1927-03-08

PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 120, respecting Joliette and Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Denis (Joliette).

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the names of Messrs. Bancroft and Rutherford be substituted for those of Messrs. Glen and Roberge on the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. J. J. DENIS (Joliette) moved:: That the quorum of the select standing committee on privileges and elections be reduced from fifteen to eight members.
984	COMMONS
Privileges and Elections Committee
He said:	I think I should give some explanation regarding this motion. Each year a striking committee is appointed to nominate the select standing committees and that committee has the power to determine what shall be the quorum of a standing committee of the House. In some cases that committee provides what shall be a quorum and in other cases it does not. The quorum was not fixed this year for the standing committee on privileges and elections; therefore a quorum should be a majority of the committee, and as there are twenty-nine members the quorum stands at fifteen. On the 2nd, 3rd and 8th March this committee on privileges and elections was called. Unfortunately we have been unable on each of these occasions to secure a quorum; therefore there is no report of the committee before the House, as we could not make a report until a quorum had been obtained. The members of that committee who were present at the different meetings suggested to me that I, as chairman, should move to have the quorum of the committee reduced, because the members of the committee were afraid that if the quorum remained at fifteen it would be very difficult if not impossible for the committee to sit this session. That is the reason I am making this motion. By way of comparison, I might draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines is composed of 129 members and the quorum has been fixed at 25, less than 20 per cent. The private bills committee is composed of 65 members, and the quorum has been placed at 10. lhe committee on standing orders is composed of 33 members and the quorum is fixed at 7.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I do not know whether
I am right or not, but I think this is one of the motions of which notice should be given. I have not had time to consult anyone in regard to the matter or to consider the effect of the motion. The standing committee on privileges and elections is one of the important committees of the House. Matters which come before it as a rule are of very great consequence, and I think that a quorum of eight to transact the business of that committee is very small. I know in past years we have had great difficulty in getting a quorum in the committee on privileges and elections, we had the same difficulty the year before last, and four years ago we had great difficulty. If my hon. friend will allow this motion to stand for say two days, perhaps we can come to some arrangement in the meantime. I would not like to pronounce formally upon it without further consideration.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Under rule 40 notice of
this motion must be given, therefore the motion will have to stand.
Motion stands.



NATURAL RESOURCES-WESTERN PROVINCES

Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Adding-ton):: I desire to present petitions signed by
some three thousand electors of the provinces of Nova Scotia, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, requesting that their natural resources should be transferred to the prairie provinces at the earliest possible moment, without restriction or limitation as to the complete control of their educational or other local affairs.



MARINE AND FISHERIES COMMITTEE

Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-boro) moved:: That the annual report of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for the fiscal year 1925-26 and the annual report of the Fisheries branch of the said department be referred to the select standing committee on marine and fisheries.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minisler of Railways) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved,
1.	That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide or arrange through a company to bo formed under the Companies Act, for a mail, passenger and freight service, in accordance with the West Indies trade agreement, 1926.
2.	That the securities to be issued by the company may be guaranteed by the Dominion as to principal and interest to an amount not exceeding, without the authority of parliament, an aggregate of $10,000,000.
3.	That the proceeds of sale or disposition of the securities shall be deposited to the credit of the Minister of Finance; and the entire stock ownership of the company shall be issued to His Majesty in the right of the Dominion in consideration of the guarantee.
4.	That any of the boats now operated by the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited, may be transferred to the company on a reasonable valuation and on terms to be approved by the governor in council, and if transferred to be operated by individual companies, such companies shall issue to the company all their capital stock to indemnify the crown against liability in respect of the guarantee.

Imperial Government Supplies for China
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, That a special committee of this House consisting of the Honourable Charles Stewart, Mr. F. W. Hay, Mr. E. A. McPherson, Mr. L. S. R. Morin. Honourable H. H. Stevens, Honourable R. B. Bennett and Mr. W. A. Boys be appointed to meet with a similar special committee of the Senate, if such a committee be appointed, to inquire into the claims of the Allied Indian Tfibes of British Columbia as set forth in their petition submitted to parliament in June, 1926; and that such committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to report from time to time by bill or otherwise; and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours therewith.
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, under the guise of a simple resolution this is a matter of some importance to British Columbia-


Hugh Guthrie: Is not this just a notice?


Hewitt Bostock: Is the hon. gentleman
raising a point of order?


Alan Webster Neill: No.


Hewitt Bostock: This motion is not debatable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS rROPOSED LOAN OF $4,000,000
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, That it is expedient to authorize a loan to the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners in an amo,unt not exceeding $4,000,000 to carry on the construction of terminal facilities, upon the approval by the governor in council of detailed plans, specifications and estimates for such works and the deposit of debentures of the corporation to cover said loan.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.
REPATRIATION OF ORIENTALS On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: Mr. Speaker, may I direct the attention of the Prime Minister to a despatch in the Vancouver Daily Province of the 25th ulto? The first paragraph reads:
Victoria, Feb. 25: A demand that the federal government should give serious consideration to the question of repatriating the orientials from British Columbia was made by the attorney general, Hon. A. AI. Alanson, in the legislature on Thursday afternoon.
Let me also quote another short extract from the same despatch:
"Although it would cost the Dominion of Canada many millions of dollars, the proposal should he seriously considered before it is too late,'" said the attorney general.
I would ask the Prime' Minister if he is going to consider this demand of the attorney general of British Columbia.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I think I should allow the attorney general of British Columbia to deal with the matter himself.



MONTREAL. OTTAWA AND GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E.'J. GARLAND (Bow River): Mr. Speaker, on February 28th I requested the government to table a report made by the engineers of the Department of Public Works in the matter of the Georgian bay canal, submitted, I think, in 1925. I do not know whether the government has taken any steps to table the report, but for fear it may be put to further inconvenience, I may say that I have been able to find the material I required in another report made some time ago. However, I would now ask the government to table a report made on the same subject by a special commission appointed by the Borden government in 1912, under the chairmanship of Mr. Sanford Evans. May I ask that it be tabled at the earliest convenient moment?


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre) :: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Right Hon. Prime Minister if he would be good
Immigration Publicity

enough to give me certain information. I have a wire, and this is only one of several, from a business concern on the coast to the effect that they are advised from London that the Canadian authorities are purchasing supplies for the Imperial government for China, and they ask to be advised what department or minister of the government is handling this matter. This refers, I presume, to other supplies than those handled, I think, by the Department of Agriculture.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any supplies having been ordered by the Imperial government other than those that have already been referred to by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). However, if any parties wish to get information, I think the appropriate department with which to communicate would be the Department of External Affairs.



CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) if he is now in a position to inform the House when he expeots his bill to amend the Canada Grain Act will come before parliament? ?


Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I told the hon. gentleman recently in reply to a similar question that we expected to have the legislation ready in the very near future. I can assure him that we are a little nearer the time now, than we were then-probably inside a week.



IMMIGRATION PUBLICITY


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call the attention of the Immigration department to the advertisements which are being used in the old country to secure immigrants. In the Galloway Gazette of Saturday, January 1, 1927, I notice an advertisement by the Anchor-Donaldson people saying that situations are guaranteed by the Canadian government. Let me quote a short extract from the advertisement:
Employment assured throughout the year.
With regard to boys, the advertisement has this announcement:

The Canadian government makes itself absolutely responsible for the welfare of the boys.
I would ask the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) whether the Canadian government does absolutely guarantee situations; and, if not, whether it will take some steps to prevent such misrepresentation in the old country papers?


Hon. ROBERT FORKE (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: 

ST. REGIS INDIAN RESERVE CONTROL OF ST. LAWRENCE RIVER ISLANDS BY SUPERINTENDENT GENERAL

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved the third reading of Bill No. 55, to provide for special control by the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs of certain islands in the St. Lawrence being part of the St. Regis Indian reservation.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I was under the impression that this bill had been still left in committee.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Third reading was suggested and it was held up.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There were some other
points regarding which we wanted information and which I desired to discuss, but that cannot be done on the third reading. There seems to be a little misunderstanding. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) advises me that there was an arrangement that the bill might be recommitted.


Charles A. Stewart: I have no
recollection of that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was certainly under
the impression that it had not been finally reported from committee.


Charles A. Stewart: I allowed
this bill to stand over on two occasions in order that the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) might have an opportunity of examining it in committee, and I thought it received thorough discussion in committee. I have no recollection of any objection being raised except to the third reading.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I remember very well when this bill was left over in committee for further discussion and the minister brought down some information regarding these islands and the reasons given by him and the department for this bill. I do not propose to discuss the matter any further. It seems to me we shall simply have to let it go, but on the third reading I wish to register my protest against a special bill dealing with Indian lands. We have a general act dealing with Indians, and my impression is that it is up for certain amendments this session.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: It seems extraordinary that there should be any need of a special bill dealing with Indian lands or other property when a general act has been in force for years and years, and has been amended from time to time as necessity warranted and
as the officials of the department advised was necessary. It would have been far better if the provisions of this bill, if they are required, could have been incorporated in the general act, because the question at once arises in anybody's mind as to why in any particular case there should be a special law with regard to dealing with Indian lands.


Charles A. Stewart: I explained that phase of the bill when it was in committee. There is just one point that requires a special bill and that is the jurisdiction of the Superintendent General or the department ever the disposal of lands of this character unoccupied by Indians. The general act provides fcfr control by the band itself except in the case of uncultivated land.


George Halsey Perley: Are there no other unoccupied lands belonging to Indians in any other part of the Dominion?


Charles A. Stewart: Not separated from the reserves, so far as I know, not even on Walpole island.
Motion agreed to on division, and bill read the third time and passed.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT ACT 1919-AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ROBERT FORKE (Minister of Immigration and Colonization) moved the third reading of Bill No. 61, to amend the Soldier Settlement Act, 1919.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Custom.? and Excise) moved the second reading of Bill No. 113, respecting the Department of National Revenue.
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):: There is a policy and a principle involved in the second reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think it advisable for the House to pass such legislation in view of the fact that a royal commission has been appointed to make recommendations in regard to the very matters contained in this bill. We were told by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) when leader of the opposition last June, at page 5133 of Hansard, that such a commission should be appointed in view of the very large revenue handled by this department, and he said that the commission should be composed of three judges, one nominated by the government, one by the op-
98S	^	COMMONS
Department oj National Revenue
position and one by the Progressive party in order to command the respect of the country. In order to show the policy of the then leader of the opposition on that occasion I should like to quote two short sentences from his remarks, as follows:
We conferred among ourselves as to the manner in which that all important end could best be attained, and we came to the conclusion that the manner in which that end could best be attained would be through the appointment of a commission of judges, three in number, one to be named by the prime minister of the day, the second to be named by the leader of the opposition, and the third to be named by the leader of the Progressive party. I submit, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to say it as emphatically as I can, that I believe it is a commission c>f that character, and of that character alone, that the people of this eounti'y will be satisfied with on this all-important national problem.
That commission was never appointed, but another commission was substituted for it and they are simply continuing the work of the old committee of this House which brought out the facts in this connection. In view of this I think it due the House and the country that the Prime Minister or the Minister of Customs and Excise should explain why this roving commission is going about the country from one city to the other, finding out nothing which has not already been discovered by the committee of this House which investigated this department. For that reason I think this bill should stand until such time as we have the report of this commission, if it is ever received. There has been a rightabout-face made by the government, and in view of that we should have some expression of opinion from the government as to when that report may be expected and as to whether it will contain anything along the line of this bill. Why is this commission spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money if they are not going to recommend the co-ordination of all these different departments in order that they may be administered with greater efficiency, as the public utilities of this country are not at present administered, ;n my opinion? For that reason I am opposed to the second reading of this bill; I think it should stand over until we have received the report of this commission.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. HANSON:: I think we should have
some considered statement from the minister before this bill proceeds any further, because it is a very important measure. The criticism levelled at the principle of the bill by the
	,
hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) has some foundation in fact, I think. The minister is a new minister and should give the House some statement.


Mr. EULER:: I am very much inclined
to believe that my hon. friend just wishes to try out the new minister. I have very little to add to what I said the other day when the bill was given its first reading. Clause 1 proposes to change the name of the department as it is now constituted to the Department of National Revenue. As I explained the other day, it simply means that the new name is regarded as being more accurately descriptive of the functions of the department. As the title is now it implies only the collection of customs and excise duties, while the actual work of the department includes also the collection of income tax and sales tax. I do not know that I can add anything more. One criticism which was raised the other day was that some time we might possibly get rid of the sales tax and income tax, but even if that were to happen the new name would still be descriptive of the work of the department, so I cannot see that that should affect the matter in any way.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are we to understand, and is the country to understand that there is to be a continuation of the excise tax and income tax and sales tax in this country, or are we to understand that the income and sales taxes are to continue for only a short period and that we are then to revert to the collection of our national revenue principally from the customs and excise duties? If the latter be true there is no need for the change. I was in hopes that the minister would be able to announce to the House that the sales tax would soon be abolished along with the income tax and that the country would revert to the position occupied before the war, when we obtained our revenue from the two principal sources to which I have referred. I think such an announcement would be received with the greatest pleasure all over the country.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Why not abolish the
customs duties as well?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not include the
customs duties. Does the Minister of Justice advocate the abolition of the customs duties, or is the government simply seeking to get away from a name which does not smell very sweet?


William Daum Euler: I think I have already
answered the objection of my hon. friend.

Department of National Revenue


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not objecting but I
want a further explanation.


William Daum Euler: I am sure my hon. friend
does not expect me to make any declaration of policy which would ordinarily fall within the purview of the Minister of Finance or the leader of the government. The bill deals with the situation exactly as it is to-day; it means nothing more and nothing less.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Is the department to be
called the Department of National Revenue? Well, I do not like that word "national;" I think it might very well come out. The title Department of Revenue is good enough. You do not need the other word at all; it just clutters up the name and clutters up the section all the way through.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Department constituted.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This is one of the most
important clauses in the bill. The minister undoubtedly has been faced with very onerous and important duties in regard to this department, and I should like to ask him, first, has the commission or body of auditors that has been working for some time in the department considered this reorganization, and is it in accordance with their views? Have they made a report upon which this bill is founded?


William Daum Euler: I am not quite sure what
my hon. friend means. Is he referring to the temporary committee that was appointed by himself?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.	.


William Daum Euler: That committee has made
a report, and while it does not recommend the creation of commissioners such as are contemplated by the bill, it has made a recommendation to this effect-I am just quoting from memory now-that the duties of the department might very well be so arranged that a good deal of the work that formerly devolved upon the minister might be transferred to the heads of departments. Under the former act a good deal of this work that is now done by the minister, unnecessarily I think, would have been assigned to the deputy minister. The hon. gentleman will have noted that we have not, provided for a deputy minister: we propose to have instead three commissioners. The work of the department is so extensive that it might very well be divided and a principle of decentralization, if I may so call it, entered upon in the interests of efficiency and the despatch of business. It is the intention, I may say, to transfer a good deal of the work that fell upon the minister
-and I think my hon. friend knows just to what extent he was imposed on in that regard -to these three commissioners that are to be appointed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I entirely agree with the suggestion that a lot of the work which formerly was performed by the minister should be placed upon the shoulders of responsible officers such as these commissioners. The commission to which I referred was a commission consisting of Messrs. 'Clarkson, Gordon and Dilworth, and I think the chairman of the Civil Service Commission, the commissioner of taxation, the chief inspector of customs, and one other.


William Daum Euler: One of the auditors.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, a representative of
the Auditor General. Would the minister be good enough to lay on the table the report they have made up to the present because I consider that the report of that body is important and will.be very helpful to us. I should like to refer also to the observation of the minister, in which I entirely concur, that over a great many years, in fact right along, some duties have been imposed upon the minister which are positively ridiculous. I recall very well that when I entered the department last July there were some eighteen hundred or more reports of seizures-most of them very very trifling ones, some of them relating to a value of three or four dollars, others S10, others S20-some of them of course important but others of the most trifling character; and there they were waiting for the personal signature of the minister. Whether it requires statutory power to remove these from the jurisdiction of the minister or not I am not, sure. I know what I did, although my colleague who was acting in my place during my illness signed, I think, the most of these: I took the responsibility of instructing the acting deputy minister tp dispose of these before they reached me at all, to maxe a final decision in the cases. It will be recalled that last year, when we were inquiring intc the Customs department, one of the chief grounds for complaint, and the report of the special committee of parliament so found, was that seizures would be made and officers of (he department would give them consideration, but before an official departmental finding was made, they would be referred to the minister; and if you will recall the wording of the report I think "an intelligent anticipation of the minister's wishes" was often secured before the finding was finally made by the department. I merely call attention to that for the purpose of emphasizing what
990	COMMONS
Department oj National Revenue
in my estimation was one of the greatest weaknesses in the former practice and one which should be corrected in this bill-whether it is or not I am not sure yet-and that is that the responsible officers of the department should make a final decision before a matter is referred to the minister. I would go further and say that that decision should be the only decision called for, except that an appeal might be made to the minister after such finding was made. Then the minister would find himself in this position- which I think would be a much more happy one than under the former procedure-that if an appeal were made to him by business men, or by political friends, or by anyone at all, he would be able to present to those people the final decision of the department in regard to the case-a given seizure we will say-and then, whether he changed that decision or overrode it, he would have to superimpose his finding upon that of the department and would have to take the final responsibility. It is easy to see what would happen. In most of the cases the minister would, in all probability, stand by the department, except perhaps in extreme cases where he was warranted in the light of new evidence in making a modification. And so I say to the minister that in so far as this section of the bill places that responsibility upon the officers of the department it has my entire support.
In subsection 3 of section 2 the division of the department is outlined. I will read it in order to bring it to the attention of the committee:
T he governor in council may appoint three officers who shall be the chief officers of the department, and who shall be designated as follows,-commissioner of customs, commissioner of excise and commissioner of income tax. and an assistant commissioner of customs may also be appointed. Such officers shall have such powers and perform such duties as may, respectively, be assigned to them by the governor in council or the minister, including tile powers which by any statute are vested in the deputy head of a department.
I am not sufficiently acquainted with the subsequent sections of this act to recall whether or not the matter which I have already spoken of is covered. Do we by statute fix the rsponsibility for making findings upon these commissioners-that is, findings of a departmental character before reference is made to the minister for ultimate decision? Could the minister tell us that?


