1927-02-15

ATHABASKA ELECTION


Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move:
That the interim and final reports respectively of the Hon. Mr. Justice Clarke, commissioner appointed to inquire into the alleged existence of corrupt or illegal practices in the election held in the electoral district of Athabaska, in the province of Alberta, on the 29th of October, 1925, which reports were laid on the table of the House on December 15, 1926, be referred to the select standing committee on privileges and elections.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: May I ask my hon. friend to explain what is the purpose of sending these reports to the privileges and elections committee?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Possibly, Mr. Speaker,
as this is a new parliament I had better give a few facts to the House regarding the petition, and at least one reason why these reports ought to be referred to that committee.
A petition was presented to this House in the early part of last session, on February 1st, I think, signed by A. C. Berry, of the electoral district of Athabaska, in the province of Alberta, alleging that illegal and corrupt practices had extensively prevailed in that election. The House received that petition, and a motion passed the House on March 18, 1926, for the appointment of a commissioner to conduct an investigation. On July 10th, the Hon. Mr. Justice Clarke, of Alberta, was appointed as commissioner, and he conducted the investigation, and made, as is stated in the motion, two reports to the government. In his interim report he stated that corrupt and illegal practices had extensively prevailed in that constituency. Further in that report he mentioned certain polls, a dozen or more I think, in which there was a tremendous amount of fraud committed such as stuffing
29S
Athabaska Election

ballot boxes, forging returns and other documents. He did not in his report make recommendations further than simply to present the findings of his investigation to the government and the House. It seems to me that one purpose at least-there may be others-is to examine the findings of Mr. Justice Clarke and to ascertain if it is not possible to provide ways and means whereby it will be impossible in the future to conduct elections in Canada in that manner.


Mr. D. F. KELLNER (Athabaska):: Mr. Speaker, before this motion is carried there are a few things that I would like to say regarding the motion to refer this petition to the committee on privileges and elections. While the commissioner 'held an extensive investigation and made a report, there are several things in connection with it which he did not deal with at all and which in fact he had no power to deal with. The report will show that a large number of individuals were guilty of corruption, illegal practices and such like. A certificate of indemnity was given to election officials covering the charge of forging ballots, putting their names on ballots which they were not so authorized to initial, and offences of that kind, but the commissioner did not deal and had no power to deal with a large number of other offences. For instance, the report will show that some of them were guilty of forgery, that is, that they had forged cheques which had been sent out to pay the expenses of election officials and had cashed those cheques and obtained the money. The report will also show that some of them were guilty of perjury; that they gave false evidence when called before the commission. Surely no one will argue that the commissioner had any authority to grant certificates of indemnity covering those cases, but the result is that those people have not been punished to date, and so far as I know no notice has been taken of the matter.


Mr. STEVENS:: I did not quite catch
what the hon. member said. Do I understand that these parties to whom he refers are in the government service?


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Some of them are and
I will deal with that in a minute if my hon. friend will let me pass it for the moment. It might be well to give a little review of the whole situation that was planned for this election. In the first place the returning officer's office was at a point called Lac la Biche about a hundred miles away from the centre of settlement. There is a twice-a-week train service in that part of the country; there is only one highway running north and south reaching the point and it is not readily acces-

sible. To the returning officer being allowed to operate at that point the electors took very serious objection. They objected to the Chief Electoral Officer, requesting that he move the returning officer. If the Chief Electoral Officer were not acquainted with that constituency, one might fairly assume that he did not himself know the situation; but he lived in the city of Edmonton for a good number of years, having been as a matter of fact a law partner in the firm of Short & Cross, the latter being one of the candidates in the election. Therefore, he must have had a considerable knowledge covering the whole situation.
The next point was that they selected as returning officer a man who admitted on the witness stand that he could neither read nor write. They did bring in two aides for him who could read and write. In fact they sent down to Seattle and they brought back two men, one named Lawler and the other Deyl to run this election. I am sure the name of Deyl will be quite familiar to some of those who have been in the Liberal party in western Canada for a number of years. I would be much surprised if the Minister of the Interior had not heard of Mr. Deyl in the old days.


Mr. STEWART:: Quite often.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: When liquor licenses were granted in Alberta, he was the man who used to go around to the hotel keepers telling them that unless they made a contribution to the campaign funds, their licenses would not be renewed. He was a revenue producer. Mr. Lawler is also well known to some of my Liberal friends. I would be surprised if the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Blatch-ford) did not know him. I believe he rendered very effective assistance in the civic election in 1925. These two men came in and took control of the elections. To begin with the registrars refused to send out voters' lists and the committee that was in charge of that campaign in that election protested strenuously to the returning officer and to the Chief Electoral Officer. When polling day came we had in our possession something less than 100 lists out of a total of 235. That may seem a small matter, but when you come to examine the lists it will be very apparent that the plugging of those voters' lists was a part of the whole scheme of corruption. For instance, on the list covering the poll at Venice, there were 105 names, and the return from the poll showed that ninety-five people had come to vote, ninety-four of them voting for Mr. Cross and one ballot being rejected.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: How did that happen?

Athabaska Election


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: They were experienced
men. They should not have had a rejected ballot. On an investigation of the names on the voters' lists it was found that there were probably thirty to thirty-five actually resident in the district. They were all on the list. Evidently the registrar started to put other names on the list, names of people who did not exist and who had not existed for quite a few years. As a matter of fact we found the name of one man who had been dead for twelve years and the return from the poll showed that a ballot had been polled under his name. Another man had been dead for three years. There were several men who had been out of the country for quite a number of years, including the priest of that district who was at the moment visiting in Italy. His name was, however, recorded in the voters' list as having gone to the poll and voted. It seemed also that in the compilation of the voters' lists they were endeavouring to break even between the males and the females, and when they put the priest's name on the list, to make the thing even they put the priest's wife's name on also. That is one registrar to whose being paid we objected, but a cheque was issued and went out covering the compilation of that list.
Another case which I would like to cite is that of three polls that were held in the forest reserve where nobody lives and where nobody is allowed to live. But those were not all the polls that were held there by any means. The evidence shows that three deputy returning . officers were instructed to take ballot boxes on election morning, follow up a trail that runs across this reserve, get back off the road about a half mile so that if anybody passed, they would not be seen, get into the bush and hold the election. All of this they did. Then they took the ballot boxes down to the Hudson's Bay store and proceeded to put in the ballots.
Now, is there any reason why this government should send out cheques for the compilation of those lists and to pay those deputy returning officers and poll clerks? Yet that is precisely w'hat has been done. We have heard of election irregularities in England, where there have been two or three outstanding cases, but there the electorate itself actually lost its head and either polled a corrupt vote or refused to allow some of the voters to exercise the franchise. This is a different case entirely. So far as this investigation shows, there is no evidence of any corruption on the part of the electorate; the corruption has been entirely on the part of the officials who were running the election. Inasmuch as those officials are the servants of this parliament, I think it i3 our duty to give due consideration to this case and to make certain that no future election in this country shall be conducted, in a similar way.
One other charge was mentioned a moment ago. A close scrutiny of those election officials will show that a large percentage of them are civil servants holding positions under the federal government. Take, for instance, one of the polls mentioned in this report, that at Lac la Biche. One of those who was found guilty of having put ballots in the box of people that never came to vote and was disfranchised-that is practically the only penalty the commissioner could enforce-is the postmaster of that village; he is also the sub land agent and in charge of the Dominion government telegraph service. I was notified this morning that he has resigned as postmaster. But it is four months since the report was made, it is two months since it was laid on the table, and all the time that man has been acting as postmaster and sub land agent and has been in control of the government telegraph service.
When those men who held the poll in the forest reserve were asked who told them to do so, they said it was a man by the name of Harry Bowtell. This Harry Bowtell is a rather interesting character-and also a civil servant. He is the postmaster at Frog Lake. He has held the office for seventeen years. I think he is also a sub land agent. I do know he is in charge of the Dominion government telegraph office. His wife is the assistant postmistress, and she admitted that when the cheques were being sent in -the name of people who did not exist she had knowledge that a couple of the cheques were coming to that office. As of course she knew no one would call for them, she signed the registration book for one cheque and got her thirteen-year-old daughter to sign for the other. Then they endorsed the cheques and cashed them. And yet Dominion government cheques have been sent to pay those people for such services in spite of the protests made by the people of Athaba'ska. We wrote -letter after letter to Ottawa trying to stop payment of those election officials, but a deaf ear was turned to our protests; those officials were paid.
I do not want to go into all these irregularities, there are so many of them, and I do not know that it is advisable to even attempt to do so. My purpose is to point out that these irregularities have been brought to the attention of the government, and that the government ha3 taken no effective way of dealing with them. The members of the
Athabaska Election

government practically shut their eyes to the whole thing. Section 87 of the Dominion Elections Act says that:
Any person who is, in any proceeding in which after notice of the charge he has had an opportunity of being heard, found guilty of any corrupt practice' or of any illegal practice, or of any offence which is a corrupt practice or illegal praetfce; shall, in addition to any other punishment for such offence by this or any other act prescribed be, for a corrupt practice during the seven years or for an illegal practice during the five years, next after the date of his being so reported, convicted, ordered, or found guilty, incapable of being elected to or of sitting in the House of Commons or of voting at any election of a member of that House or of holding any office in the nomination of the crown or of the Governor General in Canada.
I think that must have been inserted in order to give parliament special jurisdiction over these officials. True, under the criminal code, as under the Election Act, penalties are prescribed which can be enforced by a court, but this section applies particularly to the government and to parliament. In accordance with its terms these men were incompetent to hold any government position at the time that report was made, but we find they are still retained as government officials.
I charged a moment ago that the government has not taken any effective measures to wipe out this revolting situation. I think I can go a step further and very truthfully say that wherever that machine was weakened by reason . of this investigation those behind it have tried to make good the damage and in fact to strengthen their organization. In the village of Warspite the post office had been conducted in a store. The storekeeper sold out last fall. His successor was appointed postmaster by the postal inspector of that district. That man is reported to have been a very efficient postmaster. The post office guide shows that about eighty-five families get their mail at that post office. A petition signed by 150 people was sent to the Postmaster General's department that that m'an be left in charge of the post office, but a month or six weeks ago word came from Ottawa that the position must be taken away from him and given to another man. Every man and woman in the district signed that petition except seven. Evidently seven people in that district had influence enough to have the transfer made. I leave it to the House to say what is behind the transfer. Certainly tile transfer was not made because the new man was going to give better service. No one could argue that. If you are getting service that is satisfactory to 153 out of 160 people you are doing mighty well, and you are not safe in making any change.

