hear.


Robert Forke: I will do my best to make myself heard.


John Frederick Johnston: I would ask hon. members to keep better order.


Robert Forke: I am anxious to give any information I can regarding the subject. I can assure my hon. friends that it is no laughing matter to me. I am quite serious at this moment. I think all hon. gentlemen will appreciate the statement that I have no inclination just now to be facetious or to indulge in humour. I do not agree with the suggestion that I have shown any antagonism towards the Salvation Army.


Thomas Cantley: The public press discloses beyond any possibility of doubt that there is a serious difference of opinion between the minister or his department and the officers of the Salvation Army. We want to know what are the causes of difference and what the minister has done to meet the situation satisfactorily.


James Alexander Robb: Every hon. member knows
that when a minister is putting through his estimates he has prepared an outline of the work which he follows consecutively. I think we should get along much better and my colleague (Mr. Forke) would be in a more advantageous position to answer questions if we were to dispose of civil government first and then, in connection with the votes for the various societies, discuss questions in relation thereto.


Arthur Edward Ross: A question was
raised regarding juvenile work and in all seriousness I have asked for information. It seemed to me as though the minister were regarding the matter as a joke.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not at all.


Arthur Edward Ross: Immediately I
ask for information hon. gentlemen opposite

take me up. I am here for information and I am prepared to stay until I get it. What I want to know is quite relevant to the matter.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If not under this item, will the minister indicate where we may discuss the general immigration policy of the department?
RORKE: It may be discussed under immigration contingencies," which covers the^ whole field. But I have no objection to giving now any information in regard to juvenile work. I have here a long explanation which I do not consider it necessary to read. Coming into the department a few months ago, I was not very well acquainted with the various activities of the Salvation Army, but so far as I am concerned the first friction with that organization arose out of the fact that the Salvation Army was collecting a part of the. transportation fees which had already been paid by the imperial and the federal governments. Hon. gentlemen have no doubt seen the explanations given by Commissioner Lamb regarding that statement. The Salvation Army received a grant, of S25,000 for carrying on immigration work, and that seemed reasonable so long as no other organization was engaged in the same field. I found however, that there were ten or fifteen or more organizations, all anxious to assist in immi-gation work and all seeking grants from the Dominion government. It was impossible to give grants to all these organizations, who are doing bona fide work in furthering immigration, and the only thing for it was to cut out direct grants to any immigration association. ^ The Salvation Army felt hurt but this decision, I can assure the committee, was dictated by no antagonism whatever to the organization in question. It was purely a matter of policy, and I do not think that either the Salvation Army or any other association can possibly find fault with the department for taking such a step.
With regard to juvenile immigration, I may observe that, boys under seventeen are brought over free of charge, whether they come out to institutions devoted to the welfare of Boys, or to any of the provincial organizations. The Dominion government pays fifty per cent and the imperial government the other fifty. More than that, the federal government makes a grant to the farm-such as the Yimy farm in Ontario-of $20 for each boy while the provincial government contributes a like sum. The imperial government makes a grant of S40.

Supply-Immigration


John Wesley Edwards: To whom?


Robert Forke: Either to the Ontario government or to the particular organization under w'hose control the boys may be. We are trying to establish farms in all the provinces, and the work is being taken up. The Salvation Army has exactly the some opportunities as any other organization. Apart from the wdthdrawal of the grant, the first trouble that arose in connection with the army was due to the fact that, although the transportation fees were being paid by the imperial and federal governments, the Salvation Army was collecting money from the boys after they had come to Canada. Their statement was that before leaving Great Britain the boys agreed to pay a certain sum to the Army in order that other iboys should have the same advantages, while quite a number of boys came here and they said that when they signed the document they were under the impression that they were repaying the Salvation Army for their passage money. I am not making any charge against the Salvation Army, but I do say the boys were under a misapprehension, and in speaking to Commissioner Lamb I think I told him that I knew something of what it meant for a boy to come out here and work for a farmer for $10 a month Commissioner Lamb said the boy would get $20 a month, but I wonder where boys fifteen and sixteen years of age are being paid $20 a month on farms? They get about $10 a month, and when the Salvation Army collected some of that money, and perhaps most of it, there was not much left. The arrangement was that the farmer would pay the money direct to the Salvation Army, that the boy would not get it at all, and I still think this gave the boy a bad start; in many cases it might cause him to lose heart and (become a failure without having had a fair chance. I know that Commissioner Lamb will not agree with what I am saying, but I have had some practical experience in dealing with boys, perhaps more than he has had. That wras the whole trouble, and I do not know of anything other than that. The Salvation Army has the same opportunities and the same privileges accorded other organizations, and we are willing to cooperate with them in just the same way. I am sorry Commissioner Lamb got into the newspapers, because I do not think it did either the department or the Salvation Army any good. I have tried to make the situation as plain as I can and I think roughly that covers the whole case.


John Wesley Edwards: I would like to ask the minister a question in that connection. I understand that he objects to the Salvation Army having any private arrangement with the boy who comes out under their auspices, to the effect that he will pay back a certain sum to the army in the course of a certain length of time. My understanding is that this is an arrangement or agreement between the Salvation Army officials and the immigrant boy, and I cannot look upon it as the minister does. I do not think it is a handicap to the boy; to the contrary, I think it makes him feel that he is doing something worth while in assisting to bring another boy to the country wdiere he has found employment.
Let us consider the statement of the minister. He says it is wrong for the Salvation Army to make an arrangement with a boy immigrant whereby that boy agrees to pay a certain sum of money to the Salvation Army to assist in bringing out another boy. Let us take the case of a man coming to Canada from Italy, let us say, or some other part of continental Europe. It is a fact, as the minister must know, that there are organizations in this country which put up money for that immigrant to show when he lands here, in order to prove that he is not a pauper. That money is turned back to that organization when he lands here within a certain period of time, by arrangement; then the money is used to bring out another person. What about that principle?


Robert Forke: I have no knowledge of any such thing.


John Wesley Edwards: My hon. friend can say that he has only been in the department a short time, and we will accept that excuse for his want of knowledge. But let me tell him something further. There is a well-established organization in New York with a branch right in Ottawa which brings immigrants to this country. Supposing I make a representation, or some other member of this House makes a representation, to the minister to allow a certain immigrant to enter this country to work on a farm. I get my permit and go to the agent of this New York company in Ottawa and say, "Here is a permit for an immigrant." He will give me a cheque on the bank in Ottawa for $50 for each immigrant I get in in that way. Does the minister not know of that fact, that there are people in this country who are simply taking the voters' list or the telephone directory, writing out a list of names and
Supply-Immigration

getting permits from the department to bring immigrants into this country, which permits are turned into cash by presenting them to the agent of this New York organization? Does he not know that there is a well-established underground channel for conveying info the United States those immigrants who, for obvious reasons, do not want to stay in Canada? There is a systematized organization at work getting men into Canada under these false representations and then smuggling them across the line. It is all very well to say that this does not happen often, but will the minister tell me that he is not aware of the fact that there are firms right here in Canada- one in the city of Toronto whose name just escapes me for the moment

which put up the money and which have banking arrangements in Europe, so that the immigrant from that continent can say he is not a pauper? The company makes an arrangement with him and he not only pays back the amount they put up for him to make good in entering this country, but he has to pay as well a mighty good commission. Then that money is used again to bring in other immigrants in the same way; they have a complete organization, with a banking system on the continent of Europe and with agents here in Canada. That is going on now and has been going on for some time- The minister says that is all right; he does not object to that, but if the Salvation Army sees fit to enter into a private arrangement with a boy whom they bring to this country, in order that he may assist them in the work they are carrying on by paying back to the Salvation Army a certain amount of money in a certain time, the minister finds that objectionable.


Robert Forke: When I said I did not know anything about this, perhaps I did not exactly state the case, although I was speaking truthfully in one respect. I can assure the hon. member that this has been one of the great sources of trouble to me since I took over this department; it came upon me like a clap of thunder, because I never assumed that any such operations were being carried on. I have no doubt that it is being done, but every attempt of which I become aware will receive no favour and no consideration from me as Minister of Immigration. I think perhaps it is nothing like as bad as the hon. member seems to think, but I do not intend to do anything in my position as Minister of Immigration which will not stand investigation, and I hope to be able to face this House at any time and say I have done what I thought was right, and face any criticism which may result. 
I will make mistakes and blunders, but I want the House to know that no hon. member will ever find me entering into any arrangements of any kind which are not upright and honourable in every way.


John Wesley Edwards: 
Charles A. Stewart: Would my
hon. friend explain how the door is closed against immigrants from the old land?


John Wesley Edwards: I did not
say that the door was closed against them.


Charles A. Stewart: At any rate
you said it was made difficult for them to enter.


John Wesley Edwards: Yes, it is
made difficult for them to enter. Here is an instance in regard to the Salvation Army where I think the government have been too strict, where they have drawn the line rather tight, in shutting out immigrants who are admittedly of the class we want to get in this country.


Charles A. Stewart: We are not
shutting out Britishers.


John Wesley Edwards: I think we
have been too strict in regard to the immigrant boys brought out by the Salvation Army.


Charles A. Stewart: They were
not shut out.


John Wesley Edwards: I did not say they were Shut out. I said the immigration of these boys was restricted and discouraged.


Charles A. Stewart: No.


John Wesley Edwards: If jTou do
not call it discouragement, what do you call it-encouragement ?


Robert Forke: The Salvation Army boys are getting exactly the same chance as any other immigrants. At the present moment they are under no disabilities whatever. May I explain that the Salvation Army was getting a grant of $25,000 a year for its immigration and colonization work? As I tried to explain at the outset we were giving all the after-care that was necessary in regard to the immigrants that were coming in because I take this position-that no matter what organization is engaged in immigration work the department is responsible, in the final analysis, for the immigrants that come to this country. I say frankly that I do not want to transfer my responsibility to any organization. Now the Salvation Army boys are getting the same chance as others. In the matter of transportation they come across free, the federal and imperial governments still pay the passage money, but now we give no $25,000 a year grant. We give the same treatment to the Salvation Army that is accorded, for example, to the Vimy Ridge organization. I am very sorry indeed that this matter with respect to the Salvation Army ever got into the newspapers. But for that there would have been no talk whatever about any antagonism between the department and the Salvation Army. I have a great admiration for the Salvation Army, and if I may be permitted to say so I have contributed every year out of my small resources toward the work that the Army is carrying on. This matter need never have been [DOT] ventilated as it has been. Personally I think the Salvation Army made a mistake in getting into the newspapers and making a noise about a matter as to which they really have no grievance.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Did the minister cut off the grant of $25,000 a year?