William Daum Euler: I would say for the information of my hon. friend that it is not so specifically stated in the bill, but his question is answered by a sentence or two which he

himself just read-"such officers shall have such powers and perform such duties as may, respectively, be assigned to them by the governor in council or the minister."


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the weakness, and I want the minister, if he will, to please accept this criticism in a spirit of helpfulness; I am not criticising him at all. I think this is a matter that parliament ought to decide. It is a matter that was deeply impressed on my own mind as a result of the investigation last session, as well as from my own brief experience in the department. That is, it should be removed from the power cf the minister or of the governor in council from time to time to assign or determine the duties of these officers. I think the duties which they perform are of such great importance that they ought to be fixed by statute; we ought to fix in this statute the responsibilities which these officers shall bear, and among them is the one I have mentioned. For instance, in connection with customs, a definite determination in the matter of the disposal of a seizure should be made by the department, and that should be conclusive except that an appeal might rest to the minister; I have no objection to that, but let there be a decision bj' the departmental officials before such an appeal is possible. The same thing applies to sales tax, and the same thing would apply, in a measure, I presume, to income tax and excise tax. The principle I am advocating is that the departmental officials should make a decision in all these cases, and if a change in their decision is made, it must be one that shall appear on these documents themselves, as being superimposed upon the department by the ministerial head.


William Daum Euler: I quite appreciate the goodwill of the hon. member in trying to assist us in working out something that will be practicable and in the interests of the department. I think we are both aiming at exactly the same thing. In the clause from which I have just quoted, the governor in council or the minister is given the right to assign certain duties to these commissioners. I may say for the information of the hon. member and of the committee that it is my intention to refer the very matter of which he speaks, that is the matter of seizures, to these commissioners for them to make a decision, but I do not think it would be wise entirely to take away from the minister the final responsibility in any particular case. I understood my hon. friend was in favour of the minister retaining power to make a final decision in case of an appeal.

Department oj National Revenue


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let me put it this way,
power to make a revised decision, but let there be first a decision by the department. I shall have to go back over my argument of a moment ago, because I think this is the most important part not only of this bill but in our whole effort to bring this great department back to some proper standard of organization. This is the point: Hitherto decisions have not been made by departmental officers.


William Daum Euler: You are wrong. The officers make the recommendation now before the minister even sees the report.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not wrong; I am
decidedly right; in fact, the report last year dwelt upon that, that before a decision would be made the matter would be referred to the minister and his wishes asscertained, and then the decision would be made. We had case after case of that kind before the committee last year, dozens of cases, not of vital importance, but still of such importance as to cause us some apprehension. The departmental officers on the evidence were prepared to make a decision, but did not make it until they had referred the matter to the minister, and then changes and modifications would be made. Now my point is that the officers of this department shall decide independently of the minister and according to law the seizure, or whatever may be the case that comes before them. Then if the party affected considers himself aggrieved, he may make an appeal to the minister, and the minister may review the case. He might say: "I think my officers have been harsh in this matter; I think a penalty of $500 is too high, that $200 should be enough." Very good, but let him then superimpose on the decision already made by the departmental officers and already recorded, his own modification, and then whatever happens in the future, whatever inquiry is made, the minister himself will have to take the responsibility for the change. As it is now, it was disclosed time after time in the investigation that the officer who was supposed to make a decision made a decision that, as the report says, was repugnant to the facts, and very often repugnant to his own views in the case. I do submit to the House that if that practice is not corrected we shall not have accomplished what we ought to accomplish in the light of the evidence that was given before that committee. I do not think it is enough to place in the hands of the minister the power to direct that that practice shall be followed; it ought to be set out in the statute; in other w'ords, the opportunity to make decisions that are not according to law ought to be taken
out of the minister's hands. I am very plain in this, and I hope that the committee and the House will in this act correct what I think has been in practice the chief wreak-ness in the whole department.


William Daum Euler: To me it seems to be
practically a question as to what method shall be followed. I am not quite sure just what practice was followed in the department prior to my assuming office, but I am quite willing to accept what the hon. member says, that in many instances the minister expressed a desire and the officers made their decision in accordance with that desire, although it may have been contrary to the law or the spirit of the act. I may say for the information of my hon. friend, though, that at the present time, and since I have been in charge of the department, all decisions on seizures are first made by the officers of the department. It may be true-I think it is true-that too many officials are concerned in the decision; that is, the case passes through too many hands before it finally comes to the minister. As a matter of fact, I question very much whether generally speaking seizures should come to the minister at all. As it is now, every seizure that comes to the minister has already been signed by the acting deputy minister. So far as I am concerned, as a matter of practice, it becomes a question whether you want to tie the department down hard and fast by a specific statute, in a matter that is now a matter of practice, so far as I am concerned. Everything in the way of a seizure that comes before me had already been decided by the acting deputy minister. It is quite true that in some instances I review the decisions, and I understand from the hon. gentleman's remarks that he still desires that power to remain with the minister, so it comes down simply to a matter of method. That is the practice that now obtains. The officials of the department make their recommendation, and those decisions come to the minister for final signature. I understand my hon. friend is willing that in any case the minister should still have the final say. That is the case now. But the hon. gentleman desires to go further and make it obligatory by statute that before the minister can take any action whatever the officer of the department shall have made a decision.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, there shall have been a departmental decision.


William Daum Euler: Yes, but he would leave
with the minister power to make a change.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, but any change the
minister makes, any decision he superimposes,

Department oj National Revenue
should appear on the K-9. Let me go back a little. The decision now in the form of a K-9 report, drafted by the officers of the department, and recommended by the deputy, is presented to the minister, but that decision is not effective unless the minister signs it. It can be modified or changed before the minister signs it, and in practice frequently it has been changed. That was the main complaint as a result of the inquiry that was held last year, that decisions frequently were changed. My point is this, that the department should make a decision in all these cases without any reference to the minister whatever. If an appeal is made to the minister or any reference to it by the party affected, all right; let the minister have power to review it. He reviews it, but he reviews a signed and fixed document. If he changes it in an}' way he must assume the responsibility for making a decision opposite to that of the department.


William Daum Euler: Exactly what he is doing.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I gave instructions to the department to follow that course, and I am glad my hon. friend is adopting the same course. He will find that it will relieve him of a great deal of petty responsibility. I want to see that made obligatory in the statute. I think the present minister is a pretty strong man; I have no hesitation in saying that and I wish him well, but if a weaker minister came in, who might be inclined to play a little with the matter, we might get back to the same chaos as before.


Mr. VENIOT:: What about the K-9 form?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It should be changed.


Hugh Guthrie: In glancing over the wording of the act, it seems to me there is some force in the objection taken by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin). Paragraph 1 of section 2 establishes a new department and fixes its name. It is to be called the Department of National Revenue. Why the word "national" is included I do not know. It should I think be called the Department of Revenue. We have the Department of Finance; nobody would ever think of calling it the Department of National Finance. We have a Department of Agriculture; nobody would ever think of calling it the Department of National Agriculture. We have a Department of Public Works and nobody would think of calling it the Department of National Public Works. The word " national " is wholly unnecessary, though in the case of the Department of Defence it might be proper to use the word " national " as distinguished from " imperial ", or " local ", but in this case I think it is out of place. I do not know why

it is included. Is there any reason for retaining it? To my mind it is much better to have a Department of Defence, a Department of Agriculture, a Department of Trade and Commerce and so on. There is a reason for retaining the word " national " in the Department of National Defence.


William Daum Euler: I might say the suggestion
made by my hon. friend and by the hon. member for Lincoln was considered, and there is considerable force in it. It was thought perhaps since the revenues that are collected by the department are national in scope the word might be retained. I have no very strong opinion with regard to the matter and ordinarily I think I am of the trend of mind which would like to deal with things in the simplest terms possible, but it was felt by the government that perhaps the term " national revenue " carried with it just a little more dignity, if you like, and conveyed the thought that it was national in its nature. For that reason the name was kept and is printed in the bill, although there was some talk of striking it out. I have come to the conclusion the word " national " is a little more suitable than the other, although I have no strong convictions.


Mr. MANION:: How many more positions does this make, if any more? I know there was a commissioner of customs and a com-misisonor of income tax. Does this increase the number of highly paid civil servants? I am not particularly criticising any part of it. As far as the gentleman who has been appointed is concerned, Mr. Breadner, I think the whole House has a high respect for his great ability, but is there an increase in these commissioners?


William Daum Euler: I cannot give the exact
figures. I do not think there is any increase at all, so far as expense is concerned.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there a commissioner of
excise?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think this means another deputy.


William Daum Euler: No.


Robert James Manion: That was the point that struck me. Then in regard to the assistant commissioner, perhaps there has been an assistant to the commissioner of customs. I presume that would not increase the number, but does the minister know if this is going to increase the number. Mr. Breadner has been in charge of the income tax. Are the

Department of National Revenue
other men who have been appointed officers who have been in like positions, or are they taking the places of men who have been in like positions?


William Daum Euler: Perhaps it is a little premature to speak of the personnel, because none of the men has been appointed, although I am quite willing to say that it is the intention to appoint Mr. Breadner as the commissioner of customs. He is now receiving a certain salary and will receive the same salary as commissioner of customs. When Mr. Taylor becomes commissioner of excise, he will receive a slight increase.


Robert James Manion: He was in the employ
before?


William Daum Euler: Yes, as assistant deputy
minister. The new commissioner of income tax will receive $3,500 less than Mr. Breadner receives as such commissioner.


Robert James Manion: I am not arguing particularly about the personnel, but taking the salaries, is there to be an increase?


William Daum Euler: Not an increase of salary.


Robert James Manion: Speaking collectively, in
regard to the four positions, were the salaries paid to these men the same as will be paid after this bill comes into force; will there be increases in the salaries which we pay for the work being done?


William Daum Euler: Practically no new men have been added. As the reorganization of the department proceeds, and if we find it necessary to add other efficient men, I would not like to say we would not pay something more, because I intend it shall be done if advisable. I have not before me the exact figures of the salaries paid these men and I do not know whether it is going to mean a few hundred dollars more or less, but I am quite sure it will mean very little increase, if any at all.


Robert James Manion: That is really what I am trying to get at. I am not going to criticise the minister if he finds it necessary, in carrying out the work of the department efficiently, to pay a few hundred dollars more. But as I have pointed out before in this chamber, we have been increasing our civil service for very many years. When Mr. Crerar was in the House he took the matter up and discussed the figures for the different departments. I am not sure that the Minister of Customs did not back him up in regard to the great increase from year to year, going back twenty years. There was of course a gradual increase in the civil service, but I do not 32649-63
mean to criticise the civil service and do not wish to be put in that position. I have been here for ten years and I have noticed that every year there seems to be an increase. Instead of increases, I think, as we get away from the war, we should be cutting down the numbers in the service. I do not mean that officials should necessarily be discharged. I pointed out a way in which it could be done by not replacing men who had passed away, resigned, and so forth. In this way gradually we could lessen the civil service and bring it to a hunderd per cent efficiency. Formerly the income and sales taxes were being collected, and the customs and excise were being collected as at present. In other words, there has not been any increase in the duties.


William Daum Euler: Oh, yes.


Robert James Manion: I do not see why there should be an increase. We were collecting all these taxes formerly.


William Daum Euler: Not all of them.


Robert James Manion: According to the Minister of Finance, we are cutting down the sales tax and the income tax and there should be some lessening on that account. In imy opinion, we should not go on year after year increasing the civil service of this country, and particularly highly paid civil servants. I think to-day we are plentifully supplied and over supplied with well paid civil servants. I think the minister, in carrying out the terms of the act, should keep in view the suggestions I make, because I may tell him frankly that I have a kindly feeling towards him. If after the act comes into force it means more jobs, or some new jobs for friends-I do not mean his friends particularly-I am going to criticise the department. I am not particularly blaming his government for doing it. Before the war all governments could afford to make positions, and they all did, but to-day it is the desire of the people to cut down the taxation that is pressing on them so heavily, and the only way is by keeping down the expenses of government. Fortunately we are improving and enjoying a reasonable amount of prosperity, due to a bountiful harvest and to other factors, which has made it easier for the Minister of Finance to collect large revenues, although he is always telling us that he is reducing taxation. But when we strike a period of depression we will find it doubly hard to pay for any increased staff. I submit again that the minister should make every effort to carry out the purpose of this bill in such a way as not to add to the public charges, because it is the desire not only of our business men but of the people



Department of National Revenue
generally to do everything they can to reduce the number of high priced officials, and to get along even without low priced officials where they are not necessary,, in order that the expenses of government may be kept within bounds.


William Daum Euler: I assure my hon. friend
and the committee generally that I welcome any criticism and any suggestions, but I am rather surprised that the criticism should take this form.


Robert James Manion: It is rather a suggestion
than a criticism.


William Daum Euler: There is no disposition to
add to the cost of the service. Let me draw the attention of hon. members to the clause under debate. We are proposing to appoint three commissioners and one assistant commissioner, who will be charged with improving the administration of the department, and assuredly it has been under severe criticism. I may tell hon. members, including my hon. friends on the other side, that I am earnestly desirous to have the department conducted in the most businesslike way that is possible.


Robert James Manion: Hear, hear!


William Daum Euler: That is my intention. I
would be very glad if my hon. friends would criticise or make suggestions with regard to the scheme itself, that is, dividing the work of the department into three main branches, placing one commissioner, who is an expert in his own way, at the head of each of those branches, and an assistant commissioner of customs, investing each with full responsibility. Is there any criticism that in this I am adding too much to the expense of the department? I think not. It seems to me that the criticism might very well be confined to a discussion of what is actually proposed in the reorganization of the department. As I said before, if it becomes necessary to add other officers, and it may be, I shall have no hesitation in asking the Civil Service Commission for additional assistants, but I do not propose for one moment to permit the Customs department or the Excise department, or the Department of National Revenue if you like, to become a sort of refuge for politicians. What is proposed is entirely with one thought only-to put the department on a sound business basis. I repeat, there has been too much centralization, everything has been "funnelled" towards the minister, with the result that he has had to deal with a great many trivial things with which he should not be troubled at all. I propose that the work shall be divided with a responsible head put in control of each branch, without too 
much interference from the man at the top. I hope it is a good solution of the situation. I believe it is, and I should like to try to work it out.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the minister give us
similar assurance with respect to the outside service, because I observe in my province that that service is being made a place of refuge for political friends, and this 'has been done since the minister took office. If he wants concrete illustrations I will furnish them to him.


William Daum Euler: I should like to have them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not want to mention
names across the floor.


William Daum Euler: I should like to know of any such cases.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The defeated candidate
in the county of Victoria-Carieton in the late election has been appointed to a position in the department. I am not criticising the appointment-he was an ex-sheriff and, I believe, will make a good officer.


William Daum Euler: That is the answer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But he was appointed because he was a defeated candidate.


Mr. CANNON:: No, in spite of that.


James Dew Chaplin: In confirmation of the
remarks made by my hon, friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) I want to say to the minister that owing to the action of a former minister it was impossible to have a suit brought against a delinquent for sales tax unless the minister prsonally agreed to such action being taken. Is not that so? Now, under this clause the minister is still left absolutely in control. My hon. friend in speaking about the matter said that when a man became delinquent in payment of taxation suit should be entered against him irrespective of the minister's authorization; the case should be proceeded with as a matter of right to the country. I happened to be in charge of the department for a time and I found hundreds and hundreds, yes, thousands of cases where people in arrears with their sales tax for months had not been proceeded against.