Now, shortly before Christmas the French-Canadians of this country had a reunion at Ste. Anne de Beaupre. To that reunion came a Mr. Giroux, member of the legislative assembly -of Alberta. It is interesting to learn how he obtained the money to pay his expenses. The head office of the Dominion government telegraph service in Alberta is at Edmonton,, in charge of a man named Elmer. He sent out what is called a "twenty-three." It is a message sent over the lines to which all the operators are instructed to listen in. He told them about Mr. Giroux coming down here to interview the ministers and look after the superannuation of the operators, and that they would be requested, or commanded-I am not sure which-to put up five dollars apiece. He also wrote some telegraph operators down in Saskatchewan to put up a similar amount. I am told that altogether about $220 was secured for the trip. Now, is it in the interests of Canada that the civil service be used for obtaining political contributions? Let me go a step further. Is there a minister in the government who will get up this afternoon and say that Mr. Giroux interviewed him in any particular in the interests of the civil service? I do not think there is. He came down here to have a good time.
But the most regrettable point about this is that one man connected with the system who refused to make a contribution has since been reported to the department to his detriment. The hidden hand is trying to force him to contribute to Liberal campaign funds or else to blackmail him. I look across the House and I see quite a number of men who used to sit over on this side, who used to belong to the farmers' movement in western Canada. That movement was started largely-


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Mr. SPENCE (Parkdale):: Oh, take your
medicine.


An hon. MEMBER:: Did you ever taste
it?


David Spence: Yes. You take it now.


An hon. MEMBER:: Taste it yourself.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: May I ask my former
colleagues one question. That movement was started as a protest against such political scandals as this, and that movement brought out such men as to-day you see sitting on the other side and actively lending their support to the government. Let me ask the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) if he feels comforted.

Athabaska Elecl'ion


Mr. BROWN:: The hon. member for
Lisgar will be found expressing his opinion on the situation when the time comes.


Mr. JACOBS:: The remarks of the hon.
member (Mr. Kellner) are quite interesting but it seems to me that they are altogether outside of the motion now before the House.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member has
so far been in order, but I would advise him not to make what may be considered insinuations against certain members of the House as being in favour of such a situation as he has described.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Very well, Mr. Speaker,
I will deal with the report itself. I want to consider that portion of it dealing with the stamp of the returning officer. The situation in this regard was this: while the returning officer was at his office in Lac la Biche, the stamp was in possession of one Wilson in Edmonton, and the evidence would go to show that the ballots were taken over and given to Wilson, who stamped them. Now, the Elections Act provides that a returning officer shall keep the stamp in his possession, and as a matter of fact there is a severe penalty-I think it is five years-for anyone in illegal possession of it. Yet here you find a man in Edmonton who is in possession of the returning officer's stamp. I was amazed, indeed, to read the finding of the judge that he was legally in possession of it; I do not see for the life of me how he could be. However, the returning officer is now dead and I do not wish to bring him into the discussion, but I will say that during the time we had some criminal prosecutions out there he gave evidence, swearing that the ballots were sent to him at Lac la Biche.
At the very least, parliament should decide w'hen the stamp of a returning officer is legally in his possession and when it is not, and decide also whether or not the stamping of ballots in the city of Edmonton for a returning officer one hundred miles away is something that is in keeping with the instructions of the Elections Act. There was one other feature about the ballots which was lightly passed up in the investigation, and that is the fact that they were not all the same. On some there was a mistake in the spelling. My name was incorrectly spelled, as was also the name of Mr. Geauvreau, the Conservative candidate. Perhaps it is not remarkable that Mr. Cross' name was spelled correctly in both cases. The explanation of that irregularity in connection with the spelling of the names was that when they were printing the ballots, a sheet of paper got caught in the roll and some ballots were
spoiled. And that consumed a considerable quantity of paper that could not be accounted for. Then, the evidence goes on to show that a mistake in spelling the names was noticed and corrected, after fifteen or twenty thousand had been printed. This was called to their attention, according to the witness, by the returning officer over the long distance telephone. When you recall the fact that the returning officer could neither read nor write you wonder how in the name of common sense he could know. The printer's statement about the manner in which the paper was caught in the roll might account for the consumption of all the paper sent out by the Chief Electoral Officer, but it certainly does not account for the fact that there were two sets of ballots printed. Then, again, it was amply proved that ballots were sent by registered mail to several polls; and it was further established that two or three automobiles at least were driven from one poll to another by persons who were inquiring whether the officers had sufficient ballots, and assuring them that they could supply any deficiencies if need be.
Now, I consider all this a long way from being in accord with the instructions contained in the Elections Act, and I will conclude my remarks by requesting that this report be referred to the committee, that they be asked to submit definite findings covering the matter of the stamp, and that some recommendation be brought in to deal witli these officials. Certainly it is a disgrace to Canada if they are to be allowed to continue holding positions in the civil service while being guilty of such irregularities as have been proven in this report.


John Livingstone Brown: I did not,
expect when the motion was introduced that I should be drawn into the discussion, but in view of the utterly uncalled for remarks of the hon. member who has spoken (Mr. Kellner) I cannot allow the occasion to pass without some comment. Hon. members who were^ associated with us last year will recall that in our caucus, when the matter was discussed and this subject was brought to our attention, as to the corruption that prevailed in the Athabaska election, I was one who strongly insisted that we should stand behind the member for Athabaska, who had suffered from these malpractices, and that we should stand behind him even to the extent of affording him financial assistance in bringing the question before the House. In view of that fact, I feel that his remarks were absolutely uncalled for. We have had a number of references made to the position occupied by this group and I want to say that for myself, and

Athabaska Election
I believe I can speak for those more directly associated with me, I am not prepared to stand for anything in the way of electoral corruption. When the time comes, if it does come, we will be found insisting that those who have been directly responsible or in any way personally responsible for the practices which have prevailed, be visited with the l'uil penalty of the law. In view of this situation I think a very humble apology is due this group from the hon. member who has just spoken.


Ernest Lapointe: The attention of this House was
called to the famous Athabaska election for the first time during the course of last session, when a petition was presented to the House of Commons under chapter 8 of the revised statutes of Canada. The petition was signed by twenty-five or more electors of that constituency, and represented that the time for acting under the Controverted Elections Act having expired, a commission be appointed under the authority of this House, by the Governor General in Council, for the purpose of determining whether or not corrupt practices had taken place during that election. The House of Commons did act under that petition and requested the Governor General in Council to select a commissioner from various names contained in the motion, and a commissioner was appointed under the chapter I have already mentioned.
Under this law the commissioner must report to the Governor General the evidence taken and what he finds concerning the investigation, and that was done. Mr. Justice Clarke, who I am pleased to say is one of the most eminent members of the judiciary of Canada, made an interim and a final report, which mentioned certain persons as having been found guilty of corrupt practices. Section 31 of chapter 8 reads as follows:
Whenever it appears by the report of the commissioners under this act that any person named by them has been guilty of a corrupt practice and has not been furnished by them with a, certificate of indemnity, such report with the evidence taken by the commissioners shall be laid before the Attorney General of Canada, who shall, if in his opinion there is sufficient evidence available for a prosecution, certify such opinion to the Secretary of State, who shall thereupon communicate the report with the evidence to the Lieutenant Governor of the province in which the election was held.
When the interim report was forward by Mr. Justice Clarke the Solicitor General, who was then Acting Minister of Justice and Acting Attorney General of Canada, immediately sent it with his certificate to the Secretary of State, and when the final report was received