Robert Forke: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is the grant continued to the Salvation Army?


Robert Forke: It is finished now.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I see, you have cut off the grant.


Robert Forke: I endeavoured to explain that there are church organizations, societies of all kinds, entering into immigration work. They all want some assistance. It may have been a mistake, I do not know-


James Dew Chaplin: How long have the Salvation Army been getting this special grant of $25,000?


Robert Forke: I could not tell you.
Supply-Immigration


Henry Herbert Stevens: Your deputy can tell you in a moment.


Robert Forke: My deputy informs me that they have been getting a grant of a certain amount for about thirty years, but it never assumed any large proportion until five years ago.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Now it is cut off.


Robert Forke: It is cut off, yes.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I have a deep appreciation of the situation in which the minister finds himself, and I am not inclined to be hypercritical about his course but rather in the greatest degree friendly. My understanding of the case is that the Salvation Army spend a good deal of money upon these boys before they ever leave the old country. The Army maintain training farms or stations which cost them a great deal of money. Now what they do, as I am informed, is this: they collect from the boys a certain sum, but that is not equal to the amount they spend on them before they start for this country. It is not the passage money that the boys repay; it is the money that is expended in preparing them to be citizens in Canada. I hope the minister will reconsider his decision, and that he will restore the grant to the Salvation Army.


Robert Forke: I want to explain before
going any further that the $25,000 was not a grant made in connection with the boys; it was a grant for the general immigration work of the organization.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: No matter how the grant may be viewed by the department, if one studies broadly the work of the Salvation Army I think he will admit that there is no organization engaged in immigration work, trying to get good British citizens into Canada, that is quite as efficient as the Salvation Army. Needing population as we do and the Salvation Army being chiefly concerned in bringing out younger people, the very kind of people we want,-and I remember receiving applause from this side of the House one session when I suggested that boys rather than mature people should be brought out-I think the work which the Salvation Anmy are doing and endeavouring to do is the best that can be done. Why not encourage them to do that work? If there is any other organization that will undertake the same responsibilities and bring us the same class of citizens, why not give them a grant? If any other organization in England has a training depot to prepare boys for life in Canada, that work entails a 
heavy expense and it should be encouraged. Giving assistance in that way is much better than picking up boys in this or that town or some other part of Great Britain and bringing them out to Canada without any sorting out and without any training. My information is that many boys who are taken in hand by the Salvation Army for immigration to Canada are not sent out to this country because, during the period of training, the army discover that this or that boy is not likely to make good and so they do not send him out to us. They send out only those boys who, during the period of training, have shown that they are likely to become good citizens of Canada. I hope the minister will reconsider this matter and that this policy which he has adopted will be, to say the least, somewhat modified. Let him give the Salvation Army a liberal grant, and let him give a proportionate grant to any other organization that is doing work of the same character. Surely that is the best thing that can be done for the promotion of immigration of good quality to this country. Will the minister change his policy?


Robert Forke: I would not like at the present time to make any promise, because I want to reiterate that the Salvation Army is receiving exactly the same treatment as that accorded to other organizations which are dealing with boys. The department is giving them the $10 grant for every boy they train on their farm in England, and we are willing to pay, along with the Imperial government, one-half of the transportation charges. That involves a large amount of money when you figure it out for every boy coming to this country.


Peter John Veniot: How much does the Army pay?


Robert Forke: The Army pays nothing for transportation. We are willing to give them the $10 grant for training the boy on the other side.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That will not pay the cost of training.


Robert Forke: No. The British government is paying $20.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That will buy only a suit of clothes.


Robert Forke: We are willing to pay them the $10 and we give the boys free transportation across the ocean. It is easy for hon. members to talk, but if you figure what the cost to the Dominion is, for all these boys you will find that you are not going to have

Supply-I mini gra tion
many $25,000 grants to give to organizations throughout the country. There seems to be an impression that the Salvation Army is being discriminated against. The hon. member for Toronto West Centre speaks of the importance of their work. I have nothing to say against the Salvation Army, but there are other organizations doing just as good work.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: And maintaining training depots in the old country?


Robert Forke: That have training depots
in the old country.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: What other organization
is doing that?
Mr. FORKE,: They do not have training farms, but they are doing training work. We have the Ontario government entering into this work on the Vimy ridge farm in connection with, the Dominion government. The Manitoba government, the New Brunswick government and the Nova Scotia government are going to go into this work and we are making the same grants to all these boys. The total amount of money paid out in assisting immigration of this character will be considerable. This is not being done in a spirit of antagonism to the Salvation Army. I criticized their collection of money from these boys; as a practical fanner I did not think it was a wise policy to adopt. But that is only a matter of opinion; I am not condemning the Army for doing that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did the department not
issue a statement to the press that if the Army continued that practice the grant would be discontinued? I recall seeing in the press some time ago an apparently inspired statement to that effect. That is what has created the protest against the special treatment meted out to the Salvation Army. I am inclined to think the training which the New Brunswick government proposes to give to these boys is on this side of the water and not on the other.


Charles A. Stewart: There is a
good deal of misconception about the position that is now taken as against that formerly taken by the department. Prior to the inception of the assisted passage scheme, grants were given to societies which engaged in this work. I increased the Salvation Army grant from $15,000 to $25,000, believing that the Army was a fair medium for this class of work. But the Baroardo home has been bringing boys to Canada for years and a number of patriotic associations have been doing the same thing.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Is the Barnardo home still doing that?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. There are various organizations bringing out boys. My hon. friends will remember when in 1923,
I think, we began the assisted passage scheme for boys from fourteen to seventeen years of age. Part of the passage was paid by the Imperial government and part by this government, and their transportation was absolutely free. There was no charge to any of these organizations for bringing the boys over. It was felt then that we might very well cut off the grants that were being earned by these various organizations which were engaged in this business of bringing in juvenile immigrants. The reason for that was that they were receiving from the two governments, under the assisted passage scheme, assistance which they never received before.
I am not familiar with the controversy that may have arisen over the Salvation Army; but if we are to give in a larger way than any $25,000 grant in assisting the Salvation Army to bring boys to this country, I do not see 'much necessity for continuing these grants. I am much interested in the attempt to work in harmon}' with the provincial government because this will prevent overlapping in organizations. Let the provincial government assume the responsibility of placing all immigrants, not only the juveniles but the adults as well. I tried that when I first became minister of the department. I went right across Canada, interviewed every provincial government, and said to them that if they would undertake the colonization of the immigrants who came into their province, we would be willing to pay our fair proportion of the cost of those immigrants, believing that the provincial government would have the best knowledge of and facilities for doing this work. I was however unable at the time to get the provinces to agree to that. They said: This is the business of the federal government; they ought not only to recruit immigrants, but to place them when they come into this country. I was unable to make that arrangement but I still think it is the ideal one.
Let the federal government provide an organization for the recruiting of those-children as well as adults-who may foe required by the various provinces; let the federal government meet the expense of colonization; but let the work be assumed by the provincial government. My colleague is doing that in connection with juvenile immigration as far as it can be done, in an attempt to get away froni these organizations some of which have been engaged in this work and some of
Supply-Immigration

which want to go into it. I realize the difficulty in dealing with these organizations. This is no sinecure for any minister. I am still convinced that I was right in 1922, and if we are going to have a real immigration policy in Canada, it is the only one that will work out successfully and the one that will cost the least.


John Wesley Edwards: That is not the policy which the minister followed.


Charles A. Stewart: The reason was that with the exception of making arrangements with the provinces for juveniles, I was unable to arrive at an agreement.


John Wesley Edwards: The minister under the grant gave assisted passages to those brought out by the Salvation Army and he raised no objection in connection with the matter.


Charles A. Stewart: Not when
I raised the grant to the Salvation Army.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I understand the Minister of the Interior to say that the Barnardo home is bringing out children now. Will he confirm that?


Robert Forke: They are not bringing very
many.


An hon. MEMBER:: Any at all?


Robert Forke: Oh, yes.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Is there no regulation
forbidding the bringing out of these children?


Robert Forke: Under fourteen years of
age. There was an investigation made into the circumstances connected with the immigration of boys under fourteen years of age. After that investigation Margaret Bondfield came to Canada; her verdict was against boys of_ that- age coming to Canada, and the immigration of boys of that age has been largely stopped. Very few are coming out unless to some special home.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I think it is peculiarand I am not referring to the present minister now, because this was done before he took office-that the Department of Immigration should take the word of Miss Bond-field-


Robert Forke: Oh, no.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That is what the minister said.


Robert Forke: Almost every child welfare
society in the country was objecting to the immigration of children under fourteen years of age.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: The experience in this
country will prove that we have had no better immigration to Canada than the immigration from the Barnardo home. Here and there it has been discovered that a boy did not make good, but taking the matter by and large the Barnardo home has done more good work for Canada in proportion to its opportunities and funds than any organization I know of. I am not blaming the minister, but the department does not believe that children under that age should come out. I disagree entirely with that view, and I disagree entirely with the argument that was used that a child should not come to Canada until he has received a public school education in England. If a child of five or six comes to Canada and is educated here he has a better chance of making good than if he is brought out at the age of fourteen or fifteen. I think no greater mistake has ever been made in the administration of this department than the prohibiting of the Barnardo home from carrying on the work it had performed for about fourteen years. Thousands of men who hold good positions in this country came out under the auspices of that organization. They have made good; some of them are wealthy men and are now contributing their funds to assist the organization which brought them out here. I think the department should cancel that regulation and permit the Barnardo home to use the same judgment that they have used for so many years in bringing children to this country.
The Salvation Army are bringing out a lot of immigrants. They get their passage money and are given, I think, $30 by the federal government and the Imperial government. That $30 does not pay for their training in the old country. An organization such as the Salvation Army, with its little groups and stations in practically every community in Canada, is in a better position to do good work in the matter of immigration than any other body. I see no reason why the Salvation Army should be forced to spend the money it has collected from other sources and for other purposes in the work of assisting immigration to Canada. I do not believe the $25,000 grant they have been receiving would by any means pay for what the}'- spend upon the emigrants before they leave the other side. It is not fair to ask the Salvation Army to use their funds to advance immigration. They have given us the benefit of their widespread organizations, and they keep track 'of every immigrant who comes out under their auspices. It is a splendid organization and I think it would be a reasonable thing for the government to

Supply-Immigration
pay this $25,000. If there is any other organization doing the same kind of work .and doing it as well as the Salvation Army why not pay that organization as well? Each society or organization which is concerned in immigration should be dealt with on its merits; there should not be a blanket regulation placed over all. Some are doing well and some not so well, but each should be tested by its accomplishment and treated with some degree of sympathy, not merely to show that we recognize their good work but also to encourage them in future.