William Daum Euler: Mr. Chairman, I do not
desire to embarrass the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin), but as acting minister of the department for a month or two he knows the difficulties in collecting the sales tax. I am not speaking by the book, but I suppose there are some 1,700 or 1,800 overdue sales tax accounts. If, as he says, the officers

Department oj National Revenue
should be permitted in all oases to bring suit without reference to the minister whatever, I am surprised that he did not issue orders to that effect.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They were given.


James Dew Chaplin: I issued such an order and had it put on file.


William Daum Euler: Generally speaking, I think
that course should be followed, and it will be in future; but my hon. friend knows there are many cases of arrears in which it is almost impossible to bring suit successfully, and these cases constitute a very serious problem.


James Dew Chaplin: I admit there are lots of cases where the accounts are absolutely outlawed, the delinquents having gone out of business.


William Daum Euler: The accounts are not outlawed.


James Dew Chaplin: They are outlawed because of the fact that those in default have gone out of business, and there is no more chance of collecting the arrears than there is of getting a snowball of last winter.


William Daum Euler: I am referring to those men who are still in business. He knows as well as I do that in such cases we are not always justified in bringing suit and putting men out of business.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I appreciate what the minister says, but he still-


William Daum Euler: I get the hon. member's
point.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He gets my point, but he will not admit it. My colleague and myself both gave instructions to the officers of the department that, where in their opinion it was wise to take action, they should do so without reference to the minister. Let me read the report. I quoted it pretty accurately, but not the exact language. This is the report which was recommended to the House by the committee of last year. I am not going to refer to the reflections which it contains regarding certain officers. I will pass over that and come to the findings:
The committee finds that this procedure-
That is the one outlined, which is cited in the report and which has been followed for so many years.
-was not followed. Although, as a rule, the facts are correctly recited in the summary submitted to the minister, the opinion is not infrequently at variance with such facts, and the / recommendation is so drawn as to elicit a decision to which such facts are repugnant. This 32649- 63}
discrepancy is accounted for by the fact that the report upon the evidence was in many instances preceded by a conference, and the recommendation was dictated by an intelligent anticipation of the minister's wishes in the premises.
Section 8 of the report goes on to say- and this is the point which I really wish to make:
The committee is of opinion that the administrative duties of the Department of Customs and Excise should be left to the executive officers of the department.
Then it adds:
Where the value of the goods or the amount in question is $200 or more the procedure should be automatic and not subject to ministerial interference or control.
What we are asking and what I am urging- and if this is not accepted by parliament I shall consider that the work of that committee of last year will be largely a failure-is that in all matters of routine procedure, such as dealing with seizures, the decision should be left to the executive heads of the department, and that the statute, which as a matter of fact does not permit this at present, should be amended so that the executive heads of the department shall make the decision. I have no objection to an appeal being made to the Treasury Board, the minister, the governor general in council, or a body of that kind, but such appeals would be very few if the department made the decision first. I was endeavouring to devise a suggested amendment but I have not yet been able to do so. It is a very complicated matter. What I was going to suggest to the minister was that in section 3 which designates the three commissioners and says that-
Such officers shall have such powers and perform such duties as may, respectively, be assigned to them by the governor in council or the minister
-we should make clear the recommendation of the committee of last year, that is, that decisions in all matters of seizures and questions of prosecution for delinquent taxes should be made by the executive heads of the department. I do not mean that we should pass a statute legislating the minister out of any part in the matter, but I would have the appeal to the minister come after the decision and not before. That is the point I am making. Further, prior to the time that I entered the office, the practice was to undertake no prosecution without the specific instructions of the minister. Undoubtedly the practice over half a century had been that the minister would hear and allow himself to be approached by those affected, friends or
996	COMMONS
Department of National Revenue
otherwise, before he would issue authority to prosecute. My poiut is that that is too difficult a position to put any minister into where such a large number of cases are involved and that without reference to the minister action should be taken where the law is violated, if in the judgment of the executive it is desirable to take such action. Then if reference is made to the minister he can review the case after action has been taken.


William Daum Euler: As regards the effect, I think the hon. gentleman and I are in entire accord, because the clause states:
Such oificers shall have such powers and perform such duties as may, respectively, be assigned to them by the governor in council or the minister.
Under that power I propose to give the commissioners exactly that authority of which my hon. friend now speaks. I am rather surprised and disappointed that he is not accepting my suggestion. As regards the suggestion that the minister should divest himself entirely of the responsibility which should rest on every minister, I should not like to accede to that. It seems to me that with this provision and the intention-and there is the expressed intention to give to these commissioners the power which my hon. friend wants to have conferred specifically by statute -we should be content. It is a matter of opinion. I feel at the moment we should not carry it any further than that, because after all we have a responsibility in the matter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I may say that instructions to that effect were given last summer in writing by myself and my colleague to the acting deputy minister, Mr. Taylor. That is all right, but the minister, I thought, would concede the point that it would be better to make this statutory than to leave it a question of the opinion of a minister. The minister must dissociate himself from this thing, because this is something we are going to carry on as a matter of policy in this country, whoever may happen to be minister. My point is that it should be made a part of the statute; -that the appeal to the minister should not be removed, but should come after the decision and not before.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Does my hon. friend mean a decision in writing by the official?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Unquestionably.


Eugène Fiset: Then what prevents the official, even if he has the statutory power, from consulting with the minister before giving his decision in writing?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Nothing whatever.
IMr. Stevens.]


Eugène Fiset: Then the statutory power the hon. member suggests is useless.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. If my hon. friend
will follow me he will see my point. First, the department or the commissioner will have to take the full responsibility of the decision. There will be no excuse as there was last year when we examined into scores of these cases, where the invariable answer was: Well I consulted with the minister and the minister instructed me so to do. If the matter were statutory, the official would have to assume full responsibility for his written decision. If the minister wished 'any other decision made he would have to put it in writing equally as clearly after the first decision by the departmental officer, and he would have to assume full responsibility for his written decision.


Eugène Fiset: I quite realize that, but what prevents the official, before he gives his written decision, from consulting with the minister? Nothing whatever.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But if he is called in
question he cannot hide behind the minister. He must stand by his written decision because the law would lay that responsibility upon him.


Eugène Fiset: But his written decision may have been affected by his consultation with the minister. I have had some experience in the matter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He cannot take refuge
in the statement that he consulted his minister and the minister so instructed him. If I had my way the minister would have no right to instruct his officers. That is the point I am making. As the matter stands now I could gq down to the Customs department and blindly pick out literally hundreds of decisions as regards which, if you cornered the official and asked him why he made the decision, he would tell you he made it after consultation with the minister.


Eugène Fiset: How can you carry on otherwise? If you prevent an official of the department from consulting with his minister, I do not see how the work can be carried on. Two-thirds of the decisions given by deputy ministers or other high officials of any department, especially in important cases, are given after consultation with the minister. I do not see how you could possibly have it otherwise.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not trying to prevent that, but I would fix the responsibility. I would say further that when I went into

Department oj National Revenue
that office there were some 2,200 of these documents piled on tables waiting for the decision of the minister. I became ill trying to caitch up with them and my hon. friend took up the task while I was in the hospital.


Eugène Fiset: Could you not account for that by the fact that the inquiry was proceeding at that time?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, my hon. friend is
wrong. These were ordinary routine seizures, involving trivial amounts such as $2, $5, a pair of silk stockings and I remember one seizure of a bonnet which was smuggled in. Yet the minister who happened to be there at the time was supposed to sign every one of those seizures before they could be disposed of. My point is that form K-9 should be changed so that all such matters would be disposed of by the signature of the commissioner, and the minister would never see them unless the decision of the commissioner was appealed.


Eugène Fiset: I am not criticising the suggestion of my hon. friend, but that does not need to be fixed by statute. Surely you have sufficient confidence in a minister of the crown to allow him to give the necessary instructions, either through orders in council or by departmental rules.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have confidence in this minister, of course, and I think so long as he is there that will be done. I am equally persuaded of this fact, though, that as we drift away from this controversy which arose last year, affairs in the department may revert to their previous condition. Let me read what the final report of the special committee contained :
The evidence submitted to the committee leads to the general conclusion that for a long time the Department of Customs and Excise had been slowly degenerating in efficiency....
I want to try, by statutory arrangement, to minimize that tendency to slow degeneration, and I want to say very frankly that I have every confidence in the present minister. But he knows very well, as we all know, that like others he will leave that office and others will step in. They may come from this side of the House or the other side; I do not care what their politics may be; familiarity breeds contempt, and I Want to surround that department from the experience of the past with such safeguards as will very largely eliminate that tendency. Let me state further that a high official of the government such as the commissioner of customs, and his immediate assistants, in handling these matters of routine day after day is more likely
to be precise and exact than is the minister who is open to appeal from his friends all over the country, and to whom people believe they have a right to appeal. I am not even going to prevent that, but if I have my way the decision of the executive officers of the department, of the professional staff if you like, shall be definitely given before the minister has an opportunity to change it. That is my point.


William Garland McQuarrie: Referring to subsection 4 of section 2 I would ask how this bill affects the status of the present employees of this department, because I do not see anything at all in the bill which maintains their standing. I suppose it is the intention of the government that those who are now employed shall continue to be employed by the new department, and that it will not be necessary to reappoint those officials who are in office at present. There is another matter, in connection with the salaries of the employees of this and other departments. If we can believe reports which appeared in the Ottawa papers, the Prime Minister stated the night before the election that there would be a salary revision and that it would be brought up at this session, but so far we have seen no evidence of it, and it is now suggested that it will be left over until a later time, I think that would be most unfair; the matter has been too long delayed already. In supporting the remarks of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) I would suggest to the minister that while it is necessary in the reorganization of the department to cut out all the dead wood, at the same time those men who remain in the service should receive a fair and adequate salary. I believe they should receive reasonable salaries in any event, which is not the case with some of them at the present.


Mr. RINFRET:: The question now raised
by my hon. friend has no direct connection with this bill, since it concerns the civil service at large. The salary revision is now under consideration and will be dealt with in due course.


William Daum Euler: I might say to my hon. friend that the passing of this act has no effect whatever on the officials now employed by the department; they remain in just the same position.


William Garland McQuarrie: What section preserves their status?


William Daum Euler: There is nothing to change it.

Department of National Revenue


William Garland McQuarrie: The Customs and Excise Act is repealed; what act justifies their retention in office?


William Daum Euler: I do not know what reply I can make except to say that none of the rights of the officers of the department is assailed in any respect by this act. They remain members of the civil service, subject to its regulations, and they will receive the salaries they received previously. Their position is not altered in any respect.


Mr. KENNEDY:: I would like to back up the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). After last session I cannot help but feel that a great many of the decisions made in the department for some years before the investigation would never have been made at all if the deputy minister had been responsible for them, and if the minister had to accept sole responsibility for any reversal of that decision. A great deal of the trouble seemed to arise because of the fact that' responsibility was not fixed in that way. I do not see any reason why a minister should have to deal with the routine business of the department; I do not believe he has the time and I do not believe he is half so well qualified to do so as the deputy minister, I believe the minister would save himself a good deal of trouble if he would adopt that suggestion. It was perfectly obvious from the evidence last year that the minister was constantly bothered with people who were supposed to have influence with him in dealing with cases connected with smuggling. It appeared to be a regular thing for people who were influential in the party to which the minister belonged to plead with him in connection with these cases. I do not know why that consideration should obtain at all in a case concerning smuggling or a breach of the law. It was simply an effort to use political influence in order to have the fine or penalty made smaller, and for that reason I believe the routine business and the decisions so far as possible should be attended to by the deputy minister, who should take the responsibility. Then if the minister wishes to reverse that decision he may do so, and in so doing clear the deputy minister of all responsibility.


William Daum Euler: I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I would not like the impression to go abroad-which might happen from the remarks of my hon. friend-that it is not the intention of the department in future to have the decisions made by the commissioner of customs, we will say. It is the intention of the department that the minister shall [Mr Euler.]
make these decisions-in fact that these cases shall never come to the minister for decision at all.


James Dew Chaplin: You said it was intended that the minister should make the decision.


William Daum Euler: 
Henry Herbert Stevens: I think I can see a very
happy way out of this little difficulty, and I should not like to pass this clause with any feeling that either myself or any other members of the committee were not fully satisfied. Would the minister consider amending the Customs Act-I think the same thing would apply to the Excise Act-particularly such sections as 174, 175, 176 and 177 which deal with this very question? I have not the act itself under my hand, but there is a resume of it in paragraph 7 of the report of the committee of investigation of last year. I will read this briefly and then the committee will see exactly what my point is.


William Daum Euler: What are the sections of
the act?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am going to quote
paragraph 7 of the report of the special parliamentary committee, if the minister has it.


William Daum Euler: But referring to what sections of the Customs Act?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Sections 174, 175, 176 and 177. The paragraph which I desire to quote reads as follows:
Upon making a seizure the collector or seizing officer forthwith reports the circumstances of the case to the commissioner of customs (section 174). Thereupon the commissioner notifies the owner or claimant of the thing seized, stating tire reasons for the seizure, and calls upon such owner or claimant to furnish within thirty days any evidence he may desire to submit, (section 175). After the expiration of thirty days or sooner, if evidence is forthcoming on the part of the owner or claimant, "the commissioner may consider and weigh the circumstances of the case and report his opinion and recommendation thereon to the minister".
I pause here to suggest that instead of saying that it should be amended to say "he shall thereupon make his decision." That is, instead of the commissioner reporting his opinion and recommendations, he shall make a decision on this evidence. That is section 176. I continue reading:
The minister thereupon either gives, his decision and states the terms upon which the thing seized or detained may be released or the penalty or forfeiture remitted or refers the decision to the court (section 177).
Now my point is this. The minister should amend the act so as to impose the responsibility for the decision upon the commissioner,
and then add a clause to provide that the claimant may make an appeal to the minister or to the governor in council-to whatever body he may choose. But if the committee can get my idea of this matter, and if the minister himself would appreciate it, I think it will save untold trouble in the future. That is let the officers of the department decide under the law and by the law what the disposition of the case shall foe. Let there be an appeal to the government through the minister, or to the minister himself if he will, but let the officer make the decision. If the minister would agree to bring in an amendment to the act to give effect to these suggestions I think that would meet the case entirely.


William Daum Euler: Am I correct in assuming that the suggestion is that instead of making the proposed change in the bill under discussion it should be made in the Customs Act?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


William Daum Euler: I may say to my hon. friend that I introduced a bill yesterday dealing with certain amendments to the Excise Act. Another one will be introduced dealing with amendments to the Customs Act, and if he is content to let this bill pass in its present form I am willing to take his suggestions into consideration when the customs and excise acts are under consideration. Will that be satisfactory?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. I believe the minister is sympathetic towards my viewpoint and that he wants to accomplish the same end as I do.


William Daum Euler: Absolutely. I will give consideration to my hon. friend's suggestion.


Mr. MATTHEWS:: Before the clause
passes I should like to express my pleasure that a scheme of this kind has been drawn up, and that provision is now being made for the collection of the revenues of the country. The proposal brought in under this clause seems to me to be a business proposal such as we would expect from a man of the efficiency of the hon. minister, and I am very glad to see that he has made this provision for the collection of the national revenue. To my mind one of the great faults in our administration is the lax way in which these revenues have been collected. The machinery is now being provided for correcting that, and I believe that under the minister it will be put into force. I want to express my pleasure that this is being done because I believe it will result in greater efficiency in collecting the revenues.

'C.N.R.-Refunding of Obligations


Mr. EVANS:: I am not satisfied that the
point with respect to the exercise of power by1 the minister has been cleared up. It seems to me that the minister may give a decision and ! in doing so go entirely beyond a strict interpretation of the law. I think the inquiry conducted last year demonstrated the fact that a great many decisions made were of that character. Such a thing as that tends to weaken the whole act. I do not believe the minister himself would wish to have such a power. I think' it is not too much to say that years ago ministerial decisions were made simply from the point of view of political expediency. In my opinion the point ought to be satisfactorily cleared up, instead of allowing something to be enacted which would have the effect of weakening the entire act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Oni section 3-Powers and duties of minister.
William Daum Euler: This is the same as in- the old act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
On section 5-Minister of National Revenue substituted for Minister of Customs and Excise, etc.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I have a suggestion to
make to the minister. It will be noted that this and other clauses in the bill change the designation of the minister and of certain acts. The revising of the statutes is going on at the present time, and I would like to ask if any care has been taken to see that the revised statutes are made to harmonize with these changes? It would be rather ridiculous that we should have a revision of the statutes covering a long period of time if the revision did not take note of the changes made in nomenclature by this legislation; in that case, the revision would not be up to date. For instance, clause 5 substitutes "the Minister of National Revenue " for " the Minister of Customs and Excise", and it refers also to the Business Profits War Tax Act, the Income War Tax Act, the Customs Act and the Excise Act. These are some of our chief statutes, and I think immediate attention should be given to see that any changes made in the designation of these statutes are followed in the revised statutes.