I myself did the same tiling. The requirements of the law were met, and if proceedings have not been instituted1, as to which I do not know, we would not be responsible; it is up to the Attorney General of the province of Alberta, who under the law must institute such proceedings.
_ Let me say to my hon. friend that as Minister of Justice I will be only to glad to associate a counsel with the local representatives of the province of Alberta in any proceedings which may be taken as a result of those frauds which took place during that election. I am in favour of the motion, and I may also say that if, as a result of this being referred to the committee on privileges and elections, some way may be found to prevent electoral corruption as it seems to 'have prevailed in that election, I and those who sit with, me on this side of the House will be only too glad to associate with my hon. friend in that respect.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I think the House
will agree with me that the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Kellner) has this afternoon made one of the most serious and most damning indictments against officers of this House and civil servants of this country that has been made in the parliament of Canada for many days. I noticed that when the motion was made this afternoon to refer these reports to the committee on privileges and elections, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) immediately asked, "For what purpose?" Until hon. members spoke in the House this afternoon the government would seem to have been lulled to rest with the idea that their full duty had 'been completed wben they delivered the reports to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State in turn delivered them to the provincial attorney general.
The indictment laid before the House today goes much deeper than that. These reports of Mr. Justice Clarke have been in the hands of this government for four months, and the House will be anxious to know at this time what steps the government have taken under the law in regard to these election officials, and what steps have been taken in regard to the civil servants of this country who were guilty of gross wrong doing and in some cases of serious crime. I gather from the remarks of the hon. member for Athabaska this afternoon that many of these people are still in the service of the Dominion government notwithstanding the crimes that have been actually proved against them in that investigation. If this be so, what is the reason? Has the government taken no action in the matter? Has the government quietly taken

Athabaska Election
the position that having referred the matter to the local attorney general their duty is at an end? The Attorney General of Alberta has nothing to do with the civil service of Canada and he has nothing to do with our postmasters, so why has, not this government taken some action?
There is just one other thought in this connection. We had another investigation in the western part of Canada last year in regard to election irregularities.


Mr. ROBB:: Before my hon. friend leaves
that, is he laying down the principle now that every civil servant who took part in the election should be dismissed?


Hugh Guthrie: No; I am not, and my hon. friend should know that from my remarks. I am referring to those who are alleged to have been guilty of perjury, forgery and the like, as has been found by this report. Now I wish to refer to another case which came up for investigation last spring before the criminal courts of this country, in which the most gross frauds were proved. Officials of this House carrying on the elections were proved to be guilty of serious offences and were sentenced to severe penalties and terms of imprisonment. But I am informed to-day that two of these criminals have already been set at liberty although their full terms have not been served. I am also told that in the very near future another notorious official named Baldy Robb will also be given his liberty under ticket-of-leave, or by some process of the Department of Justice. I mention the matter in order, if I can, to stop the ticket-of-leave in that instance; I trust that the bringing up of this subject to-day will stop all negotiations for it. I was for a few days last July in the Department of Justice as acting minister. I know that Baldy Robb was sentenced about the beginning of May to a long term in the penitentiary, I think five years, and although he had only served from two to two and a half months at that time, already largely signed petitions, containing the names of political supporters of the government, were coming in from that western country asking for a remission of the penalty imposed. I hope Baldy Robb has not been granted any release or any ticket-of-leave. I hope none of those who were sentenced for irregularities last spring have been leniently dealt with. I hope also that this House will insist that this government take action at once in regard to those officials, those civil servants in the employ of this country, who have been found to be guilty of gross irregularities, and in many cases of serious crimes, in connection with the Athabaska election.


Charles A. Stewart: I would not
have risen except for one reference of the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Kellner), namely, to my knowledge of Mr. Deyl and Mr. Lawler, although the hon. gentleman did not couple Mr. Lawler's name with that of Mr. Deyl. May I say that all who know the history of the province of Alberta are well acquainted with my actions in connection with all the chief actors who figured in this investigation?
Mr. Cross was attorney general in the government of which I had the honour to be the head. We disagreed, and he left the government, so that I take no responsibility for Mr. Cross.
With respect to Mr. Deyl, he was employed in the lands registry office at Edmonton, and left the service shortly after I became premier of the province. I never had anything to do with Mr. Lawler, nor was he ever employed in an official capacity while I had charge of affairs in Alberta. It seems to me that when this matter is referred to the committee the fullest investigation should be held. So far as I am personally concerned, I have no desire to shield anyone. My opinion is that everyone should pay the full penalty for his actions; and if anything can be discovered by the committee that will in any way prevent a recurrence of this sort of thing, I shall only be too happy to associate myself with such action and do all I can to forward it.
May I say, however, with reference to the remarks made by the leader of the opposition, that while I followed the newspaper reports -because I may say for the information of the House those reports were coming out every day during our election campaign in Edmonton last fall, and they were not doing the Liberal party any particular good, especially my colleague and I in the city of Edmonton-I had no knowledge that there was any official of the Department of the Interior implicated in any of these irregularities. Perhaps I have been recreant in my duty inasmuch as I have not read Judge Clarke's report in its entirety, but if amongst those mentioned in that report there is any employee of the Department of the Interior, employed even in the most humble capacity, then he or she will be dismissed at once. That has been the rule I have always sought to follow in my public life which has extended over eighteen years; and I wish to say definitely that not one official proved to have been guilty of improper conduct will remain in the government service even if he is only drawing a dollar a year-because these sub-offices of
Athabaska Election

the Dominion Lands branch are very humble positions >as lion, gentlemen will readily understand.
But may I say in reply to my hon. friend that one of the things I consider most grossly unfair is this:	I have followed the evidence
carefully in the press. There were at least ten or fifteen individuals who came forward and gave evidence upon which they were given immunity. Now, if anything could be said to be worse than actions of the three or four individuals that were convicted, then the actions of the others were worse. Yet they were given immunity and are at large, and apparently the intention is that they shall remain at large.
With respect to Deyl and Lawler, I believe the provincial government are endeavouring to locate and punish them.


Mr. BENNETT:: There are warrants out
for them.	\


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, and
they are the individuals who are responsible for most of the rascality, not the poor unfortunate Italian, Billos.
As for Harry Bowtell, I -have no excuse to offer for him. He had full knowledge of what he was doing and should take the consequences. But there are some of the others who were in gaol, and who have been freed on parole, who committed crimes not nearly as heinous as those offenders who are still at large.
Mr. GU1HRIE:	Have some who were
found guilty been actually paroled?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, two or three of them.


Hugh Guthrie: Is Baldy Robb one of
them?


Charles A. Stewart: These men were convicted before the Clarke inquiry; they were not subject to investigation at that inquiry, but they were implicated in the election frauds. May I say that if there was any excuse what I have referred to might be offered as such. Furthermore, the petition was signed by almost every resident in the neighbourhood in which these individuals live, as well as throughout the district of Athabaska. I believe that when the citizens signed that petition they had in mind the fact that all the guilty parties were not receiving like punishment in connection with this matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think my hon. friend
has misunderstood the position. Those who were given immunity could not be convicted

but they confessed, arid they confessed because they got immunity. That is the position.


Charles A. Stewart: Exactly. I may not have stated the position as lucidly as I might but I quite understand that point. But although they confessed and received immunity my statement is that they were equally as guilty of wrongdoing as the individuals who were convicted by the judge prior to that time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But they could not be convicted because they had been given immunity, and they received immunity because they confessed.


Charles A. Stewart: But they.
were equally guilty with those who were punished. As I say, there have been very largely signed petitions asking for parole. It is equally true that a very largely signed petition has been received, with respect to Baldy Robb, and on the petition is the signature of the gentleman who represented the Conservative party in the constituency of Peace River. The petition asks that Baldy Rabb be paroled. I have nothing to say with respect to him. Baldy Robb has done as much injury to the Liberal party as any individual possibly could do in years gone by. Why he changed his allegiance is beyond me, and I have no brief for him. But he did change, and possibly this time was more reckless than he had been in the past. At all events he is in gaol for five years. However, the fact remains that a very large number of people have been persuaded or they believe that he should also be given the benefit of a parole notwithstanding the crime which he committed. I am not arguing that point. My hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) says this man should be made to serve his sentence for the crime of which he has been convicted. I have not a word to say in this connection except to repeat what I said in the first instance, that the men who were responsible for most of the rascality that prevailed, particularly in the district of Athabaska, as I have seen it in the press, are out of the country. True, there is a warrant out for their arrest, and I hope they will be apprehended, and that justice will be meted out to them, because I think most of the other individuals up there were their innocent dupes.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: Are we to understand that exclusive altogether of the case of Robb, only those have been paroled who secured immunity by confessing?

Athabaska Election


Charles A. Stewart: No, they
never were convicted.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Then ther.e are
others to whom clemency has been extended, without their having secured the pseudoright to it by confession?


Ernest Lapointe: No clemency was extended to those who were given immunity.