Mr. ROWE:: What other organizations have received grants of this kind, and how much in each case?


George Gibson Coote: While the minister is finding the answer to that question, I want to back him up in the cutting off of grants to different societies. If we are going to carry on the work of immigration let us do it ourselves. Let us spend the money on the people we want, and not hand it over to these societies.


Mr. PRICE:: What amount is appropriated for the maritime provinces? We all know that in the past the maritime provinces have suffered in this respect; they have not received the amount of assistance which they deserve. In 1923 the railway department amalgamated the various amounts spent in the various provinces under the colonization scheme, and it is practically impossible to determine what is spent in each province. What does the minister propose to do in connection with the expenditure by his department in the maritime provinces? Judging by the legislation which has been brought down as a result of the Duncan report, it has become very apparent that in Canada to-day we need a broad east and west policy, not only for immigration and for railways, but for other departments. The time has arrived for the government to recognize this important matter and in determining their various expenditures throughout Canada to size up the situation from the east to the west and from the north to the south. It is time for the government to realize that the people of Canada expect something which will bring about a real consciousness of nationalization in this country. We want something which will tend to bring about a better feeling among the people from coast to coast. Let the Minister of Immigration tell us what he proposes to do in regard to expenditures in the maritime provinces.


Robert Forke: During the few months that I have been in the department I have recognized that, if colonization and immigration
are to be successful, the cooperation of the people of the whole country must be had. I look upon immigrants as wards of this department. It is our duty to see that they get a fair "chance. This can only be done effectively by individuals and communities and the provincial governments entering into cooperation with the Dominion authorities. We have in the west what are known as community building clubs, and they are of inestimable benefit in helping new immigrants. They meet the new arrivals, encourage them, give them advice and make them feel at home. I say again to the maritime provinces: You too have got to help; the Immigration department cannot do it alone. I am anxious that something shall be done for the maritime provinces not only as recommended by the Duncan report but in the way of immigration and colonization.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Something of real value.


Robert Forke: Yes. We are ready to enter into negotiations with the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick governments. I was in error in saying that we have an arrangement with New Brunswick for boy immigrants; the arrangement is in relation to the three thousand family scheme. We have an arrangement with Nova Scotia for boy immigrants. They are taking one hundred boys this year as a start, working in cooperation with my department. We are willing to enter into the same arrangement with New Brunswick-in fact, as I said before, with all the provinces.
As to settling immigrants on some of the vacant lands in the maritime provinces, I find it rather a difficult proposition. Out of surplus funds in connection with the three thousand family soheme, the government has tried to get options on some vacant farms. Wherever we can get British families assisted by a loan of three hundred pounds from the Imperial government to settle on farms in the maritime provinces we are ready to proceed. But let me say again, we must have provincial cooperation if our efforts are to be successful. I do not want to see those people lose heart at the outset by being told that they cannot make a living on farms in the maritime provinces. I have seen some of those farms, and as a farmer I say that I would not be afraid to go down there and make a living. I do not see why British farmers could not do the same. I am willing and anxious to do all I can to help the maritime provinces secure immigrants, but I ask for cooperation by the provincial governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. So far I have found them willing to help me in this work.

Supply-Immigration


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then I understand the minister has not yet made any actual arrangement with the governments of the maritime provinces; he simply expresses his willingness to do so.


Robert Forke: Oh yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand that Mr. Murray, the gentleman in charge of immigration work in New Brunswick, has gone to the old country. Has he made any arrangement with the minister's department with respect to this work? If so, what is it? We can only assimilate a certain number of people in my province at the beginning, but there should be no difficulty, if the organization is perfected, in making it possible to bring out families under the British government scheme and place them on small holdings in New Brunswick. They should be able to make a living there very easily from the beginning if they have had any training at all. I rather sympathize with the view of the present Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) that the provinces ought to help in this immigration work, because at very little expense they can create the necessary machinery to place farmers on the land, and especially boys. There ought to be cooperation and coordination not only between the federal and provincial departments, but between the railways and the provincial and Dominion governments. I believe there 'is some such working arrangement already in effect. I think the minister will find the present government in New Brunswick sympathetic towards any scheme of immigration that he may propose to them. The scope of their ability to place men on the land at the beginning may be limited, but they want immigrants, and the minister will find the premier willing and ready to cooperate in any scheme that his deputy minister may propose, to a limited degree at the beginning, but gradually growing, as we all hope, to larger proportions.
While I am on my feet I should like to know if there is any contractual arrangement between the Department of Immigration and Dr. Cossar. I have known him for several years, and I 'believe him to be a real philanthropist. He came out to New Brunswick, bought one of the best farms at Gagetown, and placed in charge a competent man to train boys to become farmers. So far as I am aware only one boy of the large number that he has brought out has failed, and I have kept pretty close tab on the work done there. It has been a real success, but only on a very small scale. Dr. Cossar
fMr. Forke.]
is not making any money out of the scheme; he is simply assisting boys in the old country to become farmers, and I would bespeak for him the mosit favourable consideration of the officials of the department. I understand the minister is going to the old country this summer, and I would suggest that before he embarks he take an opportunity of calling on Dr. Cossar to see if he cannot continue the arrangement made some years ago whereby the doctor brought out boys and trained them on his farm at h'is own expense with little or no assistance except from other philanthropic persons in the old country.


Robert Forke: Dr. Cossar brought out
seventy-eight boys last year, and I am informed by the department that he is doing splendid work. We have a working arrangement with the New Brunswick government. We are in negotiation with them for a sort of three-way arrangement between the Imperial government, the federal Department of Immigration and the provincial government, but it is not in such shape that I can give it to the House. I think it is a good arrangement.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does Dr. Cossar get any
assistance in his work?


Robert Forke: The boys get the regular grant for transportation.


George Gibson Coote: I would ask the member for York-Sunbury or the minister, or both of them, to tell us how they expect farmers from England to make a success of farming in New Brunswick if the New Brunswick people themselves cannot do so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Anybody with any gumption in New Brunswick is doing something. If the hon. gentleman will come down to the province I will show him in the county of York the most contented people on the face of the earth.


Otto Baird Price: Mr. Chairman, people in the maritime provinces are so busy filling various offices in western and central Canada that possibly they have not had time to attend to their duties at home. Farmers in the maritime provinces are doing fairly well, but I would point out that we have been handicapped down there, we have not enjoyed the opportunities of the other portions of the Dominion. For instance, the railway department is very anxious indeed to sell a long route ticket from the old country to a point in the Dominion as far west as possible. No attempt is made to detain these people or to give them an opportunity of looking ove'1

Supply-Im migration
the possibilities of the maritime provinces. If immigrants from the old country after spending some time in the prairie provinces become dissatisfied and want to come east, the railways do not give them the benefit of excursion rates such as are extended to people going west from central Canada. The Minister of Railways will bear me out when I say that from Winnipeg and points further west the rate in the summer months to the coast is reduced by something like $21.50; but if immigrants who have spent some time in the west want to come east to explore our territory they are given the munificent reduction of $1.05. This class of immigrants, the shore farmers who could make a success of shore farming in the maritime provinces, are not allowed to explore the possibilities of that section of Canada. That I think is a sufficient answer to the hon. gentleman who asked the question.
Members from the maritime provinces are practically silent just now. Let me assure the committee that we are waiting to see what will be done in connection with the Duncan report. We want to see what is to be given us. We are reserving our criticism and when the time comes we shall be quite capable of replying to hon. gentlemen in the far corner of the chamber who are just now so critical of the terms of the Duncan report. What was laid down by the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen as the remedy for conditions in the maritime provinces-the extension of the Intercolonial railway into Montreal, and development in the Atlantic region, that section of the road going to Portland-has not been taken notice of. That policy has not been carried out.	[DOT]


Henry Elvins Spencer: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Otto Baird Price: I do not wish to be interrupted.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I rise to a point of order


Otto Baird Price: I have the floor and I do not wish to be interrupted at the moment.


John Frederick Johnston: The hon. member has
risen to a point of order.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I submit that we are discussing immigration estimates and not maritime rights.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The point is ridiculous.


Otto Baird Price: I have not bored this House with such lengthy criticisms as some of those who at this moment would like to interrupt me have indulged in. I say that the policy laid down by the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen
32648-127i
-and I am not getting away from the immigration question-with regard to conditions in the maritime provinces, has not been carried out. So far as the maritime legislation introduced by the government at this session is concerned, we are willing, at least I am, to give the government credit for having to some extent complied with the recommendations of the Duncan report. If we have been successful in getting from the government some concessions the Duncan report has been very largely responsible for it, because the government of the day was committed to the recommendations of that commission, and the Prime Minister was committed to it. And the report gives only a faint idea of what we would have received had the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen been returned to power.


Thomas Cantley: Some time ago I asked
the minister for information regarding a matter which has been the subject of considerable discussion in the newspapers. He dealt with it, at some length, but I submit that he has hardly been fair with the House. From the correspondence that appeared in the press the public was led to understand that the Salvation Army, under their working agreement with the Immigration department had not played quite squarely, and were asking boys to pledge themselves to return after they had come out to this country or as soon as they were able to do so, certain sums which it wras represented in the press had been advanced by the government. The public were also given to understand that the minister had taken the attitude that the Salvation Army could not enter into agreements of that kind with the boys and that in consequence of that opinion the army were forced to withdraw from immigration work in cooperation with the government. I understand from the reply given by Commissioner Lamb that the Salvation Army, in addition to the amount they received' from this government by way of assistance to immigration work, have spent large sums of money in the aggregate on boys coming into this country. That money has been devoted to the education of the boys in various ways and particularly to the procuring of their outfit. The boys before coming to Canada were asked to sign an agreement to return to the Salvation Army, when and as they were able to do so, such moneys as had been spent on their outfit and possibly part of their upkeep prior to their arrival here. The minister did not make that clear. I ask him now whether he considers that a fair statement of the situation, on the part, of Commissioner Lamb, and, if it is, whether he thinks there is anything wrong in
Supply-Immigration

the Salvation Army taking such a course? The minister gave the House to understand that it was a matter of opinion. Well, if it is only a matter of opinion that is hardly good enough ground on which to base such an order as was made in this matter. I know of no better way in which you can help boys to become independent men later on than by enabling them to pay their way. Let us make it possible for every one of these boys later on to say, "I paid back all that was spent on me prior to coming to Canada. I am independent of any man. I paid my way, I am not a pauper owing any organization in the world. I stand on my own feet." If the minister persists in the course he 'has taken I think he is making a mistake. I ask him now for a (dear declaration of policy in this matter. So far he has not given it.