William Daum Euler: The bill was drawn up by the law officers of the crown, and clauses 5, 6 and 7 are inserted specifically for the purpose of making them harmonize with related statutes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, but see the confusion if the revised statutes come down with the old nomenclature. For instance, the Minister of Customs would be referred to all through the revised statutes, and here we have a statute changing that designation.


William Daum Euler: I can assure my hon. friend that I will bear that point in mind and take the necessary precautions.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
On section 7-Acts repealed.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This repeals the statutes, I understand, creating the Department of Customs and Excise?


William Daum Euler: Yes, in accordance with the creating of new officials.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I am going to ask the minister if he would be good enough to endeavour to bring down at the next sitting of the House, before the third reading is taken, the two amendments to the Excise Act and the Customs Act, and give consideration to the proposals we have made.


William Daum Euler: The Excise Act amendment
was introduced yesterday.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, but would the minister give consideration to the proposals we 'have made and give an expression of opinion regarding them?


William Daum Euler: I will do that.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the Canadian National Railways to provide for the refunding of certain maturing financial obligations, and to issue substituted securities therefor guaranteed by the Dominion as to principal and interest, but not exceeding $20,000,000, the aggregate face value of the original securities.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Mr. DUNNING:: Mr. Chairman, this resolution precedes the bill which I hope to introduce immediately to provide for the refund-

Seed Grain and Other Relief
ing of $20,000,000 of three-year four and one-half per cent notes issued three years ago by the Canadian National and guaranteed by the government. There is no general provision for refunding Canadian National maturing securities, and hence it is necessary to come to the House and secure authority with respect to each issue as it matures.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Of course, these refunding securities will be issued in the name of the Canadian National and be guaranteed by the government?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, as are the securities which are being refunded. They are Canadian National guaranteed securities.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is it the intention to issue notes or bonds?


Charles Avery Dunning: That will be quite open
under the legislation. We are hoping to refund in the form of bonds, but there is no obligation to adopt either form. It depends on which method of financing proves to be best under the circumstances, and it is subject to the approval of the Minister of Finance.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The government is not in a position to advise whether the refunding securities will be just temporary financing or bonds issued for a considerable term?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not in a position
to advise as to that. These securities mature in the month of July, I think, at all events, in one of the summer months, and definite arrangements for re-financing have not yet been made, and cannot be made until the authority asked for by this resolution is given.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 121, respecting the Canadian National Railways and to provide for the refunding of certain maturing financial obligations.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DEBTS DUE THE CROWN


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved that the House go into chmmittee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting certain debts due the crown, to provide that the governor in council shall have power to make regulations providing for the apportionment and adjustment of indebtedness incurred for advances of seed grain, fodder for animals and other relief, and to discharge and release in whole or in part any moneys due to His Majesty in respect of either principal or interest or both, as may be considered equitable in the circumstances.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Charles A. Stewart: This resolution undoubtedly deputes fairly wide power to the governor in council, but the negotiations will be carried on with the provincial governments, the municipalities and the loan companies. It has to do with advances that were made for seed grain and relief over a long term of years. Of course where the security has been taken and registered the crown usually gets all the money that accrues from the sale of any of the properties. In many cases the matter of adjusting these old accounts is difficult because of foreclosure proceedings having been taken by loan companies. In the southern portion of Alberta and Saskatchewan we made a new experiment. We set aside a portion of the land in those provinces that was homesteaded1, and upon which in many cases the patent was earned, and to the settlers on these lands a considerable sum of money was advanced for seed grain, for fodder and for other relief. But we are undertaking now, under a commission representative of the federal and provincial gevernments to induce the settlers on that area to discontinue agricultural pursuits and to go back to the old and tried business of ranching. This transformation has caused a good deal of trouble. I suppose seventy-five per cent of the settlers have abandoned the land, and it becomes a question of arranging an amicable adjustment of the indebtedness. There is indebtedness to machine companies, to banks, to mortgage loan companies, and indebtedness in taxation to the provincial government. The bill is intended to give the department power to deal with just such cases as that, to forego, should it be considered advisable, our right to the full indebtedness. In many cases the federal government does not get the full indebtedness and the whole thing is tied up.


Henry Herbert Stevens: At present has the government a prior charge?


Charles A. Stewart: In many
eases we have. Some more recent advances since 1915 are not prior liens; the advances made since that time, by the municipalities particularly, rank with other creditors. The loans made in 1915, however, are prior liens. The object of the measure is to give us power to negotiate with the provinces, the municipalities and the loan companies, which are the three bodies that hold encumbrances
Seed, Grain and Other Relief

against the lands in question. I would have preferred to have the act do what we wiil have to do largely by regulation, but on account of the difficulty of that we are asking for fairly wide powers. As we are not dealing with individuals but with municipalities and provinces, it is necessary to have this power without handicap in order that the indebtedness registered against these lands may be adjusted.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: How much money is
involved?


Charles A. Stewart: I am unable to say offhand. I think the last report we had placed it in the neighbourhood of almost a million dollars. There is, of course, in addition the indebtedness against the preemption land.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: I understood the
minister to say that this provision was made to take care of a condition in southern Alberta and southern Saskatchewan. Does it also apply to lands situated elsewhere in those provinces?


Charles A. Stewart: It would be general, yes. It would apply to all lands upon which loans have been made for fodder, relief, or seed grain, no matter where located, but they are principally in the southern parts of those provinces.


Archibald M. Carmichael: I had in mind land
that had been taken over by the municipality under tax sale proceedings. I have had several cases referred to me for adjustment by the department, and the department said they had no authority under the act to do anything. Would such cases be covered?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, that is exactly the kind of case we are covering in this act.


Milton Neil Campbell: Where does the government stand in regard to loan companies? I presume in all cases the government claim is prior to that of loan companies.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, in
1915 priority was taken by the act over all encumbrances, but there are some cases since then in Which that priority was not taken, relief being issued jointly with the province. There are not, however, many such cases. Most of the cases that are difficult to settle are those in which by act of parliament a priority of lien was taken by the government for the advance.


Milton Neil Campbell: I presume that in cases where the loan companies' claims are prior to those of the government they would hardly  I	i
agree to surrender a share of their equity to the government; on the contrary, in cases where the government's claims have precedence this bill, it seems to me, proposes to give the loan companies a share in those prior claims.


Charles A. Stewart: In the case
mentioned by my hon. friend from Kindorsley (Mr. Carmichael)', the government have priority of lien against all comers, so anything we are willing to forego is really a concession to the province or to the municipality, and in some cases it might be a concession to the loan companies.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the minister be
good enough to have a statement prepared covering these different classes of obligations and lay it on the table before the bill is dealt with? il thinlk with that information before us we could deal with the matter very much more intelligently.


John Evans: I should like to bring to
the attention of the minister certain cases where tenants bought seed grain and fodder without the consent of the owners of the land, with consequent hardship to the latter. Will those cases be dealt with under this bill?


Charles A. Stewart: There are
some cases where registration has been made against the property without the consent or knowledge of the owner. In 1914 or 1915 seed grain was issued fairly rapidly, and the security taken later, with the result that in many cases we found that -the owners declined to assume liability. As the crop was growing we had to register a lien against the property. But I think -it goes without saying that some owners were quite unaware of the transaction. However, having a registered claim against the property for the issue of seed grain, whether the owner was notified or not, we have no authority to give any consideration, but must collect the full -amount if it can foe obtained from the property. The provincial authorities now take charge of the distribution and make certain that the owner is cognizant of the fact that an issue is being made to the tenant for fodder or seed grain.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Is there any tjme
limit?


Charles A. Stewart: This comes
into effect only when there is an adjustment on the property. We do not make adjustments until the ;property is sought to be disposed of. W-e try to collect, of course, -but it is rather a hopeless job.
Resolution reported, read the second time, and concurred in. Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)

Food and Drugs Act
thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 122, respecting certain debts due the crown.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FOOD AND DRUGS ACT, 1920, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Health) moved the second reading of Bill No. 105, to amend the Food and Dings Act, 1920.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section	1-Definitions-" Dominion
analyst''-"Drug."
Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, will the
minister be good enough to give an explanation of these clauses?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: It is proposed to
define the term "Dominion analyst." We have many officers in the department who under the civil service regulations are classified as chemists, or in some other way. Under this amendment it will be within the power of the lieutenant-governor in council to designate who shall be an analyst, including the chief dominion analyst and the assistant chief dominion analyst.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would this place it within the power of the government to designate a druggist or chemist anywhere in the country as an analyst for the purpose of this act?


John Warwick King: Yes, it would give us that power.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister explain
the reason for sub-clause (2) ?


John Warwick King: It is proposed to
extend the definition of the word "drug" to include the use of antiseptics and prophylactics, such as vaccines.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is a technical subject and I am sure not many of us are familiar with it. What is the need or the demand for this?


John Warwick King: The original definition read:
"Drug" includes all medicines for internal or external use for man or animal.
It is considered by the departmental officials that that definition is not wide enough in itself and we propose to amend it to read as follows:
"Drug" includes all medicine for internal or external use for man or animal; and any substance or mixture of substances intended to be used for the treatment, mitigation or prevention of disease in man or animal.
By the addition to the section of these words, antiseptics and prophylactics such as vaccines would be considered as drugs and I think it i3 essential that they should be included.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: According to this definition a mustard plaster would be included.


John Warwick King: A mustard plaster would be all right.


Arthur Edward Ross: A better way would be to include all drugs as contained in some standard book.


John Warwick King: That would not give the extent or width that is desired by the department. The British Pharmacopoeia would not give you what you wish. Many drugs are being used that are not included in it.


Arthur Edward Ross: Antiseptics are as old as the hills.


John Warwick King: Under the present definition neither antiseptics nor prophylactics such as vaccines would be considered as drugs. At least that is the opinion of departmental officials who have been administering the act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Regulations.
John Warwick King: This is an important clause, dealing with the standardization of certain patent drugs. In the act as it exists to-day section 4 reads:
Recognized in the latest edition of the British Pharmacopoeia; or, recognized in the latest edition of any foreign pharmacopoeia; or which is not recognized in any pharmacopoeia but is found in some generally recognized standard work on materia medica or drugs.
It is proposed by this amendment to bring in a schedule and this would provide for a standardization outside of what is known as the usual pharmacopoeia standardization. If the hon. member will refer to schedule B, he will find that the drugs mentioned there are very potent, such as strophanthus, digitalis, ergot and other vegetable preparations, pituitrin, thyroid, adrenalin and so on. It has been found in modem practice that in order to arrive at a proper standardization for these drugs certain biological tests must be mlade. It is the purpose of this clause to provide that standards will be set up through biological tests and that those who are engaged in the manufacture of these drugs shall be licensed, shall have proper laboratories,
Food and Dings Act

and shall be subject to inspection. It is further provided that each batch of the drugs made in those laboratories shall be subject to examination by the laboratories of the Department of Health. This, I think, meets with the approval of the profession, because it is essential that these drugs shall have a standard. It will also meet with the approval of those who are engaged in t'he manufacture of these drugs, and the people generally will benefit by having better drugs.


Henry Herbert Stevens: For the last fifteen or sixteen years I have been strongly in favour of strengthening the hands of the department in connection with this Food and Drugs Act. I am, however, aware that it is possible to abuse a good thing. I am not suggesting that this act does so abuse that privilege, but what gives me a little concern is this:	we
have an act at present that is exceedingly technical. I confess it is beyond my capacity to pass any reasonable judgment on the sections as we come to them. On former occasions we usually referred this act to a special committee of the House, drafting into that committee a number of medical men and others who had some technical knowledge of the subject. It occurs to me that unless some of our professional men are in their seats and have given some study to this legislation, most of us will be acting pretty much in the dark. Moreover, this legislation undoubtedly affects those who manufacture these various serums, drugs and so on, and I recall in the past some very bitter controversies over the drafting of some previous amendments to the act. Some of these amendments I supported, some of them I strongly opposed. I am not in a position to express an opinion now, but I really think it would have been better if this act had gone to a special committee where it could have been given that detailed consideration which it merits.


Arthur Edward Ross: While I would do anything to strengthen the hands of the department, yet I think on reading over certain clauses of this bill it is quite drastic, and abuses may easily arise. I cannot understand for a minute why under the first clause the word "antiseptic''* cannot be considered as a drug. In any school or college antiseptic is a term as old as the hills. There may be some antiseptics, if that is what the minister or the department is getting at, that are not drugs. That is the reason I would have suggested the use of some definite volume such as the British Pharmacopoeia. It is kept pretty well up to date and I do not think it would leave out very much. The second clause leaves the door open for drastic action. 
It provides for the licensing of manufacturers preparing drugs and it requires that manufacturers of the drugs mentioned submit test portions of each and every batch of such drugs and so on. All that is very good in its way, but it leaves the door open to a very great deal of drastic action which may be taken by the department as regards food and so on. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with the bill, but it leaves the door open to drastic action and we should look into it a little further. I would favour the suggestion of the hon, member for Vancouver Centre.


John Warwick King: This act was
passed in 1920 and it has been in operation since that date. This is the first occasion that it has been in the House for further amendment and these amendments have grown out of the experience of the officers of the department. I have no objection to letting the bill go to a committee of this House, but I think the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) does not quite understand the object of the bill and the amendment. The object of the act is to protect the public against adulteration and against any deception in the quantity sold, and in the section to which I have referred I pointed out that the schedule mentioned at the 'back of the bill sets forth the drugs that are to be dealt with. They are limited in number; they are very potent drugs, and while we as practitioners strive to get the best possible, the standards vary in different countries. Standards vary even in different laboratories, and in dealing with potent drugs of this character I think we should have the highest quality as a standard; that is done to-day by physiological tests. I cannot see why the medical profession would take any exception to this amendment; in fact I know that nothing will please them more than to have these particular drugs standardized. If that is to be done and if this benefit is to be secured to the public then it is essential that the establishments be checked, that they be required to take out a license and to maintain a proper laboratory, subject to inspection. We are not amending a medical act; this is a food and drug act designed to give protection to the public. So I would suggest that we proceed with the amendments and leave the bill in committee; we can have our discussion here to-day and we can return to it if there are any further points which have not been made clear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The difficulty I see is this. If this bill is sent to a special committee we will have the officers of the department who have had experience in administration, and

Food and Drugs Act
the}' can tell us precisely why they are asking for certain things. Let me illustrate; and I may say that I take my position with very little precise knowledge of the needs we have to meet, but I see an illustration of the danger facing us. In subsection (d) it is provided that the premises, equipment and technical qualifications of the staff of manufacturers preparing drugs mentioned or described in schedule B shall be inspected, and further in subsection 4 of the same section it is provided that any drug mentioned or described in schedule B shall be deemed to be adulterated if it has not been manufactured, tested and labelled in accordance with regulations made by the governor in council under this section. That is going pretty far. Let us take for example the question of the label. Some of these terms are copyrighted, I have no doubt, and it is quite conceivable that the department may fix as a standard one of these drugs which has been patented or given some sort of protection; they may say that that shall be the standard. If some other firm manufactures an equally good article not in the slightest degree adulterated, but labelled differently from the standardized article, the oroduct of the second firm would be deemed yo be adulterated under this act. That is an extreme case, of course, but that is what we ire facing, and I must say that under these drcumstances I rather look askance at this act. I am going to suggest again to the minister that the most reasonable thing to do is to send this bill to a special committee before which the officers of the department may appear. Let me again make it clear that I am not criticising the effort of the government to establish a first class workable act. I have always been in favour of such an act and stand behind the general principle of it but I must confess that some parts of this act give me some alarm.


Arthur Edward Ross: I have just another question, and I might say in passing that I do not think I misunderstand the purposes of this amendment. I would like to refer for a moment to the inspection of premises, equipment and so on. Supposing you are dealing with drugs manufactured in England, manufactured by a firm which I like very much, Burroughs, Welcome and Company; how will your department inspect their premises and set a standard for their products? If that is not done the drugs manufactured by that company will be labelled as adulterated, and it leaves the door open to drastic action. I am sure that medical practitioners have some knowledge of standards, and I agree with the statement of the minister that these standards vary,
and in some cases are very low. But in Canada we practically accept the British Pharmacopoeia and the standards laid down by the ministry of health in England. Now the minister is going to introduce a system in Canada which will make it hard for us to accept an article manufactured in Great Britain.


John Warwick King: Unless it comes up to the standard.


Arthur Edward Ross: In the meantime
perhaps that drug will have been scattered all over Canada, and it will be quite a hardship to some of our practitioners who, notwithstanding that standard, would prefer to carry on with the same company.


John Warwick King: I think my hon.
friend is entirely mistaken. If he will look at the schedule he will see that the list is very limited and that the drugs contained therein are very important. If the profession can secure a uniform standard of digitalis, for example, they will be glad to accept it. We are not entering a new field; it is known that the Council of Health of the League of Nations have already proceeded along this line, and are suggesting to the various countries that they standardize these preparations. The United States have gone even further, and have already set standards. This matter is one affecting trade and commerce and the protection of the public, and if it is the opinion of hon. members that this should go to a special committee I have no objection whatever because that would give an opportunity for further discussion which cannot take place in this House.