Hon. LUCIEN CANNON (Solicitor General) :: In answer to the question put by the
hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell), the discussion this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, only goes to show how difficult it is to keep the administration of justice outside of politics. A question has been brought before the House by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy), and I have no doubt that every member of this House, no matter to which party he may belong, is of the one opinion, and that is that every man who has been implicated in electoral frauds should be prosecuted without mercy, and that justice should prevail.
When Mr. Justice Clarke was appointed by the government, an investigation full and complete was held. Reports were made, two in number, the first being an interim report, and the second a final report. When the interim report was transmitted to Ottawa, my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) being away at the time attending the Imperial conference, and I being then acting minister, I followed the law to the very strictest letter and in the very strictest spirit, and saw that every means was taken in order that the reports should be dealt with according to our law, and I do not think that any fair criticism can be made of the attitude and conduct of the Department of Justice in relation to the reports filed by Mr. Justice Clarke. Proceedings, if any are to be instituted, are to be instituted not by the federal' authorities, but by the provincial authorities of the province of Alberta, and the attorney general of that province is at perfect liberty to institute whichever proceedings he may deem mete. The law provides that in so far as the Attorney General of Canada is concerned, he may appoint counsel to act in conjunction with the counsel appointed by the provincial government. My learned friend the Minister of Justice stated a moment ago that this government was perfectly willing to do so if occasion should arise.
In conclusion, when these two reports are laid before the committee on privileges and elections, I believe that every member sitting on that committee will be moved by one, common spirit, and that is to try and de-32649-20
vise means of preventing any such things happening in the future as were proved to have happened in that constituency in the election of 1925.
As Solicitor General, having in charge the remission branch of the Justice department, I wish to make answer to the remarks of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) in regard to the paroling of two persons convicted of electoral frauds in the constituency of Peace River. The leader of the opposition mentioned the case of Baldy Robb. Firstly, Baldy Robb is in no way connected with the Athabaska election, and has absolutely nothing to do with Mr. Justice Clarke's reports. His activities were confined, and we may thank heaven that they were, to one constituency-the constituency of Peace River. I realize, listening to what has been said in this House this afternoon, and listening to the question put by the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell), how careful we must be when dealing with remission cases. Reproaches have been levelled at me for having taken certain action. My hands, Mr. Speaker, are tied, and the leader of the opposition knows it. He has been Solicitor General in former governments, and he knows that every record in the remission branch, for motives and reasons of public interest, is confidential and cannot be brought before this House. I shall treat these files as confidential. I shall not try and screen my own responsibility by bringing before this House facts which are supposed, in the public interest, to remain confidential. The decisions which were taken were decisions which I took after mature consideration of all the circumstances. I have been a member of the bar of my province for over fifteen years. My family possesses certain judicial traditions which I cannot ignore, and my reputation as a member of the bar puts me away beyond any imputation that I might have been actuated by political motives.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I would like to make
this statement to the House. I myself signed the petition for paroling these two men. I think in fairness to the Solicitor General I should say that.


Lucien Cannon: I congratulate the hon.
member upon his remark. I had no intention of mentioning his name, any more than I have the intention of mentioning the names of other people who are close to the leader of the opposition, and who came to see me asking that these people be paroled. Last year, sitting in this very seat, was a minister, also from my own province, and of about the same age as myself. He took action upon

Athabaska Election

certain representations made by fellow-members. He is no longer here because politics intervened with decisions that should be left to the fairness of the judgment of the minister, and we, as ministers, trust that when fellow-members come and make representations to us, they should have a spirit of honour sufficient to make them stand1 by their representations even when they come back to the House.
As to the case of Baldy Robb, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to say that this man will remain in gaol five years or four years or three years. I will say that he will be treated with justice notwithstanding what politicians may say.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I think all members in this House might well agree that the degredation of our institutions has reached a point where by our combined effort we should do everything within our power to prevent it continuing further, and I do appeal to the government to give attention and consideration to the motion which has been made to the House for the purpose of enabling, first, recommendations to be made with respect to the election law of Canada.
It does seem to me incredible that a man who cannot read or write should be appointed a returning officer in these days. It does seem to me incredible that two men could be moved from Seattle and placed in charge of an election in Alberta. Yet that is what happened. It does seem to me incredible that men should be paid out of the public exchequer large sums of money for preparing lists of electors, which work consisted of taking pieces of paper, writing indiscriminately a number of names upon them, and then voting them at a poll behind a bush. That admission seems incredible and yet that happened in Canada, according to the evidence given before Mr. Justice Clarke in 1926.
The point is that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) this afternoon moved, seconded by the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Kellner), that this report of the Hon. Mr. Justice Clarke should go to the committee on privileges and elections for the purpose of enabling such recommendations to be made to this House as might prevent a repetition of the conditions to which I have referred. I think it is not, as the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) has said, a matter of politics at all.


Lucien Cannon: I never said that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I gathered that the
Solicitor General stated that this matter

should be dealt with, not as a political matter, but as a matter fundamentally affecting questions of right and wrong.


Lucien Cannon: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sorry if I misunderstood him and he intends that it be dealt with as a political matter.


Lucien Cannon: With all due respect to
my hon. friend, if he interprets my remarks in that way, I am very sorry that his mind this afternoon is not as keen as it used to be.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sorry at the failure of the hon. gentleman to express himself as he would like. What I said a moment ago was that I suggested that this matter should not be treated as a political matter and that the Solicitor General had so indicated. He says: Not at all. I judge that he does desire that it should be treated as a political matter.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Will my hon.
friend allow me? I have been listening to my hon. friend's remarks, and I think that if he reads his own remarks in Hansard he will find that anyone sitting on this side would have gathered that he was saying that the Solicitor General wished to have the matter treated as a political matter. That is why the Solicitor General rose to make the remark he did. It is just a misunderstanding.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then we will say that
the Solicitor General does not desire to treat it as a political matter. That is what I said at the opening of my observations. I am delighted to say that the Solicitor General has approached it from that standpoint. The first matter that should be considered is: What recommendation can the committee make with respect to amending the election laws of this country so as to prevent a repetition of those conditions? The second is also a matter of some importance as it touches the position of the civil servants of this country. Shall a civil servant who has been convicted of a crime or who admits the commission of a crime and has secured immunity by reason of his confession, continue in office? Shall the public service acts of this country not be amended so as to provide that by reason of any confession of that character he shall at once vacate his position?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Surely.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It seems to me that we
are agreed upon that and therefore the reference to the committee on that second point is a matter of great importance. There is also the third matter that touches the elections of this country and corrupt practices

Athabaska Election
generally, the investigation of what can be done to insure the public will being expressed without being subject to temptations, on the one hand to the coercive power of government, and on the other to the destructive power of corruption. These things are not matters that should be lightly treated. During the time that I have lived in western Canada-and the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) has made some reference to his experiences there- in certain parts of the west for a period of twenty-five years a studied system of corruption prevailed. An effort was made on a large scale to prevent the public will finding expression. I do not think we should blame parties in that respect at all. I know what the temptations are with respect to matters of that character. We know that decent, respectable citizens will not lend themselves to those things; but we know there are camp followers, men behind, men who are not only coiTupted themselves but who are willing to corrupt others. We know there are men who are ready and willing at all times to do What we are pleased to call "dirty work", and then after the matter is over they come and ask administrations and sometimes they brow-beat administrations to give them consideration to which they are not entitled.
The Minister of the Interior referred to two such persons this afternoon and I quite agree with him that they occupied in Alberta positions which they should not have occupied. They did work which has had a baneful and injurious effect upon the public life of that province. The same thing happened in Saskatchewan. We had in the journal of that legislature, as read here last session, a record of that condition of affairs. This House should use its every effort to stop that sort of thing because, if we do not prevent, it, our very democratic institutions are destroyed and responsible government has indeed become valueless in this country. That is the reason that the motion made this afternoon by the hon. member meets with my approval, although not with the hope that we shall be able at once to change this condition of affairs.
A very distinguished statesman, the late Dr. Weldon, came into this House of Commons, and he was so impressed with the dangers to democracy on account of the conditions to which I alluded, that he endeavoured to place upon the statute books short provisions whereby men might lose their franchise under certain conditions. This has been a dead letter although he had hoped for great things of it, and one of the real difficulties that threatens the life of this country to-day is electoral corruption on a very large 32649-201
scale throughout this Dominion. When I say "electoral corruption" I do not mean going out and buying votes. That is not what I have in mind at all. I mean the means used by which the free will of the people cannot be expressed, by which enormous sums of money are expended in an ordinary election, and it seems to me that we should follow the method which they have been compelled to adopt in England of limiting the amount of money that may be expended in elections.
I remember a friend of mine travelling on the train not long ago after the election of 1925, saying that two passengers on the train had been speaking and one said to the other that Bennett had spent $70,000 in the election in West Calgary. I am pleased to say that the return which I made covered every single sou that was expended by me with respect to that election and the election of last fall. But elections cost too much money and moreover so do the contributions that are enforced for the purpose of enabling them to be contested. We should have recourse to the provisions that obtain in the English law, whereby a limit is placed upon the amount that may be expended in any one constituency. In England, as hon. members know, the member has to pay the sheriff or the returning officer with respect to these things. I look upon the reference of this matter to this committee as affording an opportunity for it to make recommendations in regard to amending the statutes to which I have referred.
It is also not right to say that the blame attaches to any one party. I do not believe that, because I know there is no magic in belonging to one party in so far as virtue in an election is concerned. The whole fact is that sometimes those who are opposite to us are more astute in being able to manipulate the public will than we are, with a result that is detrimental to this country, returning them to power and leaving us in the opposition. That is another matter entirely; but astuteness in manipulation comes only from long practice, and it will be remembered that the Liberal party was in power for a much longer time in Canada, from 1896 to 1911, than the Conservative party was from 1911 to 1917. I suppose in the minds of some hon. gentlemen that may account for the result. It seems to me, however, that men should not occupy public positions and receive public moneys in this country who have been convicted of offences to which I have alluded or who have made confessions to that effect.
One point the Minister of the Interior dealt with, that I should like to clear up, is this. He contended in his observations that men
Athabaska Election

should be released on parole or on ticket of leave because others had received immunity who were guilty of equally offensive violations of the statute. That is hardly fair. The guilt of the men who made the confession would not be known but for their confession. The crown endeavoured by every means in its power to secure sufficient evidence to convict them, but these crimes in many instances were done in the dark and-