Robert Forke: I thought I had explained
the matter as fully as I could. I did not think that any statement had been made which I had not tried to answer. The Salvation Army takes the boys to its farm in. England and gives them probably six weeks' training. They get a grant from t'he imperial government of $20.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is not that a
bonus?


Robert Forke: It is a straight grant for
training. This department is willing to give $10 also for every one of these boys. That is a standing offer. This $30 is to look after these boys for six weeks. There is no doubt that many of these people are doing voluntary work which exceeds that $30 and for which they should be given credit.


Thomas Cantley: 
Robert Forke: My deputy informs me that the British government also makes a contribution.


Thomas Cantley: That is not an answer to my question.


Robert Forke: I am trying to answer it.
The British government also makes a contribution towards outfitting the boys. I do not want to do any double twisting at all; I want to answer every question as fairly as I can. The Imperial government and the federal government pay the cost of the passage of these boys across the ocean, and there is no discrimination against the Salvation Army in any way that I can see. We are ready to
I Mr. Cantley.]
put up a lot of money if the Salvation Army take advantage of the offers made in regard to these boys. A great deal has been said about the statements that were issued in this matter and I would like to read the only statement put out by the department.


Arthur Edward Ross: Was this statement issued prior to the statement of Commissioner Lamb?


Robert Forke: Commissioner Lamb made a statement purporting to be a letter issued from the office in Montreal, if I remember rightly, and that is the first time the matter got into the papers. We made no statement until Commissioner Lamb issued that letter.


Arthur Edward Ross: I want to make it clear, because I have some remarks to make later. Did the department make their statement first?


Robert Forke: Not in the public press;
there was a private arrangement made and negotiations were carried on in my office, but no statement appeared in the public press until Commissioner Lamb made that statement by releasing a letter from Montreal. I was sorry Commissioner Lamb released that statement, because he placed the matter before the public when there was no need for it. I have no hard feelings against the Salvation Army-I feel that I would be on the most friendly terms with Commissioner Lamb if he were here-but I think the public are making the most of it.


Arthur Edward Ross: What was the substance of that letter released to the press? Will the minister read it?


Robert Forke: It was a statement of their side of the case, that they were doing a splendid work and were taking care of these boys for a number of years after they came to Canada, It was his explanation in regard to the money being collected from the boys. I do not recall all that was in that letter but I believe that pretty well covers it.


Arthur Edward Ross: Was it not a simple statement that the arrangements between the department and the Salvation Army were broken? Then the department issued a statement which was followed by another statement by Commissioner Lamb in detail, to which the minister now objects.


Robert Forke: I do not recall that; I
think what I have stated to the House covers the whole question just as fairly as I can possibly give it from memory. I have a state-

Supply-Immigration
ment here contained in a letter written to Commissioner Lamb just before he went away, with regard to the negotiations which were being carried on. I will read the paragraph which deals with these boys.
The department will not consent to your making collections from boys of this class for reasons which have been fully explained. We have found that these boys almost without exception, believe they are refunding transportation loans provided by the Salvation Army. It makes no difference whether the collection is regarded as a refund of a loan or as a contribution to the cost of the Army's immigration machinery in Canada. No other society bringing boys to Canada requires either refund or contribution and the practice of collecting is unsettling to the boys and means that those who migrate through the Salvation Army are under a financial handicap of from $70 upwards.
That is just a plain statement of fact; it is not antagonistic, but it is the statement of the view taken by the department of the arrangement made between the Salvation Army and these boys. It is simply a matter of business; it may have been good policy or bad, but it was not done in any spirit of antagonism. We carried on negotiations with Commissioner Lamb without bitterness and I think I am giving the House all the information I have from memory.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman, some time ago I asked the minister a question, and I think he has been given .sufficient time in which to consider it. My question was what other organizations and societies have had similar grants cut off, and the amounts of those grants.	.


Robert Forke: The British Immigration and Colonization Association, of Montreal, and the Scottish Immigrant Aid Society. They have been getting these grants but they will be cut off this year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that Father MacDon-nell's society?


Mr.   FORICE@: Yes.


William Earl Rowe: What society was that?


Robert Forke: That is the Scottish Immigrant Aid Society, which brought out some Hebrideans and others.


William Earl Rowe: A short time ago the minister said that all societies similar to the Salvation Army, which have been doing similar work in Canada with similar grants, had been cut off. I asked him for a list of those different societies and organizations and the amount in each case.


Robert Forke: There were the two societies, the British Immigration and Colonization Association and the association of Father MacDonnell, the Scottish Immigrant Aid Society. These two societies have been getting grants until this year, but they will be cut off, and there are no other societies getting grants.


William Earl Rowe: Are these not commercial organizations?


Robert Forke: No.


William Earl Rowe: What was the amount?


Robert Forke: Rev. Dr. Smythe is the
head of the one organization and Father MacDonnell is the head of the other. They are both doing purely immigration work.


John Wesley Edwards: What salary does Rev. Dr. Smythe get?


Robert Forke: My deputy informs me that he does not get anything from the department.


John Wesley Edwards: What salary does the other reverend gentleman get?


Robert Forke: I do not know exactly.


John Wesley Edwards: Shall I tell the hon. gentleman? He gets $1,800.


William Earl Rowe: I do not feel satisfied that I have an answer to my question yet. I asked for the amount in each case.


Robert Forke: The one society received a grant of $5,000, while the other was paid $5,000 a year for the past four years.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Since the discussion on this item has broadened out into a consideration of some of the policies connected with immigration, there are a few points to which I should like to draw the attention of the minister and the House. The hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Hocken) expressed himself a few moments ago as very strongly of the opinion that the department should reverse its policy with regard to child immigration. May I point out that the Canadian Council on Child Welfare has issued a memorandum in which it states:
Might we point out that Canadian child welfare opinion is as unanimous in opposing unaccompanied immigration to Canada of juveniles under fourteen years of age, as it is in opposing the continuous or the permanent employment of children, below this age, in any of the production enterprises of the Dominion.
And after quoting the Bondfield report the
memorandum says:
The Canadian Association of Child Protection Officers, comprising the governmental offi-
Supply-Immigra lion

eials engaged in child welfare work throughout the Dominion, the Council for Social Service of the Church of England in Canada, the National Council of Women in Canada, the Imperial Order of Daughters of the Empire, the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, the Social Service Council of Canada and the Canadian Council on Child Welfare, have all devoted special attention to the subject of juvenile immigration in the last five years and have issued special findings thereon. We would draw your ateention to the fact that they will be found in agreement in their attitude to this present regulation.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the department, is to be-highly commended for the stand that it has taken in this matter.
Further, with regard to the Salvation Army I take it that it is not a question as to whether or not the Salvation Army may be doing good religious work. It is a question as to whether or not the government should continue to give special privileges to one particular religious organization. The Army has been receiving certain special privileges, and I would say, as one who has been fairly closely identified with immigration work for the past twenty years, that although some very fine people have undoubtedly come out under the auspices of the Salvation Army, on the other hand there are very large numbers who have been quite unfitted for positions in this country and some of these have become a perpetual load upon Canada. It seems to me, therefore, that the department is to be condemned not so much for the action it has now taken, but rather for not earlier having taken action along this line. The sooner we come to the position indicated by the hon. member for Maoleod (Mr. Coote), cut off the grants to these various religious and private organizations and devote whatever money we are spending in that way to our own immigration service the better it will be for all concerned. Otherwise we are apt to have friction as between one and the other of these various private agencies. Anyone who has read the correspondence and the memoranda exchanged between the Salvation Army and the department will, I am inclined to think, be on the side of the department in this matter.
Again I should like to emphasize, that the department still seems to be content with bringing immigrants to this country without going into the question of thoroughly rooting them in Canada. I know the officials claim to place them, but the immigrants do not stay placed, partly because many of them are quite unfitted for the positions to which they come. In my own city of Winnipeg we have had within the last few months a very strong protest from the Social Welfare Commission of the city in which they indicate the very large

numbers of recent immigrants that are being supported by the city. I have under my hand scores of protests of this character which would take me an hour to read. They are from almost every labour organization in the country, because these quickly feel the effect of immigrants in an already congested labour market. I have also protests from a large number of other organizations. I think perhaps I might give this, from the Edmonton Board of Public Welfare, as very typical of a large number that have come to hand:
We find that the immigrants come to the west with the idea of farming, and all those brought out and assisted in passage come on this understanding. The fact that these men have drifted into town and are asking assistance from this municipality is prima facie evidence of their failure on the land. We have been unable to place these men in almost every instance in anything but temporary unskilled labouring jobs.
It would seem to me that the existence of a large number of oases of this kind is the best evidence we have that the policy of the Immigration department has not gone far enough, and I take it that whatever may be said with regard to the welfare of the immigrants, we in Canada must stand for the preservation of our own standards of living. There is not the slightest doubt that the dumping of a large number of immigrants into this country has very much accentuated the problem of unemployment in Canada.
Now the next point-and I am going to be just as brief as I can in bringing these matters to the attention of the department-is the prevalence of misrepresentation on the part of immigration agents on the other side of the water. Again and again I have asked questions of the minister with regard to these matters, and have received rather evasive replies. Here is a typical advertisement, from an old country paper:
14,000	Single Men Wanted For Farm Work in Canada
With and without experience. Assured employment and good wages.
Also families, domestics and boys.
Apply,
Chas. R. Compston and Son,
65, Church Street, Lancaster.
The advertisement goes on to state that a Canadian Pacific representative will be in attendance to select suitable applicants at reduced rates. Now, Mr. Chairman, I submit that it is not fair to the intending immigrant to suggest that if he comes to this country without experience he is going to get anything like steady work on the farm. Even the man with experience is not going to get work the