Arthur Edward Ross: How does the minister propose to inspect the premises, equipment and so on of firms not in this country?


John Warwick King: They will manufacture to our standards if they propose to sell in Canada. My friend speaks of Burroughs, Welcome and Company; that company are prepared to standardize, and wish to do so, and I think that is true of all the better manufacturers.
Progress reported.


Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Health):: I beg to move, Mr. Speaker, that Bill No. 105 be referred to a special committee of this House, to be appointed at the next sitting of House.


Hewitt Bostock: This is not regular, of
course, but by unanimous consent the motion may be adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Northwest Territories Act


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Northwest Territories Act, chapter 62 of the revised statutes, 1906, to provide that the commissioner in council may make ordinances for the levying of an export tax upon furs exported from the territories to any part of Canada, or to any foreign country.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Charles A. Stewart: Hon. gentlemen will remember that three years ago I introduced a similar resolution with a view to bringing down a bill to tax furs exported from the Northwest Territories. At that time, if my recollection serves me aright, all the provinces were not exacting a tax on furs. There was, however, a tax in force in the Yukon territory on furs for export, and principles embodied in the Yukon Fur Export Tax Ordinance will be included in the ordinance to be founded on this resolution. The provinces are anxious that we shall impose such a tax because furs are going out of the provinces very frequently, particularly from the northern districts of Saskatchewan and Alberta, and when the tax, or royalty as it is in Saskatchewan, is sought to be collected the provincial officers are told that the furs come from the Northwest Territories. We do not propose to tax fur used in the territories but only when it is exported therefrom, and the tax will be at the rate of so much per skin.
I will give full particulars on the second reading of the bill. Its main provision, however, is embodied in the resolution.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Will the minister be good enough to tell us when the provinces asked for the imposition of this export tax?


Charles A. Stewart: I have a
letter signed- by the Hon. Mr. Hoadley of Alberta asking us to take some steps to protect that province inasmuch as when they seek to collect the provincial tax they are frequently told that the furs come from the Mackenzie district in the Northwest Territories and are therefore not taxable in Alberta. Now it is proposed to apply this tax on furs exported from the territories, and no evasion of taxation on the ground stated will be possible in the western provinces.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: When was the principle
of this export tax on furs adopted, and why?


Charles A. Stewart: In the provinces all fur is taxed; there are no exemptions. But we propose to exempt the fur used by the natives as well as any fur used by whites in the Northwest Territories. Only when the fur is leaving the territories will the tax be imposed. In that way we shall not be creating any hardship for the whites or natives who make their homes in that region. This is to be an export tax, and the same provision exists in the Yukon territory.


Henry Herbert Stevens: By way of information
how does the minister propose to ascertain where the fur comes from? Furs, for instance, are frequently brought into Edmonton by trappers from very long distances. How does the minister propose to follow the fur that is produced in the Northwest Territories beyond the boundaries of any province?


Charles A. Stewart: We have
anticipated that difficulty and are arranging to collect the tax inside the territories. As my hon. friend knows, a considerable proportion of this fur comes out by way of the Alaska peninsula, also via Hudson bay, but the largest quantity comes down the Mackenzie river through the province of Alberta. The collection will be made by officers to be appointed by the government, either the northwest mounted police or officials who are already on the ground.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What quantity of furs,
roughly speaking, is now being exported from the Northwest Territories?


Charles A. Stewart: As nearly as we can estimate about $2,000,000 worth are exported annually.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I shall reserve the right
to oppose or criticise this export tax when the second reading of the bill to be founded upon this resolution is moved. I never knew there was any export tax or embargo on furs going out of any of the provinces. I do not know what necessity there is for such a tax or why it should be imposed upon a trapper, if he is licensed and earning his living honestly.


Charles A. Stewart: I am perfectly willing that my hon. friend should look into the matter. He will then find that every province in Canada, with the exception of Prince Edward Island, is imposing a tax on fur. The Northwest Territories have not been doing it, but as I have already pointed out the Yukon has had a tax for some years. We want the revenue to be derived from this tax and we are entitled to receive it. We have spent a good deal of money for the protection of the people who are dealing in furs

Georgian Bay Canal Company
up there, but we shall not collect the tax from the natives who use fur as clothing, nor do we desire to collect the tax on any fur that is utilized within the territories themselves. Therein lies the difference between the tax proposed to be collected under this resolution and that which is imposed by the provinces.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Do trappers pay a license?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Stewart (Edmonton) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 123, to amend the Northwest Territories Act, chapter 62 of the revised statutes, 1906.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



WAR CHARITIES ACT, 1917, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon.. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 114, to repeal the War Charities Act, 1917.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Act repealed.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Are there any obligations outstanding, or is this thing properly dead and is this simply to bury it decently?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: There were coming under this act 850 societies. That number has dwindled to 147, of which 10 are great war veterans' associations and 127 branches of the Imperial Daughters of the Empire, which leaves only 10 other societies. These societies have to Teport twice a year to the department. They come under our control, but we are now practically controlling things that do not exist or do not heed to be controlled.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What are you going to do with the staff that has been Looking after this?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: We will put them at some new reform legislation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Splendid.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, March 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chevrier for the second reading of Bill No. 78, respecting the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company.
Mr. A. C. CASSBLMAN (Grenvdlle-Dun-das):: After the many statements and arguments which have been advanced1 in this House during the course of this debate, anyone who attempts now to talk about the subject must in doing so lay himself open to the charge of obstructing the business of this House. It is not with that intention that I am taking part in this debate. If I must stand accused of obstructing the work of this House, I am perfectly satisfied to do so. I say that because it is a fact that the matter under discussion is of such great importance that I feel every opportunity should be taken to place the facts before the people of the country, in order that they may be stirred up, so that the ultimate result will be that this bill shall not pass.
It has been suggested1 from the other side of the House that the bill should be allowed to go to the committee at once. I do not favour that suggestion. There are the very besc reasons for discussing the bill at length. I do not think there has been for some time a private bill before this House in which such great interest has been taken as in the present-bill. I say that because of different articles which I have seen in the various newspapers, and the press publishing these articles are not of any one political faith. Yesterday's Ottawa Citizen, speaking against this bill, says:
The Georgian Bay Canal
Georgian bay canal promoters have been given ample time to do something to take advantage of the enormously valuable franchise granted first so long ago as 1894. They persuaded parliament thirteen times to renew the charter, but they failed to commence constructive work upon the canal. It is too late to expect this parliament to give away any part of the public domain.
On the same day the Ottawa Journal in an editorial says:
Everybody knows that the value of the Georgian Bay canal charter to the interests who are behind it is not the value that attaches to the franchise covering a mere transportation project. It is the value that arises from the waterpower clauses that the charter contains. In the light of that truth, one provision in the
.008


Mr. E. A. McPHERSON (Portage la Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take up very much of the time of the House on this question. I must confess that since the debate started my understanding of the matter has become a little more clouded than it was before. I understood when the question was first brought up that it was opposed more as a matter of principle than for any other reason, but just on what principle it was opposed I am not quite so clear as I was when the hon. gentleman who opened the debate in opposition finished his remarks. I understood from his remarks that he was opposed to it largely because there had been a considerable delay in starting work under the charter which had been already granted. Since then hon. gentlemen who have spoken have discussed the matter from practically every angle and a large part of the argument both pro and con is, so far as I know, personal opinion or facts gained here and there in a haphazard manner. Any information upon which I can base my attitude has been gained in what is not a satisfactory method to myself, namely, by listening to the various arguments advanced, and by hearing the gossip and rumour in the

Georgian Bay Canal Company
corridors, lobbies and different parts of this building. If I had to vote on this bill tonight, as to whether we should grant this charter or not, with the information I have as to the charter I would vote against it. On the other hand if I were to be put in the position where I had to close my mind and say, No, we will take no chance on this, we will not give even an opportunity of ascertaining the facts by having them brought out before a committee, I would vote against such a motion, because I think I should be just as much to blame for refusing to allow myself to get those facts in a proper manner before a committee of the House as if I voted against the 'bill offhand.
I am not satisfied with the bill in its present state. I should like to see it somewhat amended; but the more I have heard and the more I have looked into it, the measure does not seem nearly as bad to me as it did originally. I must confess, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen, that my facts were collected, as I have suggested, from the discussion here and from hearsay. If I am wrong in any statement I may make I hope I shall be corrected, but I can only base my remarks upon the information which I have and give my vote in accordance therewith when the time comes to do so. I am told that this charter was granted originally in 1894, and the statute bears this out. I am told that the project has been enlarged from time to time, that in 1907 plans were made for a canal of nine feet, that the matter was taken up by this House, and that during the period from some time around 1908 till 1912 this government investigated the question of the Georgian bay canal and its feasibility, and a very lengthy report was prepared on the subject. That report is in the library, but I am not of a sufficient engineering turn of mind to avail myself of it; I do not think I would understand it even if I did try to peruse it. But the report is there, and I have not heard it stated that the route is not feasible. So matters were delayed apparently until 1912, and then it was decided that the project should take the form of a canal of twenty feet. The war broke out, and I do not think that any hon. membeT here will say that any company was remiss in its duty for not carrying out a large contract during a war period. Considerable time has elapsed since the war and yet nothing has been done. That I understand is true, but I also understand that plans were completed by the present holders of the charter for a canal of twenty-four feet, and 1924 was the date on which the company first filed the plans that are now before the government. Those plans were not accepted, but I find 
they were filed in sections up to1 1926, which is not very long ago. I understand that the first plan filed in 1924 was for that portion of the river from Montreal north-the proper place to start a canal, at the outlet-but for some reason best known to the government approval of the plans was withheld until all should be received. Now I notice that under section 18 of the original act this company cannot take any steps or do any construction work on the canal until the plans that have been filed are approved by the government. If there has been negligence and delay it would therefore appear that it was not on the part of the applicants, but on account of their plans not having been approved they have not been in a legal position to turn a sod or start construction work. I want to point out that those hon. gentlemen who have dealt upon heinousness of the offence that would be committed in giving a further extension to this charter, and those hon. gentlemen who believe strongly in public ownership, put through yesterday four distinct bills which involved the extension of railway charters. The first charter was granted in 1900 but was renewed from time to time up to the present. The next two charters have not been for an unusually long period before the public, but the fourth one was originally given in 1893, one year before the charter of the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company. I am not justifying the extension of these charters, I am merely bringing the facts to the attention of the House.


Mr. HEAPS:: Would you be good enough
to tell the House the difference between the charters which were extended yesterday and the charter whose extension is now being sought?


Ewen Alexander McPherson: I am dealing now
with the objection, which has been strongly urged, that the time which has been allowed to elapse since the charter was originally granted is a reason why the extension sought here should not be allowed. I am not saying that the charters to which I have just referred should not have been enlarged, but what I do say is that there was not half an hour's discussion in this House-so far as I know, and I think I was present all the time-in opposition to the extension of these charters on the ground that they have been renewed too often. Yet they are all by private corporations. That looks rather peculiar to me in view of the great interest that is being taken in the present charter and the agitation to allow it to expire.

Georgian Bay Canal Company
I have dealt with the opposition to this charter on the ground of the delay that has taken place. Now there are one or two other reasons given by several members, the soundness of which I do not quite appreciate. For example they say that we have government canals which are operating without tolls, therefore why should we allow the canal to be built by private individuals on which tolls would be collected. I submit that argument would be much more logical if the conditions were reversed and you were putting a free canal in competition with a government canal charging tolls. But if the government canals are free and the private canal is charging tolls, what possible chance is there of the private canal doing business? How can they collect tolls unless the public are willing to pay them in order to avoid going the long way round and getting free transportation which would be more costly in the long run? I do not understand the logic of the argument which has been advanced, in that connection by at least three or four members of the House.
There is also the question of the claim to the power. I aim not going into the question of the legal ownership of the power, but I maintain that in so far as the navigable waters are concerned, and in so far as any waters are concerned which are apt to be now or hereafter of value to the Dominion as waterways, it is most objectionable to give any rights to private individuals which will close those waterways for navigation purposes in time to come, or in fact to give them under under any circumstances 'without, protecting the public interest. Ontario says, in the language of its representatives in this House, that it is entitled to the water-power. It may be so. If it is so, the owners of this charter have nothing when they get it renewed so far as power is concerned. That question can be disposed of by the courts that are appointed for that purpose.
I would point out this, however. Although I do not live in Ontario I try to keep in touch with the doings of the various provinces, and I understand that Ontario has leased its water-powers in the north country to private corporations at every place in which water-power is now being developed up there. I understand further that the people in that district are getting after the Ontario government to have the Ontario Hydro Electric Commission protect them against overcharges, but that they are not being given any assistance in that direction by the provincial government. The province of Ontario at the same time, I understand, is purchasing power from a private corporation called the Gatineau Power Company. I understand that the province of Ontario were
willing to give a lease of the Carillon falls to a private corporation for a consideration-a share of the rental. Now, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that all these arguments we have heard in favour of Ontario developing its own power do not look very good to the outsider in face of the fact that they are giving away their power in the northern section of the province and are buying power themselves from private corporations instead of developing their own power.


Mr. GEARY:: Just what power should they develop?


Ewen Alexander McPherson: I understand that there is power a.t Smoky falls that was sold or leased. Am I right?


George Reginald Geary: I never heard of it.


Mr. RENNIE:: Will the hon. member please name the places, each one of -them?


Ewen Alexander McPherson: I cannot name them
all, but I can read a short editorial that appeared in the Cochrane Northland Post. I generally object to listen to other people reading, and perhaps I can shorten it by filing this with Hansard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read it.


Ewen Alexander McPherson: The Cochrane Northland Post has a long editorial objecting to the Ontario government putting the power in that northern district into the hands of private corporations, and regretting that the Ontario government will not protect them through the hydro commission.


George Reginald Geary: You find lots of people talking against the Ontario hydro.


George Septimus Rennie: Where are these places?


Ewen Alexander McPherson: I am not just sure
that I can see to read this very fine print, but I will try. It is an editorial from the Cochrane Northland Post-I am not acquainted with the editor, so I cannot be accused of being personally biased in his favour-in its issue of February 25, 1927. This paper presumably is published by the Cochrane Northland Post, Limited, Cochrane, Ontario. The editorial reads:
As was to be expected, the meeting of the special committee of council with the officials of the Abitibi Electric Development Company


I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I cannot see to read this, so I will ask permission to place it on Hansard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No. Read it.


Ewen Alexander McPherson: I cannot see to read
this fine print. I again ask permission to file it with Hansard, Mr. Speaker.

Georgian Bay Canal Company


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. In such cases it
is permissible to have the article read by the Assistant Clerk.
The Assistant Clerk read the article, as follows:
As was to be expected, the meeting of the special committee of council with the officials of the Abitibi Electric Development Company was devoid of any result as far as the lowering of the rate charged by the company is concerned, not because of any neglect on the part of the committee but rather on account of the peculiar independence which the Abitibi people are able to assume under existing circumstances and will be able to maintain until such time as the government sees fit to interfere and decide to protect not only our own municipality, but all others now here and yet to come, who are at the mercy of powerful corporations as far as power supply is concerned, when such is developed from the abundance of our natural water-powers, more especially here in the north where water-powers belong to the most valuable of natural resources.
It seems inconceivable that the government should have given away these natural resources belonging in the last end to the people, to private corporations for the purpose of exploiting these very people to whom such powers should belong, and who live in the very shadow of their magnificence. As a matter of fact we feel sure that the government has no intention of permitting such big stick methods.
Premier Ferguson gave an intimation to a recent delegation from the northern Ontario associated boards of trade that in the leasing of lands and water-powers, the people's interest had been fully safeguarded and that the big corporations must watch their steps and live up to conditions exacted at the time of such leases being granted and that he would see that they do it.
While we therefore fully agree with the committee's finding that nothing further can be gained by way of conferences with the Abitibi Electric Development Company, we do not at all agree with the conclusion arrived at that the only way out is the acceptance of the contract on the company's terms for a period of five years, without first having the case submitted to the government in a proper manner.
We have always maintained and still maintain that the abortive attempt to seek the government's intervention last summer was a farce pure and simple, and the people through their decision to vote down the by-law emphatically showed that they hold to this idea.
There is no intention whatever to show hostility against the power people in our continuing to advocate the introduction of the Hydro-Electric Power Commission into the dispute over the rates. The Abitibi people are well able to look after their interest in any presentation of their side to expert opinion, and on the other hand the Hydro-Electric Commission has no selfish interest in this case as they definitely refused some years ago to undertake the development of the water-powers in this district.