Mr. STEW  ART@Edmonton: My hon.
friend is not correct there. The three who came before the court prior to the appointment of Mr. Justice Clarke as investigator were convicted and sentenced, and I am bound to think that had the others come before the court they too would have been convicted.	.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My friend the Minister
of the Interior perhaps has not followed this case as carefully as he should. Some were acquitted, some were convicted in the courts, but those who received immunity from the Hon. Mr. Justice Clarke received it in consequence of making confessions,-*


Charles A. Stewart: Quite so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -and there was no
testimony by which they could be convicted because, as they themselves admitted when they went into the witness box, in many instances they did those crimes alone in the darkness of the night, in some instances they prepared the lists and put names upon them when nobody was looking at them. My friend will remember that two of them, co-conspirators, went into the darkness behind a tree and there fixed up the ballot boxes. With respect to the printing of the ballots, a great effort was made to fix responsibility, but Mr. Deyl and Mr. Kawler had gone out of the country, and there was nobody else on whom could be fastened blame with respect to the ballot papers referred to by the hon. member for Athabaska.
Now, I should like to bring this to the attention of the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon). The Minister of the Interior has asserted the doctrine that where a man confesses to a crime which could not be proven, and thereby secures immunity, those who pleaded not guilty, but were convicted, should receive lenient treatment from the crown, and a recommendation should be made by the law officers to the Governor General for their relief, merely because they were equally guilty. That principle is not sound.


Lucien Cannon: Will my hon. friend allow me? For his own information I may state that we give our law to the Minister of the Interior whenever he wants it; he never gives us any.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course, the observation of the Solicitor General indicates how lightly he really does consider this very serious matter.


Lucien Cannon: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nothing could better
illustrate the absolute lack of sincerity of his observations in connection with this election scandal than the closing observation he has made to this House.


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Speaker, we are at
the opening of a new parliament, and I want to tell the hon. member for West Calgary


Richard Bedford Bennett: What has that to do
with the matter?


Lucien Cannon: I want to tell him that
I am not going to stand either from -him or any other member such remarks as he has just made. My hon. friend is a member of the bar-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, if the hon.
minister has a question of order or a question of privilege let him state it.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Lucien Cannon: It is a question of privilege. My hon. friend is a member of the bar, and he certainly has no right to allege lack of sincerity on my part in what I have said to the House. The remark I made is to the effect that I am one of the law officers in this government. Therefore the legal principles on which we are to base decisions are to be decided by the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General, not by the Minister of the Interior who is a layman. My hon. friend knows perfectly well-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, surely this
must not be allowed to continue.


Hewitt Bostock: A point of order has been raised. I do not see where any point of order comes in.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nor does anybody else,
but Your Honour permitted the Solicitor General to get away with it.


Hewitt Bostock: When an hon. member
rises to a question of privilege or a point of

Athabaska Election
order, I must listen to what he has to say. I do not consider that there is a point of order in this instance.


Lucien Cannon: The hon. gentleman has
no right to accuse me of a lack of sincerity and there is no point of order in connection with such a charge. It is a question of privilege.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was about to say that the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) had confused two matters, and I know enough about government, without being instructed by the Solicitor General, to be aware that in matters affecting the release of prisoners it has been customary from time immemorial for ministers to speak to the law officers of the crown. I remember distinctly the case of Baldy Robb and two others being spoken to during the fall. I recall an expression of my own opinion with respect to the matter to the effect that it was important that an example be made. It is far more important 

this is the attitude I took-that the law should be vindicated, though not vindictively, and that its majesty be upheld than that feelings of sympathy should prevail in relation to any individual. We have all experienced those things; every man in public life knows that he has to make the choice between sympathy and public duty. His sympathies naturally impel him to do what the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Kellner) rose in his place to-day and so admirably stated- " I signed a petition for the parole of these two prisoners, for the reason that my sympathy found expression in the act." That was done to change and mould the opinion of the Solicitor General and of the Minister of Justice favourably towards the request. But as a public servant, owing a duty to the public, it is not open to any public man occupying a position of trust to sign any petition for the release of any prisoner under a system of ticket-of-leave. And we all know it. Time and time again I have had to refuse such requests by virtue of my representative position. I could not act in my capacity as a private citizen and lend the support of my official authority to a petition of that character, however it might affect the friendly disposition of the Minister of Justice or of the Solicitor General, whose human sympathies we all take for granted and whose desire to do what the Solicitor General describes as justice we do not question. But there is no such thing as justice with respect to tickets-of-leave; it is merely
a question of the exercise of discretion, founded upon judicial opinion, sometimes that of a judge, sometimes the views of penitentiary authorities or, perhaps, those of persons in charge of gaols, as to whether or not the release of a particular individual will enable him to start over again, to begin a new life under fresh conditions and overcome the peculiar difficulties that surrounded him in his first o.r second offence, as the case may be. Everyone who has read the life of that leader of the church army in England, Prebendary Carlisle, will understand thoroughly what has been done with reference to matters of this sort. Now and then it is possible to pick out a man and ito say, " Here is material out of which a real man can be developed. Here is a case in which a ticket-of-leave may safely be granted." Where there has been inexperience in connection with the commission of a crime, or where the other factors are such as to render it advisable, one may support the granting of parole. But in the case of a man of a notorious past, who has exercised political influence improperly in days gone by for one party or the other, it is important that the law should be vindicated in order thait the public at large may appreciate the inevitable character of the consequences that follow' upon wrongdoing. People should be made to understand that forgery, the manipulation of ballots, the destruction of ballot boxes, the marking of ballots otherwise than in the manner contemplated by statute are all contrary to the law and that any violation of the law in any of these respects shall be visited with rigid puishment, so that those newcomers who are to attain Canadian citizenship shall respect the institutions of the country. They should be made to understand that such lawbreaking as this is not to be tolerated, and that the law will be enforced whatever may be the result.
That is the attitude we should take with respect to such a question as this, and that is the reason attention is directed to it this afternoon. No one has any vindictive feeling against Baldy Robb. I have known him for over fifteen years and, were I to consider feelings of sympathy alone, I should desire to do him a good turn to-morrow, just as I would any other man, whether he were for or against me. But I cannot permit myself to become a party to the release of one who has boastingly said, "I have the power and the influence to be out of gaol almost before I get there." And this was his boast made
Athabaska Election

openly as reported in the journals of the country at the time. For these reasons I support the motion of the hon. member for Athabaska, in the hope that the members of the committee, realizing the enormity of these offences-although sometimes some of us may be tempted to smile at what we may consider something not so grave-which threaten the life of our democracy, which are injurious to the very wellbeing of our responsible institutions, and which in the long run will sound the death-knell of the things about which we should be greatly concerned. It is, I say, for these reasons and in the hope that the committee will make, with respect to the Elections Act and the Civil Service Act, as well as other statutes, such suggestions as will ensure the ordered and well regulated conduct of elections, free from the conditions that have obtained in Athabaska and Peace River, and in the hope, further, that we may be able to place upon the statute books a greater safeguard in the light of these occurrences, that I propose to give my support to the motion which has been introduced.


Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: With regard to appeals to the Department of Justice for remissions or tickets-of-leave, this is a matter that must depend upon the judgment of individual members of the House. I have myself on one occasion sent a letter to the department stating that I was prepared after a thorough investigation to stand on the floor of the House and support such a remission, and I would do the same thing again if a similar occasion arose, because the fact that I am a member of parliament does not deprive me of my right as an individual member of society to see that justice is done. The case to which I refer had nothing to do with election trials or frauds; it had to do with a temporarily insane man who was found guilty of having $2.50 or less in his pocket, which money, during the period of his insanity, he had not returned to his principals, and who was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of three years. I considered this an injustice and said so, declaring that I was prepared to vindicate that stand in the House of Commons.
I trust, however, Mr. Speaker, that when this report is sent to the committee on privileges and elections they will feel that they have the sanction of the House for making a pretty thorough inquiry into the whole matter of the preparation of the electoral lists. I do not know anything about the preparation 
of such lists in other provinces, but I have had experience for two years in one constituency in the island of Montreal. I am blaming no one; I make no charges, but I shall say what I found there.
In the election of 1925 I was convinced, from the reports of my committee, that there were a large number of names on that list of persons who had no residence within that constituency of St. Lawrence-St. George, and who had not resided there for many years. After the election was over, in order to satisfy my curiosity, I employed a number of men who were experts in the preparation of directories and publications of that character, and I had them working during the months of November, December, January, February and March. Throughout those five months they went through the constituency finding out what names were on the lists for the election of
1925	of persons who were not residents in the constituency, and they found that over 2,000 fictitious names were on the federal list, some 900 impersonations having been voted in the election by means of this false list, not one of them voting for myself.
When it came to the preparation of the electoral list for the last election of 1926 I had a store of information available. My committee had to send out men ito ascertain whether on a certain date in May persons of the same names were entitled to be on the list. We received a return from the provincial reviser for the city of Montreal, and tracing down that provincial list which we received in
1926	as a basis for the preparation of the list for the federal election of 1926, we found over
2.000	fictitious names on the list for the federal constituency of St. Lawrence-St. George, these names having been derived from the provincial lists. We did nothing behind anyone's back. We made a list of these fictitious names and gave the committee of our opponents complete access to it. We also gave them a list of over 2,000 individual affidavits which we had prepared in order to make a proper legal protest (against these names being retained on the federal list for that district. Now, the preparation of 2,000 individual affidavits after
2.000	individual searches is an expensive matter. The committee on the other side, talking a list of over 2,000 found 175 or thereabouts which they said were the names of persons resident in the district formerly, who had removed to some other street in the district. They acted as fairly in the matter as we did, and I give them every credit. They desired to see that the revision was properly done, after their attention had been directed to the