Supply-Immigration
year round on the farm, the inexperienced man is certain not to get it. The result is that thousands of these men come into our large distributing centres in the west just as soon as the harvest is over. The good wages offered do not convey any idea as to the real conditions here in Canada. The minister when I asked him a question along this line a few weeks ago said, "Oh, we cannot become responsible for all that the agents might say over in England." I urge that the minister in this country ought to be responsible. I am glad to say that as the result of questions asked on the floor of this House the authorities in the British parliament undertook to discipline some of the agents in England, and that can be readily done if the department here is alert. These advertisements inserted in the old country papers undoubtedly are misleading, and a great many people are induced to come to this country who, before they have been here very long, find themselves out of work and soon become dependent upon charity.
As to the character of the men who come to Canada, here, for example, is one out of a score of clippings I have from old country papers. I note that some hon. gentlemen seek to interrupt me. I think, Mr. Chairman, I gave place three or four times to some of these gentlemen in the comer to my right. Surely it is not necessary that desks should be banged during my remarks at this time. If the gentlemen cannot give any better reply than the banging of desks they could do that much more suitably outside rather than in a chamber that is supposed to devote itself to deliberative work. As to the character of the men employed I should like to refer to one or two statements given in the old country papers as affording some idea of how this problem of immigration is regarded in the old country. Here is one paragraph:
Forty-five young men, all of whom have been on the "dole", left London to-day in charge of the Canadian National railways en route for Canada, the first-fruits of the Ministry of Labour's farm training scheme, by which it is hoped to transform groups of unemployed single men into successful settlers overseas.
And again:	,
The men of this party all come from cities and towns, and are without previous agricultural experience. Before being accepted for this scheme they were carefully selected by the Ministry of Labour, and were approved by the Canadian Department of Immigration both before and after training. Some who on going to Claydon were under weight from lack of nourishment, have gained nearly a stone of solid flesh.
I have every sympathy with those who have been on the dole and others in the old country who are so reduced that a few weeks of help in a training colony will put them into better condition; but I would urge that men who are picked up on the streets of the big cities in the old country are not likely to make the most successful farmers out on our western prairies.


George Gibson Coote: Maybe they would be all
right in New Brunswick.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is suggested that
they might be all right in New Brunswick.
I sometimes wish that the government would dump into the eastern provinces as many people and of the same class as they have dumped into the west. It would not be long before we had some decidied protest from the east with regard to the immigration policy of the government. It is all very well for men in England to think of immigration as a means of getting rid of those whom they do not know what to do with there. Let me read a paragraph from the speech of Mr. Amery as given in the House of Commons as far back as the 27th July, 1925. Discussing the immigration problem he said:
I am tempted to read a few homely sentences from one west countryman's letter:
"I have quite a good farm. I have a real good cow and a calf, 18 chickens and one cock."
All these supplied to them.
"I bought one pig which is due to have little ones next month.
I see the papers in England say one cannot get worlf in Canada. I have five farmers after me to work for them. In any case I am downright pleased with my place and can make money out of it".
That is given as an example of a successfully placed farmer. He may make good; but I would suggest to any one who knows the prairie farms of the west, that one cow, a calf, eighteen chickens, a cock, and a brood sow, are not quite enough to start in on with any hopes of making a success. We ought to be practical in this matter. I can understand that kind of thing might appeal to people who are accustomed to allotment gardens in England and who have other ways of supplementing what they make out of those gardens, but we must recognize the actualities of life in the west.
Moreover I would point out that a very large number who are coming to this country not only were mechanics in the old country, but are rapidly finding themselves pushed into the industrial field in this country. Only a few days ago I had a letter from the mining district in the Crowsnest pass stating that already the newly arrived immigrants of this year were crowding into the mining areas where already there existed very serious un-
Supply-Immigration

employment. About a year ago I noticed in a paper called Canada published in Great Britain a report of certain speeches made by one Lieutenant-Colonel Robins. Among other things he said:
Ontario's industries, as well as its agriculture grow steadily, and we can find room for good artisans or mechanics as well as for trained farm hands who have been forced by home conditions to become dole drawers.
The purpose evidently is to bring out not merely farmers but mechanics, whether or not there is room for them in this country. Let me urge that notwithstanding what many boards of trade and railways may state, the immigration of large numbers of people to Canada is not the economic solution of our problems. It is frequently said that if we only have more people, we shall have more consumers in this country. Simply by multiplying the population of Canada by two or three, without altering the fundamental factors existing at any given time, does not offer any real solution of our economic difficulties. It is quite true that the railroads may be able to profit by the fares of these people; it is quite true that if the immigrants have capital, certain real estate or land colonization firms may profit, but that is not a real solution so far as the people at large are concerned. If we are to have immigrants, I would urge that we remember that we ought to be willing to assume the social responsibilities which their coming involves.' We in the west have had a heavy load to carry in endeavouring to assimilate the newly arrived immigrants. We have again and again petitioned, for example, that we should have help with regard to the upkeep of unemployed immigrants. We have also urged that we should have help with regard to sick immigrants. I have under my hand a letter from the superintendent of the hospital at Winnipeg, but I will not read it, because some hon. members may think it is only western propaganda. I will read instead an editorial from the Montreal Gazette in the hope that it may appeal to some of the eastern men more than protests which we might bring from the west. In an editorial under date of February 6, 1926, this statement is made with regard to immigrants and hospitals:
If the city is not responsible for the care extended to its immigrant population by the hospitals, then the obligation falls back upon the department of the government which brings these people to this country. . . . The immigrant, until he is able to take care of himself, or can assert some right of citizenship, is morally, at least a ward of the department which brings him into the country; certainly 
that department has no right to disclaim responsibility and remain inactive when the immigrant, in sickness and penury applies to Montreal hospitals for treatment,
That is the way some in Montreal feel about the question. We in the west have felt that way for a long time. I would simply repeat, without elaborating this point at all, that if we are going to bring in immigrants and believe they are an economic asset to this country, the least we can do is to assume the social responsibilities which their coming involves.
I want to emphasize that contention particularly with regard to the foreign-bom immigrant. I am informed by some of the outstanding officials connected with immigration that we cannot hope for any large numbers of farm immigrants from Great Britain. I am further informed that we have already largely exhausted the sources of supply in northern Europe, and that in the future we must more and more look to southeastern Europe for our immigrants. I have no particular quarrel with immigrants from southeastern Europe. Many of them are going to make good Canadian citizens; but it will take a generation before they can be thoroughly absorbed into our Canadian life, and it is cruel to bring them here and then denounce them because their religion, social life and political ideals are different from those of the Canadian people. Let us remember that if we insist on bringing in European immigrants, especially immigrants from southeastern Europe, we must be fully prepared to accommodate ourselves to the different social customs, religious practices and political aspirations which they bring with them.
There is only one further point that I venture to urge upon the government, and that is the more careful selection by the government of those who come to this country. If I understand aright, an agreement has been made with the railways by which, to all intents and purposes, the selection of immigrants is left in the hands of the railway authorities. I hope that when I sit down the minister will clear up this question. If I am correctly informed, within the last year or two an arrangement has been made with the railroads by which they undertake, almost entirely, to make the selection of the immigrants whom they think fit and have guaranteed1 that these immigrants will be safe!}' placed in this country. In my opinion that is an authority that ought not to be given up by the Dominion government. The Dominion government ieself ought to examine every immigrant and ought to be held responsible

Supply-Immigration
for the eare of every immigrant brought to this country. I would say that the Dominion government cannot hope effectively to avoid the responsibility for the placing of the immigrant in Canada. It is all very well to say that the Canadian Pacific Railway has made a careful selection and has guaranteed employment. What does that mean? It very often means that the railway company has secured the fare of the immigrant to this country, and afterwards, if they have found him a position, it has been done by ousting somebody else from that position. Thus the problem of unemployment is no nearer a solution than before; it is indeed increased. I ask the Minister of Immigration to give us in some detail the arrangement that exists between the department and the railways, both with regard to the selection and the placing of the immigrant.


Robert Forke: The hon. member states that he wants an answer to that question. Which one? The last one?


James Shaver Woodsworth: My last question. I began with some general observations, but I closed by asking the minister to give me in some detail the arrangement that exists between the department and the railways both with regard to the selection of the immigrants on the other side of the water and the placing of them in Canada.


Robert Forke: There is an agreement between the department and the two big railway corporations-there is no use in trying to say anything different-but I think we have the agreement in such shape that the department will control the inflow of immigrants and their character. I may say that they are doing a certain amount of recruiting in some of the countries in Europe. We have made an agreement with them that none of their recruiting agents will have any connection with the shipping agents, that no commissions will be paid to any of those men who are .doing the recruiting, that they will be paid a stated adequate salary, that they will have no inducement whatever to get immigrants so far as remuneration is concerned; and they undertake to bring no immigrants in Canada who are not of the agricultural class. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre found fault because some of those immigrants did not stay on t'he farm after they were placed there. I think it would be pretty difficult to make any man stay on the farm if he did not want to. The most we could ask from any association would be that they place those people on the farms to begin with.
I am going to make a statement with reference to the lack of employment, because I think I know about as much in regard to this question as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I have never seen a spring or summer in Manitoba, my own province, where we had a surplus of agricultural labour- always a shortage. There will be a shortage next month. The farmer members of this House realize that fact. Instead of a surplus of agricultural labour there will be a shortage. Then in regard to other classes of labour, an immense amount of work is going to be earned on in Canada during next summer. Some of us are optimistic-we are not all pessimists- and I think within six weeks from the present we will see the whole question of unemployment in Canada solved.


An hon. MEMBER:: For how long?