The old stock argument of comparing the rates which we are asked to consider as fair and reasonable with those paid by other municipalities along the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway is as fallacious as it is inapplicable.
In the first place, all the other towns in this district are at present moving heaven and earth to have the present rates reduced and are practically at the end of their patience and are preparing to take steps to press for government intervention.
Secondly, the position of Cochrane is far stronger to call for government intervention than any of the other municipalities along the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario. As far back as 1910 the government, through the then Minister of Lands and Forests, gave us the solemn assurance that the town of Cochrane would be fully protected if ever any of the surrounding water-powers would be leased to private corporations in the event of the HydroElectric Commission not taking up the development here. This was at a time when Iroquois falls was not even thought of, the advertising for tenders for that pulp concession appearing subsequent to the promise of the government to see the town fully protected with regard to future development around here.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The hour for
private bills having been exhausted, the House will now revert to government orders.


Ewen Alexander McPherson: I trust I shall be
allowed to conclude my remarks when this bill comes before the House again.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Public Works-Nova Scotia Digby-Public building-general repairs and improvements	$ 1,200
Halifax - Bellevue building 

 repairs
and improvements	 4,000
Halifax-Immigration building-payment to Department of Railways and
Canals for accomodation	 25,000
Halifax-Quarantine	station-repairs
and improvements	 5,800
Halifax-Rockhead	hospital-repairs
and improvements	 2,000
Hugh Guthrie: We want some explanation about this matter. The largest item in this estimate is immigration buildings at Halifax, $25,000. I fancy it is a revote. The same amount was in last year's estimates. Has the work been started?


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works):: It is an annual rental.


Hugh Guthrie: Paid for the building? Mr. ELLIOTT:	Yes.


Mr. ERNST:: In the supplementary estimates for the last fiscal year there was an

MARCH S, 1927	101o
Supply-Public Works-Nova Scotia
appropriation of $10,000 for a post office at Mahone bay. I should like to know why it has been dropped from the main estimates for this year?


John Campbell Elliott: The intention was that
none of the items in the supplementary estimates which were (being revoted) eni bloc would be included in the main estimates. Such portions as might be required and could properly be expended before March 31st would be expended, and it would be a question for consideration in future supplementary estimates.


William Gordon Ernst: The answer of the hon. member is hardly convincing, because the next item, 133, which reads "Kensington public building, $12,000," was voted in the supplementaries which were recently passed and is being revoted in the main estimates.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, that is quite true.
The Board of Audit thought at the outset that it might be possible to select certain items that were most urgent, but after a few items were passed it was decided that the supplementary estimates should be voted en bloc and they are all now voted. Instructions were given, as I recollect, by the Board of Audit that nothing in the supplementaries should be put into the main estimates, but that they should all' be voted together, but apparently those that had been prepared for the main estimates-a few items, not very many-were inserted.


William Gordon Ernst: Will the minister give me
the assurance that the $10,000 voted in the supplementaries for Mahone bay will be revoted?


John Campbell Elliott: That is a question for the House later on.


William Gordon Ernst: If it was necessary in the
supplementaries last year it ought to be just as necessary in the coming year.


John Campbell Elliott: That would sound reasonable.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Can the minister justify
having $12,000 in the main estimates for Kensington public buildings this year and leaving out the item for Mahone bay which was in the supplementaries last year? Surely Mahone bay is a more important place than Kensington. It has four times the population, four times the revenue and more than four times the need. Does it not come down to this; that Mahone bay did not vote right and Kensington did?


William Gordon Ernst: I think Mahone bay did
vote right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Prince Edward Island-Kensington-public building $12,000.
Hugh Guthrie: Has this work been
started?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Hugh Guthrie: Has the site been purchased?


John Campbell Elliott: No. Negotiations are
under way, I understand.


Hugh Guthrie: This is one outlay that I do not think is justifiable from any point of view, and in order to take the opinion of the committee on the matter, I am going to move that this item be reduced by $11,999.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: I thank the leader of the opposition for his courtesy and am perfectly willing to take the opinion of this House to-night on this vote. The town has offered to contribute a site, and, as the minister has said, negotiations are in progress. The engineer in charge at Charlottetown has been authorized to look over the site, and preparations are well under way for the calling of tenders for the building. The surrounding' country is just as large as when this vote went through the other night, and the people there are still just as desirous of having this building. I feel sure that my good friend the leader of the Opposition is merely treating us to a little amusement in moving for a reduction of the vote, and that he will be one of the first to support the item.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member said that the town was donating a site for the building. Could he not have found a constituent willing to sell the government a site?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: No, they are all so anxious to have the public building there that they are willing to contribute a suitable site.


Hugh Guthrie: What is the population of Kensington?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Between 500 and 600.


William Gordon Ernst: Will the hon. member kindly tell the committee the annual gross revenue derived from this post office?


John Campbell Elliott: To be exact, it is $3,135.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: A little over
Mahone bay.


William Gordon Ernst: No, a little under. I Ipoked it up.


The CHAIRMAN:: Mr. Guthrie moves that this vote of $12,000 be reduced by $11,999.
1016	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Nova Scotia


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Chairman, I am going to say one word further. This is a little place down in Prince Edward Island with a population of between five and six hundred and yields a gross postal revenue of about $3,000, out of which all the expenses of the post office have to be paid. In my judgment this is an unjustifiable expenditure of public money. In the budget debate recently I pointed out that if the Minister of Finance would sit down with a blue pencil he could save this country millions and millions of dollars by crossing out items of this kind almost on every page of the estimates. I have nothing against the village of Kensington, but I protest against the expenditure of public money in this way. It is not called for, it is not essential. We have thousands of objects in this country upon which the $12,000 could be profitably spent at the present time. My object in moving this motion is to protest against the government's course, and I ask the committee to support my action.


William Gordon Ernst: I would suggest to the Minis. ter of Public Works that as this item has crept into the main estimates 'by mistake, and there are several others of a similar character which have not been so fortunate, if he wishes to be consistent he should withdraw it until the others are revoted.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: No, Mr. Chairman, I positively object to that. We took this matter up with the department in the proper way, and if my friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) has been negligent in regard to certain items in which his constituency is interested being included in the main estimates, that is no reason for withdrawing this particular vote. I want to tell the committee right here and now that this vote is going through. The site has been acquired, the eng'neer in charge has looked over itfae ground, plans have been prepared, and the work is proceeding. I am confident that hon. gentlemen qpposite will not think of supporting my hon. friend's motion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is the member correct in stating that this work is being proceeded with before the money is voted?


John Campbell Elliott: My information is that no work has been commenced and no expenditure made. There has been some preliminary investigation of the site, that is all. I might state to my hon. friend (Mr. Ernst) who is so greatly concerned about Mahone bay, and very properly so, that this is one of the items that appeared in the supplementary estimates of last year. It was submitted to the House by the government of which I was a member,
fThe Chairman.]
and it was also submitted by the government that succeeded us, of which some of my hon. friends opposite were members. It seems to me that when the time comes we might very well consider whether or not the supplementary estimates to which both parties were committed should not be adhered to. However, that is a matter for subsequent consideration. The item of Mahone bay, I may inform my hon. friend, is now voted.


Mr. LUCAS:: How it is that some of the supplementary estimates have been included in the main estimates while others have been left out?


John Campbell Elliott: In making out the main estimates the intention first was that as a great deal of the supplementary votos could not be expended before the 31st of March, when they would expire, it might be as well to put into the main estimates everything of an urgent character that had hitherto been included in the supplementaries. That course was adhered to for the first half year I think. Then it was decided otherwise and instructions were given to discontinue this course. I do not want to lay any blame on any one because the instructions were given when I was present, but. apparently those instructions were not fully observed. Only a few items have crept in.


William Thomas Lucas: The minister's explanation
does not altogether satisfy me because I find that a number of the supplementary estimates are now in the main estimates, while other supplementary items have been left out.


William Gordon Ernst: That is just the situation.


William Thomas Lucas: Urgency does not appear to have been the sole consideration for including some of these supplementaries in the main estimates. One item that I refer to is in connection with a town where much more revenue is derived from the post office and the customs house than from some of the other places which have been fortunate enough to have their votes ieft in the main estimates. I agree with the hon. leader of the opposition that every Canadian is looking to the government to cut down expenditure.


John Campbell Elliott: Hear, hear.


William Thomas Lucas: If the government will
adhere to a definite policy of cutting down expenditure, I am quite willing to withdraw any applications that I am making for expenditures in my constituency.
But if it is going to be a matter of expenditures here and there for certain individuals who may belong to a particular party,

Supply-Public Works

Nova Scotia
then it is a case of everyone getting into the scramble as much as they possibly can. During the first four years I was down here I did -not make any effort to secure a post office for my constituents for the simple reason that we were all criticising the different governments for the huge expenditures contracted during the war and saying that we should get away from that sort of thing. But last year there seemed to be a disposition to loiosen up a little, and I made representations to the government for a post office in the town of Camrose. My request was met and an amount of $15,000 was placed in the supplementary estimates. We all know what happened during what has often been referred to as the hectic days of last session. Those supplementary estimates were not passed; but they were presented to the House at the beginning of this session and they were then all passed. I took it for granted that when the item of $15,000 for a post office at Camrose was included in that first vote the government would have treated it as fairly as the other items in those supplementary estimates. But much to my surprise, when the main estimates were brought down, although there were only two items in the supplementary estimates for Alberta, one is left and mine is cut out. This item of $12,000 of the bon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) is for a post office in a small village with only 500 of a population and only $3,000 of a revenue from that post office. The town of Camrose has a post office with a revenue of more than $16,500, and a subcustoms office with a revenue of more than $50,000 annually. We are renting two buildings in that town. The government owns a lot there and yet the vote for that post office has been thrown out, although we are going to expend money on a post office from which the revenue is less than one-fifth of that from the post office in the town of Camrose. I hope this has been an oversight, and the minister can assure me that when the supplementary estimates are brought down this year, this item will be included in time to take care of the post office at Camrose. The minister knows the town, and I think the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) will bear me out when I say that there is not a finer or more flourishing town in the whole province of Alberta and not a town which the citizens take a greater interest in developing and beautifying. It is a town with railways radiating out in eight different directions and with a large number of rural routes emanating from it. Outside of Calgary and Edmonton, it has the fourth largest revenue of the towns in Alberta. I feel sure that when this item was included
in the estimates last year the government must have given it careful consideration, and I hate to think they cut it out for any ulterior motive. I hope the minister can assure me that when the supplementary estimates are brought down he will comply with my request.


Hugh Guthrie: It is very interesting to
hear about other post offices, but this is a concrete case which brings up the policy of the government in regard to these matters. We have the facts; there is no dispute. This is a little hamlet with a population of five or six hundred where there is a gross post office revenue of about $3,000 or, I suppose, about one-half that amount net. Is it the policy of the government to expend $12,000 of the taxes of the people of this country in establishing for political purposes a post office iu that riding? That is the question before the committee at this moment. The hon. member for Prince says in the most emphatic manner that this committee will pass this item and now he nods his head. What arrangement he has with the government I know not, but it looks as though he had a fast and binding arrangement of some kind.
Let me ask the Minister of Public Works how he can justify this expenditure. Is this the policy he is going to pursue throughout Canada? Does he think it right to collect and expend the taxpayers' money in this way at a time when, if we believe the Minister of Finance-and we must believe him-every dollar we can collect is necessary to meet out obligations this year, and in fact we shall have to go out and borrow money to do so. .Nevertheless without a pretence of excuse as regards public expenditure and the convenience of the people, the minister says; I want the -committee to vote $12,000 to erect a public building in the constituency of Prince, not in a village, but in a hamlet. I protest that that is a wrongful expenditure, I do not care in whose riding it is. Ontario is full of hamlets larger than Kensington, and with greater revenues; so is the west, and I protest against spending the public money in these -places. If we had -a treasury that was full and overflowing; if we had no Obligations maturing, different considerations might arise. But at the present moment it is improper to spend this money under these conditions. I protest as vigorously as I can, and I desire to have the sense of the committee taken on this question.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I am rather
surprised at the insinuations that have been thrown out by my hon. friend as regards the town of Kensington, which happens to be in
1018	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Nova Scotia
the county which I have the honour to represent. I wish to say emphatically that this is not given as a bribe to the people of that good county or to the town of Kensington, for their votes, because the people there are too intelligent to be bribed and they will vote as they please, irrespective of post offices or anything else.


An hon. MEMBER:: Then the hon. member does not need this.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: The hon. member is right. There is no need of it for that purpose. The hon. member for Camrose stated that the government at the present time is renting a public building or two public buildings there for post office purposes. In the town of Kensington we had a disastrous fire which wiped out pretty nearly all the business portion including the Bank of Nova Scotia and I think the Canadian Bank of Commerce, and the town was practically depleted of buildings. This post office is in the outskirts of the town in a house where it has been for the last forty years. The town has been rebuilt very rapidly ; it is growing fast. It is in the best agricultural section of the province and a large number of farmers are retiring and moving into it. As I pointed out, a large surrounding country is served by six or seven rural routes from that post office. At the present time the accommodations are not satisfactory; they are not what the town deserves; they are not what the surrounding country deserves, and this is being asked for only as a matter of justice to the town. I emphatically resent the reflections that have been cast upon the town of Kensington when it is said that this is done for political purposes. I again appeal to the committee to support the item and, in doing so, members will be doing justice not only to the town of Kensington, but to the surrounding country which is obliged to use that post office, and to the rural districts that are served from it. This vote was passed at a former session. It was in the supplementary estimates which were passed last year. The work was not proceeded with, and the item was passed again at the beginning of this session. I asked to have the item again inserted in the main estimates, because I knew that the building could not be completed before the 31st of March, when the-other vote would lapse. I cannot see any reason in the world now why the House should attempt to cut out this item after it has gone so far. My hon. friends should have taken objection to this amount last year or in

the early part of this session; I submit it is now too late in the day to cut down this item.


Mr. SHORT:: I would suggest to the minister that since no site has yet been purchased in Kensington, there are a number of sites available in towns in my constituency upon which buildings might be erected. In the town of Bridgetown in my constituency a site was purchased for a post office, just before the election of 1925, but apparently the electors did not vote right and nothing has been done. I would suggest that this $12,000 be used on the site already owned in that town.


Archibald M. Carmichael: I recall that when the supplementary estimates were before the House there was some discussion on this same item, and I recall that the member for that constituency then admitted that $12,000 was too much money. He was honest with the House and he made that admission, which I find recorded in Hansard as follows.


John Frederick Johnston: Order. I am sorry, but it is not permissible to read from or refer to a debate which took place during this session.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Very well; I will not quote the words but will just refer to them generally. The hon. member made it quite plain that $12,000 was too much money for the requirements of Kensington. The sum of $12,000 did look to me like a rather large expenditure for a village of some 500 people, and the member for that constituency admitted that they were not seriously going to ask for that amount, but that they wanted enough to erect a suitable building there. That was the sum and substance of his remarks. Possibly the amendment of the leader of the opposition would not leave quite enough to put up a building which would suit the people, because the amount remaining would be only one dollar, but I would appeal to the minister to reduce this item by one-half at least, and possibly a little more. If it were reduced in that way it would leave plenty of money to erect a building suitable to the needs of that village of five hundred. The hon. member said there was a good country around that village, but you can drop into every town and village of this Dominion and find a fairly good country around it. I have a number of villages and towns in my own constituency around which there is magnificent country; there is one town with a population of 1,000 with the post office in an old shack of a building. I guess the people do not vote right; I am afraid after all that this is

Supply-Public Works-Nova Scotia
the real reason for this $12,000 expenditure, and I agree with the leader of the opposition that it is time to call a halt to this sort of political expenditure. We talk here about reducing our expenditures and taking care of our national debt and curtailing unnecessary outlays, yet we drift along regardless. This is just one small example of how thousands of dollars are squandered unnecessarily. I will certainly support the amendment, but I would like to see a compromise agreed upon reducing the estimate by about one-half. By so doing we would thoroughly satisfy the hon. member for that constituency in view of what he really asked the House to do earlier this session.


Mr. PRICE:: It is not my desire to throw any cold water on an estimate for post offices or public works in the maritime provinces, because I believe the Dominion of Canada owes to the maritimes millions of dollars. But speaking of post offices I wish to say that in my constituency there is a post office which turns into the treasury of Canada a net revenue of $377,000 per annum. I refer to the city of Moncton, which has a population of about 20,000 or 21,000. In spite of the fact that that post office turns in a larger net revenue than any other city or constituency of the same size in Canada, we have not been able to get a new building. We have been endeavouring for some time to secure a new post office there, and the government have purchased a very fine property assessed by the city iat $32,200. This property was purchased by the government for $49,000, [DOT] but the tenant who previously owned the property was permitted to occupy the premises for $40 per month up until January 1. I think any city or constituency whose poet office turns in such a large net revenue is entitled to consideration in so far as public buildings and post offices are concerned. I would like to see something done in that city, where the net return is more than double the expenditure on public works this year for the whole province of New Brunswick. I would draw the attention of the Minister of Public Works and the Postmaster General to these facts and ask them to consider seriously doing justice to the constituency which I represent.