Supplementary Estimates
matter. We each sent one representative to run down these 175 names in dispute, but I do not know what came of it, because I personally paid no more attention to the matter.
I do say that there is something radically wrong in the preparation of the lists in such a constituency as St. Lawrence-St. George when '2,000 fictitious names may be incorporated in the federal lists from the returns of the provincial revising officer. When the local provincial revisions was recently going on, I thought, although I may never run another election in St. Lawrence-St. George, that out of curiosity I would find out how the provincial list in the city of Montreal was prepared, and, during the last revision a couple of months ago, I sought to check the names going on the provincial1 list for the two provincial constituencies of St. Lawrence and St. George. I found that under our system of provincial registration in the city of Montreal, it is possible for a person residing in or purporting to reside in St. Lawrence or in St. George to register his name for those districts with any registrar in any other electoral district of the island of Montreal, so that in order to check the names going on the lists for St. Lawrence and for St. George I would have to send fifty of sixty representatives to fifty or sixty registration booths in all parts of the island, covering constituency after constituency -an impossible task, and one far beyond my financial resources.
But I will defy any man in the city uf Montreal or elsewhere to point to one single dollar spent by me or by my committee in those two last federal elections for any improper purpose. There was not a single dollar expended which was not vouched for. If I remember correctly, in order to secure a proper revision of these lists, and to see that no fraud was perpetrated, the expenditure in the 1925 election ran up to something like $25,000 while in the election of 1926 it was something like $14,000. I am trusting to memory. Now, there is $40,000 which a candidate for the House of Commons from that constituency is compelled to spend, not one dollar of it being devoted to fraudulent or corrupt purposes, but simply for the purpose of securing as correct a list as possible, and for the further purpose of preventing the impersonation of voters at the election. Talk about limiting the expenditure of money, as the hon. member who preceded me (Mr. Bennett) suggested! Before you limit the expenditure of money in an election under conditions such as these, you must take efficient means to secure a reliable registration list.
As I am saying this I am glad to note that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) nods his assent, because I will say that he and many of his friends on the Liberal side in the city of Montreal take exactly the same position as I take, and leading Liberals of Montreal are as anxious as I am, I believe, to have a correct list. I am making no partisan charge in that regard, but as I will soon disappear from the political stage, I wish that there may be in Montreal an opportunity for the younger men who are making their way in the industrial, commercial and professional life of that city to play their proper part as candidates for elections to this House. There are manv such young men who would be worthy representatives of that city, but owing to the expenses, which are so great, they are utterly deprived of the possibility of ever being elected, no matter what may be their personal efficiency or qualifications for the position. Therefore I do trust that, on both sides of the House, out of the experience of the past and out of the experience of those intimately connected with these elections, we may find some way of procuring an efficient revision, so that when the results are known we may be confident that they are the results of an honest vote on both sides.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General, transmitting further supplementary estimates for the year ending March 31, 1927, was presented by Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the House, and referred to the committee of supply.

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General, transmitting estimates for the year ending March 31, 1928, was presented by Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the House and referred to the committee of supply.

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General, transmitting supplementary estimates for the year ending March 31, 1928, was presented by Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the House, and referred to the committee of supply.
[Stage Direction]
Salvation Army-Immigration

[Stage Direction]
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 63, to remove the necessity of the re-election of members of the House of Commons of Canada on acceptance of office.
Ernest Lapointe: Explain.


Samuel William Jacobs: The object of this bill is
to declare that a member of the House of Commons shall not vacate his seat by reason only of his acceptance of an office of profit under the crown, if that office is an office the holder of which is capable of being elected to or sitting or voting in the House of Commons.
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 committee at the next sitting 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.
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]
On the Orders of the Day:
James Alexander Robb: Hon. gentlemen may be interested to know that on Thursday of this week we expect to deliver the annual budget statement.



HOME BANK DEPOSITORS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. McGIBBON:: I would like to renew
the question I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) a week ago regarding depositors in the Home Bank.


James Alexander Robb: I am not sure that I recall the question.
[Mr. Cahan.)


Peter McGibbon: The question was based on a newspaper report that the judges of the Exchequer court had recommended that the government grant a sum of $500,000 for the further relief of the depositors of the Home Bank.


James Alexander Robb: I have no answer other than
that given the other day, that it has not been brought to my attention.
MARITIME CLAIMS On the Orders of the Day:


Hugh Guthrie: I would like to put a question
to the right hon. Prime Minister in regard to the Duncan report. It is now about two months since that report was laid before parliament, and it contains recommendations of vital interest to the maritime provinces. I am glad to say that these recommendations find very general acceptance on this side of the House, but we are most anxious to know when the government will be prepared to declare their policy in that regard. I do not ask that the policy be outlined now, but if my right hon. friend would give us some idea of when he will be prepared to do so, I think it will be satisfactory in the meantime.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) has just announced that he intends !to make his budget speech on Thursday of this week and I have no doubt that he will then move that the discussion on the budget proceed forthwith and have precedence over other matters. Hon. members of the House will, I believe, agree that the business of parliament would be expedited if we could get under way with discussion of the budget at an early date, and I think it will be equally apparent that the interest of all will be best served if we deal with the maritime province problem by itself, and do not confuse that issue by its consideration prior to or along with the subject matter of the budget. For that reason the government has sought to bring in the budget as early as possible, with the intention of following the conclusion of the budget debate with a pronouncement with respect to the report of the commission on the maritime provinces' claims.



SALVATION ARMY IMMIGRATION WORK

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. PI. C. HOCKEN (Toronto West Centre): I ask the Minister of Immigration and Colonization if it is the intention of his

Special War Revenue Act
department, or of the government, to discontinue the financial assistance which has been given heretofore to the immigration work of the Salvation Army.
Hon. ROBERT FORKE (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: I may say there is no intention of discontinuing the grant for assistance that the Salvation Army get in bringing out immigrants. As I said yesterday in reply to questions that have been asked me, they are getting exactly the same treatment that other people engaged in that work are getting. The army is receiving a grant this year of $25,000 cash for the work that they have been doing. Now, the Dominion government with the Imperial government are paying the passage of the boy immigrants that the Salvation Army are bringing out, and that money is being devoted to that purpose. If the army undertake settlement work along the lines that the Vimy Ridge organization, for example, are carrying on in the province of Ontario, they will receive exactly the same treatment. They will receive no direct grant next year other than the assisted passage paid jointly by the Imperial and Dominion governments.


Mr. HOCKEN:: I simply want to get a clear idea of the situation. I understand from the minister that no assistance is to be given to the army in bringing out boys. Is that the idea?


Robert Forke: They are getting the assistance of the passage which is paid, the same as other organizations.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Is that an imperial arrangement?


Robert Forke: No, it is an Imperial and Dominion arrangement under which the Dominion will pay a sum in hard cash on every boy that comes out, and which will amount to quite a large sum in the aggregate. I may say for the information of my hon. friend that some little trouble has arisen over the aftercare of boy immigrants. The Salvation Army have claimed or sought a grant because they give after-care to these boys. The department, however, have taken the stand that they have a fully equipped staff capable of giving the after-care to boy immigrants, and consequently that they 'are not justified in making a grant to the army for doing exactly the same work that they are doing. We shall
always be glad to have the Salvation Army, or any other organization, give whatever care they deem necessary to the immigrants they are particularly interested
5 p.m. in. When the immigration estimates are before the House I will give full information concerning all the different immigration schemes as regards both adults and boys coming to Canada from the British Isles.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 57, respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and respecting the Canadian National Railways.
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Mr. DUNNING:: The bill now before the committee, is, I think, completed. I only desire to draw attention to one or two clerical errors which occur on pages 8 and 9 merely involving the change from 1926 to 1927. I am informed, however, that the law clerk of the House will be authorized to make such minor changes as that.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT, 1915, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The House again in committee on Bill No. 59, to amend the Special War Revenue Act, 1915, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Sections 1 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On section 9-Excise tax on passenger automobiles not to apply on cars valued at not more than $1,200.
Mr. BARBER:: I wish to draw the attention of the minister to a question which has arisen under the budget of last year which it seems to me can be appropriately discussed in connection with this section. It appears that under tariff item No. 438-B, automobiles entering Canada from the United States, valued at not more than $1,200, take a rate for duty of 201 per cent, and an excise tax of 5 per cent. Cars valued at over $1,200, under item 438-A, are dutiable at 27i per cent. In the former case the excise duty is 5 per cent, and in the latter case it is 10 per
Special War Revenue Act

cent. The effect seems to be that there is some discrimination against western Canada, and I think it is necessary that I should draw the fact to the attention of the minister. Under these regulations persons importing an automobile valued at $1,150 from Detroit into any point in eastern Canada would pay 20 per cent duty and an excise tax of 5 per cent. But since there is a customs regulation that the amount of the freight from east to west shall be included in the value for duty pur-
Eastern Importer:-[DOT]
Automobile. Value for duty $1,150.
Western Importer:-
Automobile. Value.. ..$1,150 Freight. ..	100
Total value for duty	$1,250
poses, the freight in the case of this particular car from Detroit to Seattle would be $100, making the total value for duty $1,250. A person importing an automobile into western Canada would therefore have to pay duty at the rate of 27J per cent, and an excise duty of 10 per cent. Therefore, there would be some discrimination. Let me show how that works out by giving a sample entry. I have a sample entry here of an eastern importer, for instance, as follows:
Duty at 20%	$230	00Sales tax 5%	
69	00Excise tax 5%	
69	00Total	$368 00Duty at 271%	$343 75Sales tax at 5%	
79 69Excise tax at 10%	
159 37Total	$582 81
The sales tax and the excise tax are, of course, computed on the duty paid value. This makes an increase in the cost of the car to the man in British Columbia who imports from Seattle of $214.81. In other words, the Dominion government is collecting $114.81 more on that same car imported into British Columbia than it would on the same car imported into Ontario. As I said before, I think it is only necessary to draw this to the attention of the minister to have it remedied. I would suggest that perhaps the fairest method would be to fix the duty on the list price of the car f.o.b. the place of manufacture.