Robert Forke: I am no prophet and I cannot tell that. I know that when we had in Canada one-half the population that we have to-day there was a much larger percentage of unemployment than there is at present, and I claim that if we had twice the population the percentage of unemployment would be still less. Therefore an increase in population does not necesarily mean unemployment. I sympathize with the views of the Labour people, but they are afraid that if a labourer comes into this country he will put out of employment some other labourer in Canada. It does not work out that way. I have had some experience in regard to employment outside of farming. If we get the right class of people in Canada, people who are physically fit and are not afraid to work, the whole question of unemployment will solve itself. There will be some trouble next winter. Did hon. members ever see a winter which was entirely free from it? It is a concomitant of winter conditions in this country. We will have a certain amount of flotsam and jetsam; there is pathos and tragedy, and also humour, in this matter of immigration. I know that some things happen that are deplorable, but they will happen in connection with any immigration policy you like to adopt. There will be always a certain number of misfits, but is that any reason why we should not want people in our great wide open country, which indeed is waiting for people to take advantage of the opportunities offered to them when they come here? I would not have accepted the position of Minister of Immigration had I not great faith in the country and did I not believe that we could prosper with a much larger population
Supply-Immigration

than we have. We need a greater population. I am attempting, with the little ability that I have, to carry on a policy of colonization that will, as far as is humanly possible, fit the immigrants into the places available for them. I cannot satisfy the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He takes a different point of view, looks at it from a different angle. But I believe I have as sane a view of the whole situation as my hon. friend has, looking at it from his angle. I do not say this with any bitterness, because I believe the hon. member is sincere. He lives in Winnipeg, and what he sees of the drift of some of the immigration gives him a view of the matter which perhaps he would not have did he live where I live and did he see conditions as I have seen them.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I do not intend at this time to attack or criticize the minister or the administration of his department. As a matter of fact I have found that there were some difficulties involved owing to the regulations. However, in the few cases that have come under my notice, if the department were approached and the matter argued out one would be apt to see the situation from the point of view of the department, and at the same time take what comfort one could out of a sane administration of the regulations. But it is against the regulations that I have a serious grievance. I know that some people who would make the very best immigrants are kept out of this country. I want the regulations changed. I want, as the minister says, a business administration of the immigration policy of Canada. One case I have in mind was that of three brothers and one sister who had established themselves :in Canada and were prosperous. They wanted to bring out their brother. He was earning his own living and was quite competent to do so in Canada, but owing to the fact that he had a maimed arm, and someone did not wish him to enter the Dominion, obstacle after obstacle was placed in his way. He is here now, is a respectable citizen, and will never become a charge upon the countiy. But the difficulty arises that when the immigrant starts on his journey to this country he must be routed through to destination. I wonder how many of us in early life would like to have been "routed through" in some country where we wanted to establish ourselves. I do not want to labour the point, but will read what is a sad commentary upon our immigration regulations. It is a letter written by a maidservant to a former employer, the head of a very large manufacturing concern well-

known throughout Canada. Under date of February 24, 1927, the girl writes:
Dear Mr. Blank,
Do you remember Lily, who stayed with you last year for a few weeks while Eunice was having her holidays? May I ask you a favour?
I intend to bring my brother out here this spring. It would be easy for him to get the immigration permission, as he is of Swiss nationality, skilled, in good health, and would bring about $1,000 with him-but the Canadian condition is, that he has a position in view or at least that he can prove he has relations which would help him to find work.
Knowing nobody else who could do anything for him in that respect I bring the matter up to you and would be very grateful for your kind advice.
My brother is twenty-one years of age-a competent electrician, radio man, mechanic and car driver. We had a little factory (with about fifty labourers) of that kind in Basle, Switzerland, and my father was very keen that my brother should learn everything, practically and theoretically, concerning "appareillages electriques".
The great service you could do for him would be to let me have just a few lines, saying that you are interested in my brother and you would assist him to find work when he comes to Canada.
I realize that I ask much-perhaps too much -but I stress the fact that it would be merely "pro forma" and that you would not be under any obligation whatever. You would help a young man who certainly deserves it, who is earnest, industrious and does not come with erroneous illusions, but who has the firm will to set to work and to do any work if necessary. As a further asset he has a fairly good knowledge of the English language.
Thanking you in advance in my brother's and my own name for your great kindness I remain,
Respectfully yours,
Lillie Ritter.
Imagine a man with those qualifications not being allowed to enter Canada! Or if he does come in with $1,000 in his pocket, the idea is abroad that he must be projected towards some definite spot to do some definite thing, although we are crying for immigrants. When the regulations are such that a personal entreaty of this kind is thought necessary to a man who is not in any sense interested other than from having been for a short time the employer of the girl who writes the letter, I say it is time that they were changed. Therefore I ask the minister to assure the committee that a man well educated, with money in his pocket, anxious to grow up with this country and become a good citizen, shall not be denied entrance because he cannot say: I am definitely going to be employed by A. B., and I am going to do thus and so. I know a man who, having said that he had a job as a shoemaker in a
. APRIL 6, 1927
Supply-Immigration
certain town, was told that there were already a sufficient number of shoemakers in that locality. I am sure the view of our people is that, anyone of good morals, well-to-do and well trained should be allowed to come in as an immigrant. In a word, we want a sane administration of sane regulations.
Mr. FORIvE: Mr. Chairman, I sympathize with the hon. member, but the girl was mistaken. Of course the boy came all right. Having 81,000 in his pocket and being a Swiss, there was nothing in the regulations to keep him out.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: This letter was written on February 24 last. All these difficulties in the way of entrance are well known, that you must be routed to a definite spot-


Henry Herbert Stevens: With a through ticket
from the place of origin.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: -and you must be definitely placed. Is it not wrong?


Robert Forke: I think there has been a mistake on the part of the writer. Some of these things we do not like to speak of too plainly in parliament.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not?


Robert Forke: When you discriminate
between countries you create an international situation that sometimes is not very pleasant. Any man from Switzerland in good health and with a reasonable amount of money in his pocket has no difficulty as an immigrant to Canada. Just now we have opposite opinions from each end of the House. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is almost afraid to see anybody coming in because he may put someone out of employment-


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Is the minister satisfied
that mine is the correct view?


Robert Forke: I admit that right away.
With regard to people of various trades, some of them from southern and eastern Europe we do not look upon very favourably sometimes, although I have no prejudice against them myself. A good many of them come out as farmers, but they are handy as blacksmiths, carpenters, cobblers and so on, and some of them drift away from farming and engage in those trades. In western Canada to-day we are looking for people who will take up carpentry work, mend implements, and repair boots and shoes. Immigrants of the type I have mentioned can do that sort of work, and we are glad to get them. Of course, the regulations must be administered
with decency and good sense, but you have to have regulations all the same, especially when it is realized that in Europe to-day there are hundreds of thousands of people on the dole, and I am afraid some municipalities are not above capitalizing the dole and paying the passage of those drawing such relief in order to get them out of the country. I do not like to speak disrespectfully of any class of people, but those who have been receiving the dole are not in my opinion the most desirable type to come to Canada. I have great sympathy with the old countries in their trials in connection with unemployment and surplus population and I think there should be a little latitude in Canada where we have so much room, even if we experience a little trouble in placing immigrants. I am willing to interpret the regulations as broadly as possible, and if the committee thinks they ought to be amended I am prepared to have this done. If I had no other course to follow than to adhere strictly to the regulations I should know exactly what to do, but unfortunately after the House has passed acts and regulations it provides for the minister to issue permits. And that is my trouble.


John Evans: How many concerns, industrial, religious or of any other description, have agreements with the government; what bounties do they receive; and in what fields in Europe do they operate?


Robert Forke: The only agreement I know of exists between the two railway companies and the government, but there is no such thing as a bounty. The province of Alberta has a commisisoner of its own in London, and he is doing the best he can to secure immigrants. There are also other organizations at work but, I repeat, no bounties are paid.


John Evans: What organizations are they?


Robert Forke: There is for example the Salvation Army. I cannot mention offhand the other organizations, but the churches are engaged in very good work. They are bringing in people of the right type and are helping to look after them. There is also the empire settlement scheme.


John Wesley Edwards: How many immigration agents, reverend gentlemen, are engaged in Canada and the United States?


Robert Forke: There are twenty-nine, some of whom receive a small salary and others only expenses.


John Wesley Edwards: Do they
represent various religious denominations?
Supply-Immigration
COMMONS [DOT]


Robert Forke: They are the repatriation
fathers who are working largely on behalf of Quebec.


John Wesley Edwards: Then ihese reverend gentlemen, receiving pay from the government and recognized by the department, are all of one denomination. Am I right?


Robert Forke: You are right in a way.


John Wesley Edwards: In what way em I not right?


Robert Forke: They are not engaged in immigration work in the wider sense of the term. They are interested in getting French Canadians to return to Quebec.


John Wesley Edwards: A very good work, a worthy object. But am I not right in stating that the only persons in the employ of the government, reverend gentlemen engaged in immigration work in Canada and the United States, are of one religious denomination?


Robert Forke: Yes.
IVIr. EDWARDS (Frontenac): And in connection with immigration work carried on by religious denominations there are in Great Britain two reverend gentlemen, the Reverend Father MacDonnell and the Reverend Mr. Windefeld. Is that right?


Robert Forke: We all know of course that Father MacDonnell has been engaged in that work, and there is one gentlemen in Europe in connection with the Lutheran immigration activities.


John Wesley Edwards: There is one in Europe, a Lutheran, and Father Mao-Donnell, who receives a salary of $1,800 and expenses and who operates in Great Britain and Ireland. So that the only immigration agent in the employment of the government there belongs also to the one religious denomination which is represented in Canada and the United States. I have no criticism to offer; the facts are there for any man to draw from them whatever conclusion he sees fit. But I may make an observation with reference to the Salvation Army. The minister takes the ground that the boys who come into Canada under an agreement with the Army to pay back to them a loan are under a handicap. That is the word he used; it is the expression which others have also employed. They consider that such boys are under a handicap by reason of having entered into an agreement to pay back to the Salvation Army a loan they have received. I understood the minister to say that the British government

advances two or three hundred pounds to immigrants coming into Canada by assisted passage and going upon farms in this country. Is that right?


Robert Forke: 
John Wesley Edwards: It is a loan.


Robert Forke: Yes, to be paid back in twenty-five years.


John Wesley Edwards: Then, following out the logic of the minister, these men, inasmuch as they have agreed to pay back a loan to the British government, are under a handicap and should not be permitted to enter the country. Just as the boy brought out by the Salvation Army is under a handicap because he has to pay back a loan, to that organization, so the farmer coming to Canada under an agreement to pay back a loan to the British government is equally handicapped.


Robert Forke: The cases are not parallel.


John Wesley Edwards: The one is a boy and the other a grown man.


Robert Forke: 
John Wesley Edwards: When he pays it back he will never see it again; I do not know how he is going to eat his cake and have it. He is under agreement to pay back a certain amount of money he has received; therefore he is under a handicap, but the minister says it is not the policy of the government to permit people to come to this country under such a handicap. They will not let boys come in here under any such agreement with the Salvation Army, but if men come out under a similar agreement to pay back a loan on a farm they will be accepted. I think it is fairly sound logic that what applies in the one case should apply in the other.