Mr. BIRD:: I am not opposed to the expenditure of money on public buildings, on principle; I think there has been altogether too little money spent in that way in recent years, and only the exigencies of post-war financing can excuse the Dominion government for its neglect of the public buildings in our small towns. The other day I was
reading an account by an immigrant of his journey to his home in Alberta, in which he described the towns through which he passed as conglomerations of small wooden 'huts. I think there is something wrong when, after all these years of our prosperity, our prairie towns are deficient in substantial buildings. In my own town of Swan River we have a population of about 900 and our post office does a business amounting to probably $4,000 or $5,000 yearly. Yet for all these years the Dominion government has been carrying on its. business in a building on one of our main thoroughfares Which can only be described as a Shack. Around that building we have other structures Which are quite substantial; we have two bank buildings which are a credit to the town, and our provincial government has built for. its telephone service, right next to the Dominion government post office, a building which puts the Dominion building quite in the shade.
I am not finding fault with the government for not proceeding with the construction of a new building. I realize the circumstances that have been prevalent for a number of years, but I want to say it is rather hard on those of us who are not attached to the predominant party. In the last election my opponent managed to take quite a.few votes from me because he was able to promise a new post office. The then Postmaster General during the election visited my home town. I do not know what he said to my opponent but after he had left my opponent immediately gave it out that a new post * office was to foe fouilt in the town. Not being in the confidence of a predominant party I was not in a similar position to make a promise. I mention this because I think there is a good deal of insincerity in the amendment that has been moved. I mean that this is not a thing that is characteristic merely of the party in power. It was also characteristic of the party that wished to be in power. However, if I thought the Minister of Public Works had any consistent policy in regard to public buildings I should be most willing to give him my support. I think that such a policy might be possible -not a policy to favour constituencies that have been politically favourable, but a policy that would do justice to the status of the Dominion government in hundreds of our small towns throughout Canada. After all it might be a very good business proposition for the government to erect a public building in some of our small towns. For instance, the department in my town pays no less than about $800 a year for the use of three small rooms in which to transact their forestry
JO-20	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works

Nova Scotia
business. It seems to me that a modest building, not a very big one, which would house not only the Forestry branch but also the post office branch, would be a business investment. I do not think that if it was wisely planned it could possibly be a loss to the Dominion government. But that is only one side of the situation. The side that appeals to me most is this:	that when we have
public buildings of a substantial character or of a more or less architectural success it lends an air of stability to any community in which they are placed, and that is one thing we lack sadly in the west. Surely the Dominion government, as times go on and its finances begin to look up, will enter earnestly into a policy of providing in our small communities some symbol -of its own existence which people may look to and respect, and after all that is a good deal. Our Dominion government is a remote thing to most of our communities and some suitable public building in which its own business is transacted would I am sure-especially in a good many western communities where the Dominion government is a far-away, vague and remote thing-have the effect of begetting in the minds of the people, the young people, of those communities a new sense of respect and attachment to the central authority. I do not think we always ought to consider the material aspect and the political aspect of questions; we should consider the patriotic, the national aspect also. I have noticed that it is possible for a few thousand dollars nowadays to construct public buildings which when completed have a certain architectural appeal. Only recently in our town a certain dairy company built a dairy. Now you.would think that a modern dairy company in placing a building in a town in which to carry on its business would not have any idea but that of utility. This company, however, came into our small town and built a structure which from the architectural point of view is all that could be desired. And yet our Dominion government is carrying on its business in the same town in a building which cannot be characterized as anything but a shack. I cannot find it in my heart to support the amendment, because of my experience in the election when the then Postmaster General came into my community and apparently gave my opponent to understand that if he were returned the community would get a fine postal building. That makes me disposed not to accept this amendment seriously. Moreover I do not know the needs of the community for which my hon. friend speaks. But if they compare at all with some of the western communities

where the public building is so very poor, I have a great deal of sympathy for them. As to the building in this case I hope it is not political like the one that was to go up in my own town.


Robert James Manion: I should like to ask the hon. gentleman a question. If I understood him aright he said that I had promised a public building in his town if his opponent was elected.


Thomas William Bird: I never said the hon. gentleman promised a public building. I have more regard for the hon. gentleman's common sense than to think he would come into a community during election time and promisp offhand a public building, but I do say that after my hon. friend's visit my opponent did give it out that if he were returned, there would be a public building erected in my town. There were quite a number of other matters I have not thought worth while to bring up on the floor of the House because it has not been my custom to air election matters in that way. I only mentioned this because I thought it was an opportune occasion to do so.


Robert James Manion: I should just like to say that I am not responsible for statements the hon. gentleman's opponent may have made. I understood the hon. gentleman to say that I had promised a public building if his opponent was elected. I wish to state that I promised no public building in any place in this Dominion. Furthermore, although I was * not going to take any part in this debate at all but simply vote with the leader of the opposition, I wish to say that I am entirely in accord with the leader of the opposition in this matter and I will tell you why: not only have all these sites been long in existence that have been mentioned here to-night, but there are sites all over this Dominion of Canada that were bought long ago for the purpose of putting up public buildings. For example, right in the constituency of the Minister of Labour, in the town of Fort Frances-which has a population not of five hundred people as in the case of this little village; but of 3,600 to 4,500; I do not know the exact figure-a site was bought before the war, and it is there still with not a public building in the whole town put up by any Dominion government. They were using a little ramshackle building until recently, when they rented other public offices. Fort Frances is one of the most prosperous little towns in all Ontario, a very fine little industrial centre. It has been trying since 1911 to get justice in the matter of a public building, but it

Supply-Public Works-Nova Scotia
receives no consideration, at all, While a little village in Prince Edward Island gets $12,000 for a public building, which is more than was asked for. I took the attitude in the town of Fort Frances in the last election-I had the courage to do that-that no public buildings should be constructed until our taxation had been lessened and financial conditions improved, but that when a start was made, Fort Frances should get as early consideration as any other town. I believe that is the right policy to-day, and certainly if buildings are to be constructed Fort Frances should receive earlier consideration than this little village of five hundred people. In addition, Fort Frances already has the site. I have visited my good friend the deputy minister on different occasions in regard to Fort Frances and a number of other places that deserve a public building, and he informs me that there are some eighty or ninety places in the Dominion Where sites have been bought for public buildings away back in the past, around 1910 or 1911, but where no buildings have been put up-I may not have given the exact number, but the minister will correct me if I am wrong. Under these circumstances, a vote such as this certainly should not pass the House.


Mr. ARTHURS:: It appears to me that
the question before us to-night is not whether there should be a post office building at Kensington, but rather a question of policy as * to whether post office buildings should be constructed at all at this time, and if they are built, where are they the most urgently required. In other words, should these plums be handed around as political favours? The vote to-night will apparently decide whether or not the government is to go ion with a program of simply placing these buildings wherever they choose for political purposes, or whether they intend to use the various votes that may pass the House for the benefit of the country at large.
I have no particular axe to grind. If I had, I could give instances probably much stronger than any that have been given to-night. I might mention my own town, for instance, where the post office revenue has averaged over $20,000 a year and where the customs revenue has averaged about $500,000 annually for many years, where there is also an Indian department under my genial friend the Minister of the Interior, and all of them occupying rented buildings. The government owns a site there, and there was a vote in the estimates year after year a long time before the war, but when the war came we were willing to stand back, and we are yet, providing that
no such case arises as this building that is proposed to be constructed at Kensington in Prince Edward Island. We do not believe, no sane man believes, that these towns that stood back during the war on account of war conditions should be left in the background while buildings are constructed in other places for political purposes, and for no other purpose in the world. There is no question about that, and nobody knows it better than the Minister of Public Works himself. This is purely and simply a political vote. It has no other purpose, because otherwise every similar town throughout Canada should receive exactly the same treatment.


Mr. PETTIT:: I quite agree that there
should be ia well settled policy on the part of the government in regard to the construction of public buildings. I would remind the House that in the county of Welland there is the town of Thorold with a population of 5,500, the post office is only a frame building 15 feet wide by 65 feet long, and the space for the public is only 15 feet long by 7 feet wide. Thorold has a net postal revenue of $15,000. Moreover, it is a customs port with an income of $500,000. They have been looking for a post office building in that town for a long time, but as yet there is no sign of their getting one. I would remind the government, which I think should have a well settled policy in the matter of construction of public buildings, that Thorold is better entitled to receive a public building than a number of these other places for which buildings are being asked.


Mr. VARIANCE:: The hon. member for
Kindersley said he thought the reason why his town of one thousand population was not getting a post office was because they did not vote right. If that is any reason why they should not get one, I would like to state right here on behalf of the town of Wilkie that as far back as 1913, when hon. gentlemen, opposite were on the treasury benches, a sate for a public building was secured costing some $3,200, and I have been pressing the Minister of Public Works for the last two years to put up a building there. I need not tell the minister that in the constituency of South Battle-ford and in and around Wilkie the people do vote right, and if my hon. friend from Kindersley is right in his reasoning, then I claim that we ought to have a public building because we did vote right.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I am very much interested in hearing the minister's reply to the questions put to him by my leader. Upon what underlying principle of public expendi-
1022	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Nova Scotia
ture does he justify this vote, and in the second place, why was Kensington selected in preference to many other localities which have much stronger claims for a public building?


John Campbell Elliott: In answer to my hon.
friend and other hon. gentlemen who have asked questions, I quite agree with a great many hon. gentlemen who have made claims for buildings in their respective ridings. The hon. member for Fort William was not very much above the mark when he said that there are sites now awaiting buildings in a large number of constituencies. There are not quite so many as my hon. friend said, but he was not far above' the mark. The policy of the government is, and has been for a number of years, only to construct public buildings where the demand was urgent, and where there was no other accommodation that was reasonably satisfactory for the purpose, and even in these cases only to construct public buildings at an expenditure that would be reasonably commensurate with the saving that would be made in the way of rentals and otherwise to the government.
When hon. gentlemen speak about $12,000 being a large amount for a public building, may I cal attention to the fact that the hon. member for Kindersley, who mentioned about half that amount, was much nearer the mark than those who mentioned $12,000 as being the expenditure in this particular case. The proposed expenditure of $12,000 includes $500 for a site. All that is being expended for the building is $8,000, and the fittings for the post office will cost $1,800.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The member for Prince said the site was donated. Where does the minister get the $500 for it?


John Campbell Elliott: If a site suitable to the
postal authorities is eventually given, then the $500 will be saved. This is just an estimate of how the $12,000 is made up-site, $500; building, $8,000, and fittings $1,800. The fittings have to be furnished whether we rent the building or not. Then there are the gradings, sidewalks and so on. I think upon reflection the leader of the opposition will be one of the first hon. members in this House to agree that this is a very moderate expenditure, and that it is quite consistent with the practice of economy. In the whole of Prince Edward Island the total expenditure for public buildings is that item of $12,000, and only $8,000 of it is for the building. I quite agree that we must economise in public buildings.


Hugh Guthrie: Start here.


John Campbell Elliott: There are different places
where we require to have accommodation, and I quite agree with my hon. friend that there is a great variance in the kind of accommodation that the postal services in this country have at the present time. But as hon. members all know, since before the war very little has been expended on public buildings. I think we have kept well within the limit when in the whole of Prince Edward Island, we are expending only $8,000 on buildings and the remainder on post office fittings. These, as I say would have to be put into a building if one were rented, and we are onlj building because of the urgency of the demanc and the necessity for giving some reasonabb decent accommodation to the people there.


James Arthurs: The member for the
constituency has stated that the post office has been in its present situation for forty years, and no change has been made.


Mr. SPENCER:: I quite agree with what
has been said by some hon. members on this side of the House in regard to the uncalled for expenditure -made out of the public treasury from time to time. This expenditure might probably be laid at the door of both governments in past years, and I am not going to criticise one any more than the other. In a return I had furnished me on February 23 I find that in the year 1913 there were no less than forty-five post office sites purchased in Canada. I got the return because I found there were several post office sites that had been paid for by the government of Canada, but no buildings had been placed1 on them. I have in mind two sites particularly, one in the town of Vermilion, where the price paid for the site was $10,000, and the property to-day is not worth $200. The revenue being derived for the Dominion^ government is $10 a year. The price paid for the Calgary post office site was $312,465. To-day there is a hole in the ground, an unsightly place, and no buildings on it. I do not think the government is justified in running into large expenditures on sites if they do not intend to erect buildings on them. That site was purchased in 1913. With regard to the item before the House, I think if the revenue from that post office is only $3,100 and the population 500, it is a particular favour to that town in comparison to many of the other towns throughout Canada which have bigger populations and much bigger revenues. I think, however, the amendment moved by the hon. leader of the opposition is too drastic. For a small place of that sort we might put up a post office in keeping with the revenues received. The amount proposed to be voted

Supply-Public Works-Nova Scotia
is somewhat large, but the amendment makes it absolutely impossible to put any post office there at all.


Hugh Guthrie: That was precisely my
object in moving my amendment. I appeal to every hon. member in this House, is there any justification in the present state of the finances of the country to spend $12,000 of the people's money on a post office in this little hamlet of five hundred people? I submit there is not. When people set out to find excuses for a particular line of action they usually succeed in raking up something.
I am not talking of the records of former governments or of pre-war conditions, or of sites purchased ten, fifteen or twenty years ago. We are confronted with a concrete case. The government proposes unnecessarily to expend $12,000 of the people's money. What is their justification? Can we put our hands into the treasury and take out $12,000 worth of taxes and expend it here, there and everywhere throughout Canada. You have only to state the case to see its absurdity. I am asking hon. members of this committee and the House to stand upon some principle in this matter. I appeal to the minister to state the policy of the government. He discloses no policy whatever; he ignores the whole thing. There is no justification for this expenditure. This little hamlet may be the most beautiful place in Canada, but that is no justification for spending $12,000 of the taxes of the people of this country. I will protest and I will divide the committee on it, if it goes to a vote, and when concurrence is reached I will divide the House and take their opinion on it.


Mr. BRADY:: As the hon. Minister of
Public Works at the outset stated that he was not very sure that the money voted in the supplementary estimates which were passed by the House would be utilized, I am naturally interested to find out what will be the conditions ijn. the district I represent. I find in the supplementary estimates there were items to the extent of $62,200. In the main estimates these items are eliminated, and the only items I notice in my district are two very small amounts, one of $2,300 and one of $1,300. I am rather more surprised than I can express at this omission, and I feel that something is wrong. If these items comprising $62,000 were considered essential last year, surely they are essential this year. The minister said a few moments ago that only urgent works had been included in the sup-plementaries. I am quite sure that the same considerations should govern the inclusion of these items in the main estimates. If I am
in error, perhaps the minister will advise me whether these items will be included in the main estimates.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: I think the object of this amendment is to prove that the party which our hon. friend leads is the party of economy. I would direct the attention of the House to the fact that some years ago the party which he to-day leads, but which at that time he opposed, purchased in the city wffiich I represent two vacant lots from their Conservative friends for $22,000, and today they are not worth a thousand dollars. That, to my mind, is not economy.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is bad policy.


John Gordon Ross: You certainly
put that policy into effect when you return the Conservatives to power. I do not think the expenditure involved in this item is too high, especially when it is borne in mind that it is the only vote for the whole province of Prince Edward Island, and I agree that a proper post office building should be erected in the constituency of my hon. friend.
Amendment negatived; Yeas 61; Nays 84.


William Gordon Ernst: Before the vote is declared carried, Mr. Chairman, I want again to ask the Minister of Public Works if he is prepared to make a statement in regard to expenditure at Mahone bay. Will he reinstate the item in question that appeared in the supplementary estimates last year?


Mr. GARDINER:: Mr. Chairman, when
the supplementary estimates were before the House during the first part of the session I called attention to the fact that there seemed to be no policy behind the voting of money for the erection of public buildings, particularly post offices. I then pointed out that at certain points where the postal revenue was only two or three thousand dollars, $15,000, $20,000 and $25,000 were being expended on new buildings, while at other points where the postal revenue ranged from $12,000 to $16,000 the expenditure ran only from $8,000 to $12,000. I urged at the time that the Post Office Department should have some regard to the postal revenue when making expenditure on new buildings.
I voted against the amendment to reduce this particular item because of the fact that it looked to me very much like a political amendment, and I do not believe in voting for such amendments. On the other hand, I think an item of $12,000 for the erection of a new .post office in a village yielding a gross postal revenue of only $3,125 is just as political as the amendment.
1024	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Nova Scotia


Robert James Manion: Why does my hon. friend say it is a political amendment?


Robert Gardiner: It appears to me to be a political amendment. The minister's explanation of the omission of items in the supplementary estimates from the main estimates has not satisfied me at all.


William Gordon Ernst: Nor me.


Robert Gardiner: Nor do I think it satisfied any other member of this committee. We should have a better explanation before this item goes through as to why after this House has once passed certain estimates they should be discriminated against by being left out of the main estimates. If the minister has any reasonable explanation to offer I shall be glad to hear it. I think the committee should demand a satisfactory explanation because we, as the representatives of the people, should see to it that public money is properly spent. I do not think we are warranted in spending $12,000 on a post office at Kensington when the gross annual income is only $3,125, and therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move:
That this item be reduced to $8,000.
I think this would be a fair and reasonable amount under the circumstances.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend has moved an amendment that the item be not greater than $S,000. It has been known for years that in the matter of public buildings the usual vote is not less than $20,000 or $25,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Oh, no.