James Alexander Robb: Apparently this is purely a
departmental question, and I shall direct the observations of my hon. friend to the attention of the Department of Customs.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 9 to 14 inclusive agreed to.
On the preamble:
Mr. CHURCH:: Would the minister mind
answering now a short question I wish to put to him which would come more properly on the first section? Does he not think it is a hardship on the large centres of population to maintain the two-cent rate for drop letters, when letters can be posted all over Canada for two cents? The revenue of the Toronto post office, for instance, is $6,000,000, and are the cities to continue to carry the deficits in the postal service in other parts of the country? With all due respect, I think this

concession should be made to the working people in the large centres of population, where the bulk of the post office business is done, and where the bulk of the post office revenue comes from. Does not the minister think the time has come to restore the one cent rate for drop letters in cities?


James Alexander Robb: When the tax was reduced
last year restoring penny postage in Canada, I explained that it was a business proposition. As regards the question of revenue, when the budget statement is presented on Thursday I shall place before the House a statement of the revenues of the post office as affected by the changes that have been made, and after that, we shall be in a better position to consider the observations of my hon. friend.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Edmonton, Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 55, to provide for special control by the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs of certain islands in the St. Lawrence river being part of the St. Regis Indian reservation.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.

St. Regis Indian Reserve
On section 1-Short title.
Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I think the
minister had better explain what this bill is intended to do.


Charles A. Stewart: The explanation is really all contained in the preamble of the bill. For a great number of years there have been long leases, ninety-nine year leases, granted on certain islands in the St. Lawrence river owned by the St. Regis band of Indians. No Indians have been residing on these islands, and the islands have been leased for this long period at very nominal sums. It will be noted from the preamble that the department has taken action in some cases. Some of the leases have matured, and in other cases action has been taken to break the leases, and the islands are designated in which that has been effected. Further court action is pending in regard to the other islands.


George Halsey Perley: Did the courts
annul these so-called leases in all cases?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, except
in those cases that are still pending. We have succeeded in recovering Lewis island, Snyder island, and Thompson or Macmaster island, and actions are still pending in respedt of Thomas or Hamilton island, and what is known as the Easterbrook farm on Cornwall island. It is considered that the revenues derived from these leases are not neatly adequate for the land that is under rental, and we propose to lease them at rentals that will be more commensurate with their value, the proceeds going to the maintenance of the band of St. Regis Indians.


George Halsey Perley: Is anybody complaining that this is causing them an injustice?


Charles A. Stewart: We have
felt that it was an injustice to the St. Regis band that these islands should be leased at such low rentals, and we desire to secure rentals that will be more commensurate with the value of the property. This property of course has become much more valuable in recent years for summer resort purposes and will bring a much higher rental. There was in the old lease a provision that there could be a renewal at the termination of the first lease, so this is what we are doing.


George Halsey Perley: Are the present
lessees of these islands under the Indian title complaining of this action of the government?


Charles A. Stewart: Not that
I have heard. The only request I have had registered is that those already in possession under leases should be given the first opportunity to re-lease.


George Halsey Perley: I suppose the
minister will agree to that?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, I
think they are entitled to that.


Mr. GARDINER:: How long is it since
these leases were first issued?


Charles A. Stewart: I have not
that in my notes. The leases were for ninety-nine years with a provision in the lease for renewal at the end of that period.


Robert Gardiner: Do these leases purport to be given by the Indian band?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. They were at all events given by the consent of the band.


Robert Gardiner: Were these leases in
writing?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Will any of
these islands likely be affected by the St. Lawrence power development?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
give that information.


Mr. COOTE:: Were the leases signed by
the Indians or by the department?


Charles A. Stewart: By both, I am given to understand.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Superintendent to have power to deal with certain islands.
George Halsey Perley: It seems to be
all right that the department is only to deal with these lands when the old Indian leases are declared by the court null and void. I notice that clause 2 reads that the department may-

grant leases, licenses or other concessions without tlic necessity of obtaining a surrender of the said islands from the band.
I do not see anything in this bill stating that the proceeds shall go to the St. Regis Indians, although I understand that is what will happen.


Charles A. Stewart: The Indian Act provides in all cases for that. When we come to discuss the amendments to the Indian Act my hon. friend will note that all proceeds of leases go for the benefit of the
St. Regis Indian Reserve

band. But as we are not selling the property, but simply taking power to lease these islands, we have inserted in clause 2, this provision to which my hon. friend has referred. These lands are being leased in the interest of the band themselves.


George Halsey Perley: Is it not customary to obtain the consent of the band with respect to any dealing with their land?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. In
cases where the band is in residence upon the reserve, the Indian Act provides for the consent of the band being obtained, and it is obtained in the ordinary way through their council. But in cases such as this where the Indians are not residing on the land, but it is part of the reserve and the reserve is being used for other purposes, we are asking for power to deal with these lands in this way.


Hugh Guthrie: Is the minister sure that
these islands are not at or near the proposed development in the river St. Lawrence? They are near Cornwall.


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
say.


Hugh Guthrie: Would they be used for
purposes of the development?


Charles A. Stewart: If they are, of course action would have to be taken to get possession of them.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think there
should be any alienation of them.


Charles A. Stewart: Compensation undoubtedly would have to be made to the Indians for the land.


Hugh Guthrie: But there should be no
alienation of the islands jin the meantime.


Charles A. Stewart: We are not asking that power. We are asking power simply to lease them. There will be no alienation of the land from the band itself.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: These islands
should be held as far as possible under public * control until it is decided whether in any case they will be required for that development. No leases should be granted in the meantime where such interests might have to be expropriated.


Charles A. Stewart: In this
legislation we are endeavouring to get away from long leases. Values change very rapidly. Five years are the limit in leasing this land, and in most cases the leases run from year to

year. I have not had any representations made to me with respect to leases; but if this should come under the St. Lawrence development, undoubtedly either a sale would be arranged, or the authorities who are dealing with the matter would expropriate the land under the Expropriation Act.


Hugh Guthrie: I thought the leases were for the purpose of summer cottages and the like. It strikes me that one of the engineers in my hon. friend's department told' me at one time that some of these inslands would be utilized for dam or bridge construction work if the development went on. I think it would be well to safeguard that possibility, because in the event of a five or ten year lease, we might have to expropriate not only the lease but some buildings and the like. There should be a saving clause of some kind.


Charles A. Stewart: Something
of that sort will occur on these islands. It is occurring on all the islands, and these are not an exception.


George Halsey Perley: I have been
reading over this proposed legislation, and really it seems to me the only power it gives to the government Which it does not have now is to lease these islands without the consent of the band. There is a long preamble telling about the old leases, how they have been cancelled by the court, and how the department is not going to deal with any of these islands unless the old title has been extinguished by the court. Then the bill simply goes on to say, in clause 2, that the department may lease the islands without the consent of the band. I see nothing else in the bill. :


Charles A. Stewart: That is
quite true. This property has never been occupied by the Indians. It is being maintained for their benefit. In cases where we execute leases for grazing or agricultural pur. poses on the reservation itself, where the Indians are in occupation, the act provides that the Indians shall be consulted. But this is just where the difficulty arises in this case. These lands are not occupied by the Indians and these long term leases have in the past entailed considerable difficulty. In some cases we want to get absolute control of this property for the benefit of the Indians. That is the reason we are asking for this bill.


George Halsey Perley: Is there any precedent for the department dealing with the lands of an Indian reserve without the consent of the Indians?

St. Regis Indian Reserve


Charles A. Stewart: We have
that in the Indian Act. Under the recent amendment to the Indian Act we may take that action, but it 'has not been taken, with the exception of this case. That is why I suggested a bill for the purpose.


George Halsey Perley: Why does the
minister need a separate bill?


Charles A. Stewart: In some
particular cases it becomes necessary that we have the authority; but as I say it has never been exercised, because we have always been able to deal amicably with the band, and I am against it in any case where the band is in residence. This is a different situation altogether. A great deal of controversy will arise in connection with leasing these islands and the Indians who do not reside upon them are constantly 'having representations made to them. We are asking for fairly drastic amendments to the Indian Act, not applying to lands upon which the Indians reside. We are asking in the next bill for some supervision over individuals who seek to act legally for Indians, to solicit subscriptions from them, and so forth. This bill is primarily for the purpose of giving us control of these islands without reference to the band itself.