Robert Forke: I want to vread another clause from the same letter to which I referred before:
The department has no objection to any boy whose passage was provided by the British and Canadian governments out of the $80 grant, making a voluntary contribution to your work

But, Mr. Chairman, this thing has come up on the floor of the House in a way I did not want it to come up.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?

Supply-Immigration


Robert Forke: Because we have perhaps twenty letters at the office from some of these boys brought out by the Salvation Army in which they distinctly state that they had no idea they were paying anything but their passage money, and stating that this money was secured from them under false pretences.


An hon. MEMBER:: Nonsense.


Robert Forke: These -are the facts of the case. I did not want to mention this, but I have, been compelled to bring it out.


John Wesley Edwards: That is what we are here for, to compel you to state the real facts of the case and let the people judge. It is a funny thing that the department never received letters of that kind until they took -action to show that they did not approve of it.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is not fair.


John Wesley Edwards: It is absolutely fair and the only way you -can controvert it is to show the contrary. Boys were brought out here by the Salvation Army as stated by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) a short time -ago; even after assisted passage was given they were brought out and were allowed to have their private agreement with the Salvation Army. That was the case when the department was administered by the present Minister of the Interior; he thought it was all right.


Robert Forke: You are mistaken.


John Wesley Edwards: If that was not so the Minister of the Interior is mistaken, because he said that -this agreement was not cancelled or abrogated until that action was taken by the present minister. Surely that is correct. I have due deference for the opinion of the minister; he is as entitled to that opinion as I am entitled to mine. I believe this is a mistake; I do not think that in the wider sense the boy is under a handioap even though he has an agreement under which he is to pay back to the parties responsible for taking [DOT] charge of him, for giving him a certain amount of agricultural education -and for outfitting him, a certain amount of money. When that boy enters into an agreement to pay back a small sum as he makes the money in Canada, I do not believe he is under any handicap, especially when the money is used to permit the Salvation Army to carry on the same kind of work and bring another boy to this country. That is my view; the minister may take the opposite view, and he is certainly entitled to his opinion. I believe the Salvation Army did splendid work for Canada in bringing out boys who will make the very best class of citizen, and I repeat what I have already said, that -a great deal of latitude might well be given to any scheme intended to bring out that class of immigrants. If restrictions are to be placed in the work of immigration and if organizations are to be discouraged from doing this work, those restrictions might well be directed to those nationalities which we find it difficult to assimilate and Canadianize.


Mr. ROBINSON:: I would like to ask the
minister if, under the immigration laws of Canada, it is a criminal offence for an American aviator to make a forced landing in Canada at a place other than one specified by the department?


Robert Forke: You are away beyond me.
-Mr. ROBINSON:	I did not think that
was the case, but I wish to read a letter to the House having to do with a case at Detroit, in order to show the House how the American immigration officials treat British aviation officers. This letter is from Doctor Trenho-lm, a gentleman whom I have known in Windsor for the past four years. His son was a lieutenant in the air force overseas, and the circumstances of the case will be explained by the letter which is under date of March 27, 1927:
I am writing to you in relation to Lieutenant Robert Trenholm a member of the Canadian air force, also with a certificate "air engineer" from the air board, and holding a license to operate an aeroplane for commercial purposes. This officer, having discovered his rear controls dragging, due to defective tail skid, made a forced landing on Packard aviation field, January 25, the same day the United States planes flew to Ottawa, and before landing asked permission from an officer to get off the landing field and go to the repair shop for his skid. This request was not refused him, and as his engine was still in motion he added a shot of naphtha and hit into a Ford car belonging to said officer, it having been secretly brought up under the radiator and obscured from the vision of the aviator. Thinking his engine was going to pieces he jumped from his machine and was immediately arrested. Charges under first, section 8, United States immigration law, was preferred "for smuggling aliens", and verdict of "not guilty" rendered March 12, 1926; second, section 10 of the United States immigration act, "for landing at a place, Packard aviation field, a place other than one designated by the Immigration Department of the United States", a verdict of "guilty" and one year and $1,000 fine given as sentence.
Then Doctor Trenholm asks that the department take up the matter and see that he has his plane and his clothes returned to
Supply-Immigration

him. I also have a column which appeared in the Border Cities Star having to do with this matter, complaining bitterly of the treatment given this officer, which saj^s:
After hearing the evidence the jury, headed by Miss Ripple, foreman, retired at 11.30 a.m., returning four hours later. They had heard character evidence from several prominent border cities residents, who spoke highly of Bob and Judge Simons, in his charge, said that this evidence was acceptable. On the jury's return, after four hours' deliberation, Judge Simons said that they should have been able to reach their decision in fifteen minutes. . . .
Commenting on the verdict this morning, Mr. Frick. ...
Who is the high officer in the Immigration department at Detroit.
-said he believed it to be inconsistent and expressed confidence that the sentence would be set aside if a new trial, which he is requesting, is granted.
Since that time the court has refused leave to appeal, and I understand that in that case the government could take the matter up directly with Washington.


Robert Forke: I think that it a matter for our minister plenipotentiary at Washington.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: I agree with that, but the point I wanted to bring out was that this was done under the immigration laws of the United States.


George Gibson Coote: I would like to say a word
or two with regard to the question of appointing the railways of Canada as our immigration solicitors. I have no doubt they are very good at soliciting immigrants-


Robert Forke: Before my hon. friend goes
any further I will give him a fair start and remind him that these immigrants must pass the immigration officer at the port of embarkation.


George Gibson Coote: I am glad to be informed of that, but I did want to point out that the heads of these railways never miss an opportunity of stressing the fact that what Canada needs is more immigrants. I was rather struck last year to see in the Canadian Railway Employees' Monthly the statement that the number of railway employees in Canada in the year 1913 was 178,652, and in 1923 it was 178,052. In other words, there were 600 fewer railway employees in Canada in 1923 than in 1913, and they were able to handle 34,000,000,000 tons of railway freight one mile in 1923 as compared with only 23,000,000,000 tons in 1913. Now this is the question I want to put, through the minister, to the railways that stress the need of immigrants:	If the
railways themselves employed 600 less men
[Mr. Robinson.1
in 1923 than they did in 1913, how do they expect we are going to handle all the immigrants they want to attract to Canada in a period of ten years?


Charles Avery Dunning: Will my hon. friend permit me to answer his question? The hon. gentleman gives his own answer in the increased tonnage. Somebody produced it.
Mr.COOTE: We are bringing in immigrants annually at the rate of 135,000, according to the figures for last year. I think these figures are fairly indicative of other industries. For instance the same article goes on to say that in 1910 the manufacturing establishments of Canada were employing 515,203 men, and in 1921 they were employing 517,141, an increase of about 2,000 in ten years. Apparently the railways think that agriculture can furnish a living to immigrants without number. May I also quote something on that point? This is taken from a bulletin published by the Canadian Pacific Railway, entitled, Agricultural and Industrial Progress in Canada. It says:
Agriculture the world over has developed through the crude, ruthless directive agency of the law of supply and demand. The farmers have, in obedience to this law, for several decades, suffered through demoralized prices due to an over-supply of agricultural products.
Now there we have the admission, from what I think may be the greatest authority on immigration, that over-supply of agricultural products has demoralized the farmers' prices. And yet these railways persist in trying to get the people and the government of Canada to bring in more farmers. They persist in trying to persuade our government to spend money in placing more' farmers on vacant land to increase the supply of products.
May I quote again from another authority, Mr. Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics in Yale university. He is speaking of the condition of the farmers in the United States and he says:
Just at present the farmers will help themselves better by asking the bankers to discourage the colonization zeal of the railroads, and to check the activities of local immigration bureaus and commerce boards in rural communities. They should seek means to regulate acreage to the necessities of supply and demand. To this end they should get all needed help to organize the farmers on a national scale.
At Washington it would be in order to review the government policy of encouraging increased production on the farm.
I am only reading a few sentences because I do not want to delay the committee. Professor Fisher winds up this article by saying:
More than anything else, price stabilization, disarmament and a lowered tariff will help the farmer.

Supply-Immigration
Now I want to quote a few lines from the greatest authority, outside the Canadian Pacific Railway, which exists in Canada. That is the Farm and Ranch Review, of Calgary. They say:
The opening up of vast areas of virgin wheat lands in Canada and the United States during the past seventy-five years demoralized world prices temporarily.
Then they go on to say:
This condition is, however, being overtaken at a rapid rate and cannot, of course, ever arise again.
I should like to know why it cannot arise again if we, by our immigration efforts, open up vast areas of land in northwestern Canada? I know that we cannot prevent some of these areas from being opened up, but I say that the sensible thing for the government to do would be to let the situation alone. Let it take care of itself in a natural manner and do not try to force immigration into one particular channel. I think it is unfair to agriculture that at this time, when agricultural prices, largely owing to the efforts of the farmers themselves, are beginning to get into a little better position, the government should carry on a propaganda to bring vacant lands under cultivation, thus increasing the supply of agricultural products and, as the Canadian Pacific Railway bulletin clearly points out, making it more difficult for the farmer to market his products at a price that will give him a reasonable return. I do not want to delay the committee; I have tried to make my remarks brief, but I must say that I think the farmers of Canada are entitled to the same treatment that all other classes in this country are entitled to.


Arthur Edward Ross: I think from what we have heard to-night that the minister is quite a bit to blame for the situation which has been the subject of discussion. Personally I have no fault to find with the department. The officials have always treated me very courteously, and in presenting a case to them accompanied by the necessary information- which I have done only on four or five occasions-I have received satisfaction. But in regard to the treatment of the Salvation Army I think the committee will come to the conclusion that the minister has got himself into trouble. This agreement between the Salvation Army and their clients has been in operation for years, and no person has found any fault with it-in fact the immediate predecessor of the minister informed us that he was so well satisfied with the work of the Salvation Army that he increased the grant to them. The present minister now comes in and finds fault with the Army. In this connection I do not make use of the word "antagonism." The minister, however, used the word four or five times. Perhaps it would be right to say that he was in a collision and that a misunderstanding took place. The Salvation Army officials came out with a strong protest after the minister had made a statement. Now the minister finds fault with them for ventilating the matter in the press.


Robert Forke: No; they made the first
statement. The Salvation Army published the first letter, which appeared in the Montreal Star.