John Warwick King: That is proved and it will be found to be the case if my hon. friend will investigate. I know this from experience and inquiry. While it is veay necessary to have public buildings in the large centres, there are in Canada rural centres of population which should be considered, and during my term as Minister of Public Works I had plans devised whereby there could be built in small rural centres, post offices that would give the people there the accommodation required, and also show them that the Dominion government representing the people of this country were prepared to give consideration not only to the large centres of population, but to the rural centres.
I had an opportunity of having very careful investigations made, and of having had constructed two such buildings in small centres. I do not believe it will be possible to-day to erect for $8,000 a building of a permanent nature sufficient to carry on government business in a community such a0 we are

speaking of now. There will have to be a basement with a cement foundation, proper heating facilities, and the construction will be of either wood, brick or stone, it makes little difference which. Lighting facilites under modern conditions will have to be provided, because the day of the coal oil lamp is gone so far as public buildings are concerned. Post office fixtures, such as have been explained by the minister, will have to be provided. We know from experience in the department that a building suitable for small rural communities which I claim, in deference to the leader of the opposition, should be considered, and a building in keeping with, I hope, the views of members of this House and of the people of Canada, cannot be constructed for less than the amount mentioned.
How was it that Kensington happened ho be considered? One reason was because the minister from that constituency continuously represented that that communhy should have proper facilities in a moderate way. I also had an opportunity of visiting that constituency, and if some of my hon. friends opposite have not visited Prince Edward Island I would certainly advise them to go to that province, and there learn conditions at first hand. In no other part of Canada ha-ve we as large a rural population, situated in such a small area. As one goes through that small province, one passes through one centre after another. The surrounding district is practically all cultivated, and there are these little centres such as Kensington of which the hon. member for that constituency spoke. He explained that there had been a fire in that community and that the postal facilities were not convenient to the residents in the district. These matter's were laid before the departmental officials; inquiries were made, and it seemed fair that in the province of Prince Edward Island we should locate in at least one of these rural communities, a building that would stand for the postal and customs services of the Dominion of*Canada.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Was the post office burned in the fire?


John Warwick King: No. I understand that the post office was a rented building, as is the case in most of these small communities. In the rural centres of western Canada they have had the advantage of better rentals than are to be found in the smaller eastern towns. I had an opportunity of visiting the town of Bridgetown in the constituency of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short). It is a nice centre of population, larger than but similar to that of Ken-

Supply-Public Works-Nova Scotia
sinigton. I was met by the mayor and other prominent citizens wiho took me for a tour round the town. Finally they said: We would like to show you our public building; we are rather proud of it, and I was driven up in front of this public building. What did I find? A little wooden shack of about eight or ten by twelve, a disgrace to the public service of Canada.


Harry Bernard Short: That is a town of 1,300 inhabitants.


John Warwick King: Yes. I realize that that is a disgrace, and I believe that community should have a public building of a reasonable kind. I proceeded to purchase property, and I hope my hon. friend will. realize his hopes and wishes and the wishes of his people, because there should be a public building in that centre of population. But when the leader of the opposition undertakes to divide this committee on the question whether there should be public expenditures in these small rural communities, I differ with him.


An hon. MEMBER:: He did not say so.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There are about 100.000 people in Prince Edward Island; there are 2000,000 people in the west. Will the hon. member indicate what rural centres have been selected in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia for these buildings?


John Warwick King: I cannot say offhand. I know in the last few years there have been rural centres selected.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Not in this estimate.


John Warwick King: No. Public buildings have been placed in them. I know that, and my hon. friend will find it is true. These are the estimates for the coming year. As I said at first and say now, I regard this estimate of $12,000 for the town of Kensington, Prince Edward Island, as absolutely justified.


William Thomas Lucas: At the beginning of this discussion I asked the minister to explain why certain estimates had been left out that had been previously voted in this House in the supplementary estimates at the beginning of this session. Before we vote anything on these estimates, as the House has already passed the supplementary estimates, we should have some better explanation than the minister has given why some of the items have been left out.


John Campbell Elliott: I have no further explanation. I thought that the explanation that was given was reasonably clear, but I will repeat it for the benefit of my hon. friend. The 32649-65
supplementary estimates are all now voted and the vote stands until the thirty-first March. A great deal of that money cannot be expended before the thirty-first March, and of course the government will have to consider later what attitude will be taken with regard to revoting. If the Minister of Finance and the other members of the treasury board were here, they would bear me out in the explanation which I made. In commencing [DOT]to make up the main estimates, I think we started with Nova Scotia, and certain items that were in the supplementary estimates and that could not likely be reached until the end of this month, were inserted in the main estimates. But before they got along very far they decided that as the supplementary estimates had all been voted, and as there was a possibility that on account of both sides of the House having been committed to the supplementary estimates, they might be revoted en bloc, they should be left out of the main estimates. It was decided not to put into the main estimates anything that was in the supplementaries.


Robert Gardiner: Why was not that done in this particular case?


John Campbell Elliott: This was done before we
reached that decision.


Robert Gardiner: Then will the minister hold this item until we come to the supplementaries?


John Campbell Elliott: No; it has been passed by the treasury board.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Might I ask if
it is the intention of the government to vote the supplementaries that were passed en bloc.


John Campbell Elliott: That has not been decided by the government. I have certain views on the matter and I expressed those views privately this afternoon to the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas). I cannot say what will be done, however, because it has not been decided by the government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would like to have a
further declaration of policy by the government on this question of public buildings, and while I am on my feet I would like to corroborate the remarks of the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Price) in regard to the postal facilities in the city of Moncton. I suppose Moncton has the largest per capita postal revenue of any city in the maritime provinces and there is no doubt that the postal facilities are wholly inadequate to the present business being done there. Just previous to the election of 1925 the govern-

1026	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Nova Scotia
meat purchased an expensive but very good site, there was some difference of opinion as to where it should be, but the ex-Minister of Public Works (Mr. King, Kootenay) was always able to justify the selection which was made and with which I think he had something to do. The city of Moncton is paying into the treasury something over $300,000' in net revenue; the government have a fine site but they have not voted one dollar for the erection of a building. I think it is just as plain as the nose on your face that the city of Moncton voted wrong in 1925, according to the tenets of this government. Is 'Moncton to be punished' for having turned) down a political party? I do not think that is a good public policy, and I do not think the Prime Minister will agree to it. I can sympathize with my friend from Prince (Mr. MacLean) in his endeavour to get something for the rural communities and I can also sympathize with the ex-Minister of Public Works in the explanation he has made; most of those places never have a dollar of public money expended in them, although on the other hand it is fair to say that they produce very little postal revenue. But I think we should proceed on some propeT policy, and it should not be the policy that these works go by favour. I think we should have from the minister to-night a declaration of the intention of the government. I could point out to him a town in my own county which is the most important railway centre in New Brunswick next to Moncton itself. The revenue is large, and the post office is located in a shingled shack. It is on the main street and in a good location, but the accommodation is very poor. Some day we hope to have a post office in that town but I have not asked for it because I did not think it was of such pressing importance that we should request it at this stage. But for Moncton I can make that request with a clear conscience; the people there do require increased facilities, and the revenue produced and the business done demand it.


Peter John Veniot: Perhaps I may be permitted to add a word or two. The importance of a post office is not always judged by its revenue; in a great many cases it is judged by its location. If you take Kensington as an example you will find that it is the central point of distribution for five or six rural routes.


James Arthurs: And so are many other places.


Peter John Veniot: No, there are not many
such places.


James Arthurs: Yes there are.


Peter John Veniot: Pardon me; I am addressing the committee just now, and I think I know what I am talking about. Kensington, with a population of 500, would never produce a revenue Of $3,000 if it were not for the fact that it is the centre of distribution for rural mail routes some of which are twenty miles in length, and the same argument applies to the city of Moncton. Moncton is not a central distribution point, although I do not want to be understood as saying that Moncton should not have improved accommodation. I think the committee should know these facts, however. Previous to the establishment of the T. Eaton Company in Moncton, the revenue from that city only amounted to *$167,000; after the establishment of that company the revenues of that office increased to the amount mentioned, but it did not increase by ten per cent the number of employees necessary to carry on the work of the office. To-day the T. Eaton Company have no direct 'connection with the Moncton post office or postal service; the service given the T. Eaton Company and the service they give to the public is carried on in the T. Eaton Company building, in which the postal department has thirteen clerks looking after the work. But allow me also to say that Moncton is deserving of and should have better accommodation than it has to-day; whether or not the government can see its way clear (at present to grant an amount sufficient to build a post office there, an amount which would probably be in the vicinity Of $200,000 or $250,000, I am not in a position to say. But it is not right to state that owing to the tremendous increase in its revenue Moncton is entitled to or requires this additional accommodation. It is not on account of the increased revenue at all, because there was no part of the Moncton post office accommodation taken up by the work of the T. Eaton Company.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it not a fact that the T. Eaton Company was established there prior to 1925, and is it not also a fact that the government purchased an expensive site in that year?


Peter John Veniot: No one denies that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Conditions were the same when the government bought the site, so why not build the post office?


Peter John Veniot: A site was purchased in
1925 for $50,000, and the tenant is not in that building at present. He looked after it during the winter at a small rental and has now moved into other quarters. That site was
MARCH S, 1927	1027
Supply-Public Works-Nova Scotia
not purchased because of the increase in the revenues, better accommodation was necessary before the T. Eaton Company opened in that city, and that company to-day have taken up no part of the public building in the city of Moncton and they will not take up any part of any new building which may be erected, under the arrangements which have been made.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the Postmaster
General has correctly stated the facte. I was not dilating on the increase in revenue as a reason why a post office should be built, except to show that it was a large revenue-producing office. I quite agree with what the minister has said, but I do say that in 1925 the government came to the conclusion that Moncton should have a new post office. If we are to believe the Minister of Finance, the condition of the country has so improved that now the government Should fulfil the promise made to the people of thiat city.


Peter John Veniot: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question, which he may perhaps be able to answer. What about the various promises made by the hon. gentleman's own party when they were in power? They bought sites and left them without public buildings, as in 1913 they bought a site in the town of Truro for $14,000; there it is to-day, and nothing has been done to it. There was no necessity , for purchasing the site because the public building in Truro to-day has sufficient ground around it to provide for enlargement such as will meet the requirements for twenty years to come.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not know anything
about that.


Peter John Veniot: I do because I visited the
place not a month ago.


William Gordon Ernst: I want to go back to this
vote and the explanation of the minister as to how it came to be inserted in the main estimates. I understood him to say that in compiling the estimates concerning the province of Nova Scotia those supplementary estimates were included which had not been voted last session. In that way the vote of $12,000 for the Kensington public building was included in the main estimates. But I draw his attention to the fact that that explanation cannot possibly be correct because the vote of $10,000 for a post office at Mahone bay in my constituency, which is a necessary vote, has been omitted. In view of the fact that the Kensington vote appears in tlhe estimates I want to ask why the vote for Mahone bay was omitted and whether it will be inserted in the supplementary estimates.
32649-6SJ


William Duff: No, it will not.


William Gordon Ernst: The hon. member for
Antigonish-Guysborough apparently does not judge the people by their intelligence but by their ability to be purchased.


William Duff: I may say for the benefit of
the committee and the Minister of Public Wotfks that the people of Mahone 'bay instructed me to see that that money was not put in the supplementary estimates.


William Gordon Ernst: Will the hon. member for
Antigonish-Guysborough give me the names of the persons in Mahone bay who gave him that instruction?


William Duff: I should like to rise to a .point of order. The hon, member should address the Chair.


William Gordon Ernst: Will the hon. member for
Antigonish-Guysborough kindly tell me the names of the persons who so instructed him?
I challenge him to do so.
Amendment (Mr. Gardiner) negatived: Yeas, 62; Nays, 79.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the vote carry?
Mr. ERNiST:	No, Mr. Chairman. Before
it is carried I should like an answer from the Minister of Public Works. I may say that I represent the electors of the constituency of Queens-Lunenburg until the next general election.


William Duff: You have not got the patronage, I have got the patronage.


William Gordon Ernst: Will the hon. minister answer my question? I should like an answer to my question as to whether this item was inadvertently omitted and whether it will appear in the supplementary estimate.


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot undertake to say at this stage what will appear in the supplementary estimates.


Robert Gardiner: The hon. member for
Antigonish-Guysborough has just made the statement that he controls the patronage of a certain constituency, I think the Queens-Lunenburg constituency. Is it the policy of the government to permit that? Is there any truth in the statement that a member representing a certain constituency can control the patronage in another constituency? Is that correct? I think before we proceed any further we ought to have this matter cleared up.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Are we to understand
1028	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Nova Scotia
that estimates are prepared on the basis of how people vote? If that is the case we ought to know it now and it will largely determine our attitude in regard to other estimates. I know the plea is used at election time, but I sincerely hope that this government will not maintain that attitude with regard to public works and the expenditure of public money. If that is the basis on which estimates are made up, it is the worst form of patronage we could possibly have.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend can find an answer to his question on the very page of the estimates now under discussion. The vote which passed a little time ago, vote No. 132, does not contain a single item for a constituency represented by a Liberal. Vote No. 133, the one under discussion, is, if my memory of locations in the maritime provinces is correct, the one item in three votes which is in a constituency represented by a gentleman who sits on this side of the House.


Robert Gardiner: That is no answer to
the question I asked the minister. The hon. member who represents Antigonish-Guys-borough stated very emphatically that he controls the patronage in the constituency of Queens-Lunenburg. The reply which the Minister of Railways has given is no answer to the question.


Charles Avery Dunning: I was attempting to answer not my hon. friend's question but the question asked by his colleague the hon. member for Peace River, which related to an entirely different matter.


Robert Gardiner: I apologize for the mistake, but I still put my question. Is it correct that the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough controls the patronage in the constituency of Queens-Lunenburg?


John Campbell Elliott: If my hon. friend will go through these estimates he will realize the fact to which the Minister of Railways has just called attention, that they show a fair regard for the requirements of the particular place to which they relate, irrespective of what the representation of the constituency may be in this House. The reports of the engineers and the other officers as to the actual necessities-that is the test.


Robert Gardiner: I accept the explanation given by the minister so far as it goes, but it goes only a very short distance. I do not question at all that these estimates have been given very serious consideration,, and that in the opinion of the minister and the government as a whole the different provinces have been very fairly dealt with. But that does not answer the question I asked of tMr. Kennedy.]
of the minister:	Does he support the attitude of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough when he states that he controls the patronage of the constituency of Queens-Lunenburg-yes or no?


John Campbell Elliott: I think the estimates are the best answer.


Robert Gardiner: If the minister does
not care to 'answer, I will address my question to the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know that I caught the exact question of my hon. friend, but the purport of his remarks I think was as to whether the government in the matter of public buildings should be governed by party motives or public interest.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What was the question?


Robert Gardiner: During some crossquestioning between the hon. member for Antigondsh-Guysborough and the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough stated: "I control the patronage in the constituency of Lunenburg."


William Duff: I beg your pardon. I did not mention any constituency.


Robert Gardiner: It was intimated that
the hon. member controlled the patronage in the constituency. I asked the Minister of Public Works whether it was the policy of the government to allow one member representing one particular constituency to control patronage in another constituency. The Minister of Public Works has not thought it advisable to give a direct answer, and I therefore address the question to the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I imagine it
must have been the modesty of my colleague, not wishing to take too much credit to himself. The government controls the patrondge, and with respect to public works the govern-menit speaks through the Minister of Public Works.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Edmundston-public building, $2,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: What is that for?


John Campbell Elliott: This is required to complete the building erected during 1925, 1926 and 1927.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We have had a lot of
buildings erected at Edmundston. Is this for the post office or customs?

Georgian Bay Canal Company


John Campbell Elliott: The post office.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The post office building
was erected three or four years ago.


John Campbell Elliott: In 1925, 1926 and 1927.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What has been the total
cost of the Edmundston post office?


John Campbell Elliott: There has been so far
expended $71,255, and the amount required to complete it is $2,000, making a total of $73,255.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Henry Herbert Stevens: We have had a pretty
full day, and the government I think will agree that they have had no unfair opposition. It is now late, and I would suggest that the committee rise.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the
committee rises I would ask my hon. friend if he would have any objection to our calling one item in the Mines department, so that we can go into committee of supply on that department on Thursday, which otherwise we could not do except by unanimous consent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not think there is
any objection to that.
Mines and Geological Survey-for organization and equipment of the Explosives divisions, under the Explosives Act, Chap. 31, 4-5 George V, $10,000.


Charles A. Stewart: This is the
same as last year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11 p.m.
Wednesday, March 9, 1927