Arthur Edward Ross: We can take up
the question later; we can discuss it on the minister's main estimates

I am only after information to-night. But I should like to get the minister into a friendly state of mind again with respect to the Salvation Army and have their work go on. I am going to ask him in a few minutes for information which I think will prove that the Salvation Army has been one of the very strongest and best factors we have in carrying on our regular immigration and colonization work . How could the Salvation Army do otherwise in relation to this dispute than they did? They could not have the matter ventilated here, except through some member. The press was the only medium through which they could give expression to their views. Personally I have no antagonism towards the minister, but I think, he alone has been the cause of the present situation. When he leaves the department there will be another minister of immigration, and I will guarantee that one of the first things the new minister will do will be to try to restore friendly relations with the Salvation Army. I should like to see this work go on, and I am going to ask the minister now for certain information-if he has not the information at present he will have it when we come to deal with the main estimates. I should like a comparison of the number of boys or juvenile immigrants brought to this country by the Salvation Army with those brought in by any other institution or association and with all institutions or associations which have operated at any time in connection with this work. I think those facts will indicate to the House the importance of the work done by the Salvation Army. They have done a work too with which I do not think anyone can find any fault. The class of immigrants which they have sent out from the old country has been as far as possible a selective one, and
Supply-Immigration

as they are in a position to know thoroughly the characteristics of these boys, they bring out to this country the proper ones.


Robert Forke: I have that information
with me but I would prefer to give it in fuller detail later. I would like to make this statement, because there have been so many references to the unfriendly relations between myself and the Salvation Army: If Commissioner Lamb comes back to Canada, I hope the hon. member will interview him and find out whether there are any bitter relations between Commissioner Lamb and myself. I have no unfriendly relations with the Salvation Army. I admit of course there is a difference of opinion. Perhaps I have been wrong and perhaps I have been right. I shall be glad to give in full detail the information which the hon. gentleman asks for, but I should like to say that if I have done anything since I have become Minister of Immigration, it has been to speed up immigration work, and I am only making a beginning.


Thomas Cantley: I understand the minister is still of opinion that the Salvation Army to some extent misled these boys. That may be so or it may not. I presume the Salvation Army are now under suspension and being disciplined. How long is the minister going to continue the suspension? Is he prepared to enter into a new agreement with the Salvation Army a year from now or at any other time? I have not yet joined the Salvation Army. This parliament or agencies under its control have attempted to change my religious persuasions twice within a few years, once very recently. My anxiety in regard to this matter to-might is not due to any intention on my part to make a change and to become a member of the organization which we have been discussing. But I would like to know if the minister is likely to reconsider his decision.


Robert Forke: I cannot say what I will do in the future, but I would like the impression removed that the Salvation Army are under any discrimination. They are not in as favourable a position as they were in regard to a straight money grant, but they are in exactly the same position as any other organization bringing boys out to this country. We will leave the future alone in the meantime. I would like to point out also that there is a difference between the Salvation Army and the immigration society of the Salvation Army. The one is a branch of the other, but they are being carried on as entirely different organizations. The immigration society of the Salvation Army enter into the shipping 
business and they receive commissions on passages which they are able to book. That is something altogether outside of Salvation Army work.


Arthur Edward Ross: As somebody always gets those commissions, why not the Salvation Army?


Robert Forke: The Salvation Army-and I say this without any discourtesy

is doing a great deal of what is known as uplift work; but when we come to immigration work we want to deal with them as an immigration society, forgetting for the time being that they are engaged in a very laudable and praiseworthy attempt from their point of view. I hope the committee will let this item pass to-night, because there will be further opportunity to discuss the matter. I do not want to hide anything; I will bring it all out into the open and give all the information I possibly can.


Thomas Cantley: I want this made perfectly clear. I understand the Salvation Army's relations with the department are to-day different from what they were a year ago. Is that correct?


Robert Forke: Not as regards friendship, so far as I am concerned.


Thomas Cantley: I am not discussing
the minister's friendships; I am discussing dollars and cents.


Robert Forke: They are not getting the $25,000 grant which they received before.


Thomas Cantley: Is it the intention of the minister to change that and to return to the old arrangement?


Robert Forke: I shall have to take into consideration the matter of giving to all associations doing the same kind of work the same pro rata grants, and I am doubtful about doing that. If we figure up what we are spending on assisted passages and on immigration work generally, we shall find we are running up a pretty heavy bill at present for the Dominion of Canada, and I would hesitate to make a promise in regard to that.


Mr CANTLEY:: The hon. member for
Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) made some remarks in regard to the deputy minister. I would like to dissociate myself from those remarks because I consider the deputy is one of the finest deputies we 'have in the whole service. I would congratulate the Minister of Immigration on having such a deputy if I cannot congratulate him on anything else. In fact I would not be averse to changing the position of the two, the Deputy and the Minister.

Supply-Immigration


Arthur Edward Ross: What are the
functions of the director of publicity?


Robert Forke: The director of publicity
looks after the' publicity work, advertising. Most bon. members kn-ow Mr. Stead, who carries on the publicity work of the department.


Arthur Edward Ross: Has he any supervision of the publicity work which is carried on by other agents and which has been referred to as misrepresentation of conditions in Canada?


Robert Forke: Those agents are really the agents of some of the steamship companies. They may paint matters a little too rosily, but I do not know what we can do to supervise such advertising.


Arthur Edward Ross: The director of
publicity might oversee the advertisements and the publicity matter before it is put out as representative of Canada.


Robert Forke: We have asked for cooperation between some of the steamship companies and the department. Some cooperate and some do not. I went over to Great Britain some twenty years ago on immigration work, and at that time I found that the Department of Immigration was employing steamship agents as Canadian agents in the old country. I found a great deal of fault with that. I found issued by steamship agents in regard to Canada pamphlets and other literature which was altogether too rosy and something which I did not like at all. Advertisements of that character are still being issued to some extent by steamship agents, not by us.


Arthur Edward Ross: The department
must assume the responsibility. There could not be any objection to the department making this publicity agent an overseer of the publicity campaign carried on in the old country.


Robert Forke: Some shipping companies
under British registry who want to get immigrants to come to Canada in order to benefit by their fares may make statements that are not altogether true, statements that are a little too rosy and that perhaps convey a false impression, but I do not know what the department can do in regard to suppressing them. If those companies were willing to accept advertisements prepared by the department, the matter would be different.


Arthur Edward Ross: What are the
functions and duties of the immigration investigating officer?



REVISED

Robert Forke: If I have to answer all questions in regard to every officer of the department I am up against a difficult task. I think we have just one thousand employees in the Immigration department, in Canada, overseas, and in the United States. My deputy informs me that this investigation officer is largely engaged in taking care of the boundary line between United States and Canada, investigating complaints regarding people passing backwards and forwards.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I intend to go into the
immigration policy of the government at a later date, on item 56, which I believe will be the proper item. I may say now that I am very glad indeed that the government have centralized their immigration agencies between the department and the two railways. Are the agencies overlapping in any way on the continent, in England or in the United States, or are they using in any of those places the same agencies or the same officers? It does not matter which of these agencies spends money in bringing out immigrants, because if we do not pay it in taxation we pay it in freight rates.


Robert Forke: No, there is no overlapping in that regard, because we have practically no other immigration agents on the continent of Europe than the government immigration agent at the point of embarkation. Of course there is a different arrangement in Great Britain.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The minister referred to
the immigration agent that the Alberta government has in London. That province has suffered in years past through having immigrants dumped on them, and I believe the official in London is placed there by the Alberta government more to direct colonization than to obtain immigrants.


Robert Gardiner: During the early part
of the debate to-night some reference was made to a system of permits. Can the minister tell us how many were issued last year, how many the year before, and under whose authority they were issued?


Robert Forke: Some time ago I laid on the table of the House a statement showing the number of permits that were issued.


Robert Gardiner: That will be all right.
A great deal has been said to-mighit with regard to the Salvation Army and the different associations interested in this subject. I would like some information on one point with regard to the Salvation Army, because I could not hear what the minister said. I should like to know the amount of money
edition
Supply-Immigra tion

they secured from these boys. I understand that it costs the Salvation Army from $60 to $80 to outfit them, apart from the transportation. Has the minister made any inquiry from any of the boys as to whether the money was for transportation or for outfitting?


Mr FORKE:: I did not intend to read
any oi these letters to-night, but I will have to read another letter now. This letter says:
I signed a document agreeing to pay to the Salvation Army the sum of $100 with the understanding that it was for my transportation to Canada and not as a contribution to Army funds. This document is in England. I think other boys are repaying the money with the same idea. Those who enter farther into Canada have more than $100 to pay, therefore, it must appear to be the cost of passage. I was on a training farm for three months, but this was termed to be free.
I have several of those letters.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the date?


Robert Forke: I have not got it.


Robert Gardiner: What would be the
cost of transportation?


Robert Forke: We make a grant of $80 for the passage money, but I do not think it costs that much.


Robert Gardiner: This country pays so much passage money for the boys and the Imperial government pays so much. What is the actual cost of the passage? We would like to know whether the Salvation Army is asking for more than the cost of transportation.


Robert Forke: It is $55. I think all societies engaged in immigration work are getting the same grant. They receive more than it really costs them, and they have a surplus in case of immigrants going to places east of Winnipeg. If an immigrant goes to Winnipeg it will take about the amount of the grant.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They have to eat on the way.


Robert Forke: In the case of boys going west of Winnipeg, the combined grant of the Imperial and Dominion governments is $100.


Robert Gardiner: If you are making a grant of a certain stum you surely know what it costs to bring them over. If you do not know what it costs you are not in a position to say whether the Salvation Army is charging for the passage or for the outfit of the boys.


Robert Forke: 
Robert Gardiner: What does it cost to bring a boy to Toronto or Winnipeg?


Robert Forke: They get a reduced rate.


Robert Gardiner: If the minister has not the figure before him he can furnish it later. If we know the actual cost of bringing the boys over then we will be*in a position to separate the transportation cost from the outfit cost and we will know exactly what the Salvation Army has been doing with these boys.


Robert Forke: All right.


Robert Gardiner: I would suggest that it is about time for the committee to rise.


Hugh Guthrie: If the minister would let one item stand on which we could discuss the immigration policy generally, I think we might pass all the other items.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: But I must ask that one item stand as my hon. friend from West Calgary could not be here to-night.


Robert Forke: Suppose we leave the last item on the list.


Hugh Guthrie: On condition that the whole department is open for discussion.


Robert Gardiner: I suggest that we leave item 56, covering contingencies, on which anything can be taken into account.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: Item 56 stands.


Robert Forke: I move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Stewart (Edmonton), the House adjourned at 11.15 p.m.
Thursday, April 7, 1927