George Halsey Perley: Is there no general clause in the Indian Aot to the same effect?


Charles A. Stewart: Not giving
the power that is asked for here.


John Livingstone Brown: There is a band of Indians
in whom the ownership is nominally vested now?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, the Regis band. They will get any profits that accrue from the administration of the land.


George Gibson Coote: Why should not the Indians be consulted if it is Indian property?


Charles A. Stewart: For the simple reason that this is a group of little islands on some of which there is timber and most of which are of great natural beauty, and we find the utmost difficulty in getting the Indians to agree as to who should have them. We are also troubled1 by people going to' the Indians and agitating them about leases. If we can have control of these islands we shall be able to get a very considerable revenue, which will assist very materially in looking after the welfare of this band.


George Gibson Coote: If the Indian department
does not try to get more revenue than it has in other cases of Indian land that it has let without the consent of the band, its control will be to the detriment of the Indians. For
my part I do not like to see this House pass legislation removing the land altogether from * any right the Indians may have as to its disposition. I brought a case to the attention of this House two years ago where the Indian department deliberately leased land against the vote of the Indians at much less than could have been obtained for it had it been leased by auction or on any other competitive basis.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, there is a fixed rate at which Indian lands are leased by the department, six cents per acre for pasture land for cattle and ten cents per acre for sheep. The lease mentioned by my hon. friend carries that rate. For some considerable time we had a great deal of agitation in connection with that case, but I have heard nothing of it recently. Just as valuable land as that referred to is leased for identically the same figure. As one who has to take responsibility for the administration of the Indian Act, I may tell the House that in certain cases we need this authority. We have a great deal of trouble in the administration of the Indian Act. There are agitators in every band, and there are also outside agitators who excite the Indians and give them a false conception of their rights. That has happened on more than one occasion since I have been in charge of the department. I am merely asking here for what is obviously necessary in order to protect these islands and to secure from them a revenue commensurate with their worth for the benefit of the band.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is the
area of these islands?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
give my hon. friend that information.


George Gibson Coote: Mr. Chairman, in connection
with the reserve which I mentioned a moment ago, I would ask the minister if the Indian department did not there do exactly what he iis asking authority for under this bill with respect to these islands? The department simply went ahead and leased that Indian land without the consent of the band, although the band had voted against such leasing. If the department had power to do so in that case under the general act, I do not see why the minister need come now and ask for this special act to do what seems to be the very same thing in connection with other Indian lands.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, the lease in question was fully discussed here and I gave an explanation of every detail of it. Due consideration was given to
St. Regis Indian Reserve

the whole matter by the commissioner in * western Canada, and on his recommendation we made the lease. In certain instances we have power to override agitators in any band We have difficulty at the moment on the Six Nations reserve, and I say frankly that I think the trouble has come about largely because I have tried to be lenient with those Indians. I find in some cases that is not the best policy to pursue, for there is not a single band in which there is not a fair percentage of agitators, who thrive on agitation in preference to working for their living Those agitators can always stir up a great deal of difficulty for the department. There is a very valuable revenue to be secured from these islands.


George Gibson Coote: I am at a disadvantage because I have not the Indian Act before me, but is there not a provision in that act empowering the superintendent general to go ahead without the consent of the band and lease unoccupied lands as he sees fit?


Charles A. Stewart: Not to give us the authority we want under this bill.


George Gibson Coote: It seems to me that the
very same thing has been done by the department before under the Indian Act, and that is why I am asking the minister what is [DOT] the necessity for bringing in this bill.


Charles A. Stewart: I am advised by the law officers of my department that the authority asked for under this bill is necessary to give us full control of these islands. We certainly would not ask for this special bill if we had authority under the general act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Consent of superintendent required for occupation, etc.
George Halsey Perley: Surely the department has the right under the general act to make regulations such as those described in this section to prevent any person going on Indian land and cutting down and carrying away trees.


Charles A. Stewart: Of course,
no one could do so without being subject to action for trespass, but we are simply making the position clear with respect to these islands. The clause may not be entirely necessary, but I see no harm in it.


George Halsey Perley: There is a bill
now before the House for the amendment of the general act. I take, it for granted that under the general act the department has 
power to make regulations in the terms of section 3 of this bill. Therefore why the department should be given this power in a special bill is something that I cannot understand. It seems to me that if the department is not satisfied with the general act as it stands in dealing with these and other Indian islands, the minister had better suggest amendments that his officials consider necessary.


Charles A. Stewart: I think it
is only fair where you are taking absolute control over certain lands that you should designate those lands in a separate piece of leigislation. We have general powers for leasing, but we have not power under the Indian Act to take absolute control of any Indian land on behalf of the department. That is what we are seeking to get here.


George Halsey Perley: But do not those general powers cover what you are seeking under section 3?


Charles A. Stewart: Powers are
delegated under the act to the council, subject to the approval of the superintendent general, but in this particular case we are taking power to deal absolutely with these lands, making provision not to dispose of them, but simply to lease them. We are also making regulations with respect to trespass and so forth. The control of the reserves under the Indian Act is primarily with the council, subject to the approval of the superintendent general.


George Halsey Perley: That is all right so far as section 2 is concerned, but as to section 3, the minister has not said whether the department has or has not now under the general act the power to make regulations bearing on that section.


Charles A. Stewart: As I say,
the power is in the council, subject to the approval of the superintendent general.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Hewitt Bostock: When shall the bill be
read the third time?


George Halsey Perley: With the consent of the minister I would suggest that the bill remain in committee until we get some further explanation as to why we should have certain sections in this act instead of in the general act.

Indian Act


Hewitt Bostock: If any remedy is necessary, the hon. member may have it on the third reading of the bill, unless he wishes to move now that the bill be referred back to the committee.


George Halsey Perley: With the consent of the minister I move that the House go into comimittee again on the bill.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Progress reported.



INDIAN ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Edmonton, Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 56 to amend the Indian Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1

If capital1 does not exceed two thousand dollars.
Charles A. Stewart: This is to
give us power to dispose of certain small sums of money belonging to the Indians. It applies chiefly to the Indians of British Columbia where there are approximately about 100 bands whose capital ranges from $9.17 to $2,000. The annual interest on such funds is negligible. Many of the bands consist of just a few members and in some instances there is no occasion for the disposal of money. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to enable the Governor in Council to dispose of small amounts among the Indians in any way that may be deemed beneficial to them. When the amount involved is under $2,000 the distribution of interest entails a great deal of bookkeeping inasmuch as the individual member of the band receives so very small an amount. We are asking for authority to distribute these moneys amongst the bands interested and so clean up the situation.


Robert Gardiner: That is, to distribute
the capital itself?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Are these small accounts stationary?


Charles A. Stewart: They are
capital accounts.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But not accounts that may be added to by some unexpected lease or sale of timber or land or some other resource on the reserve?


Charles A. Stewart: No. In
that case there might be a possibility of the capital exceeding $2,000, but this is to fix an arbitrary amount from which point to work down to zero. It does not contemplate cases in which the capital amount may be augmented by subsequent sales.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the point.


Charles A. Stewart: The object
is to get rid of little capital accounts.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If these are dead accounts it is all right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Regulations.
Charles A. Stewart: This is to
give us more power over the operations of poolrooms, dance halls and places of amusement generally. In some instances we have no authority in relation to such matters, particularly as regards the sale of liquor on the reserves.


Mr. SMOKE:: In my constituency is at
least a portion of the Six Nations Indians, who stand in a different class altogether from all other Indians in Canada. I am not competent to give the complete history of the Six Nations Indians, but the committee will remember that during the Revolutionary war in the United States these Indians were allies of the British nation, and remained loyal. After the war they, like a number of others, were excluded from the American nation and forced to leave that country,, as were the United Empire Loyalists. These Indians came to Canada under a treaty with King George which allowed them certain rights in this country. In intelligence the Six Nations Indians compare very favourably indeed with the average white man; the average Indian in the townships of Tuscarora and Oneida is quite equal to the average white man, and is quite capable of managing his own affairs. Therefore I think there should be an exception made in the case of those Indians known generally as the Six Nations. I do not know whether they should be under the Indian act at all; they were brought here by the British government and given certain lands under the Haldimand treaty, with which I am not familiar, I do know, however, that these lands were largely reduced by subsequent treaties.
Indian Act

I do not know how these later treaties were made; I have a question on the order paper in that connection which will give that information. Originally the Six Nations were entitled to a strip of land six miles wide from the mouth to the source of the Grand river, and that has been reduced until now they are in two townships, one in the county of Brant and the other in the county of Haldimand. The government still assumes to deal with these lands; they are held under life leases or in some other way with which I am not familiar, but as I have already said these Indians are thoroughly capable and well-behaved citizens of Canada, and I do not think the Indian department should longer assume the position of superiority implied by the Indian act. I would ask the minister if he will not take into consideration the question of excepting the Six Nations Indians from the provisions of the bill now before the House.


Charles A. Stewart: I inherited
the responsibility of dealing with the Six Nations Indians as well as all other Indians in Canada. Of course where an Indian becomes enfranchised and takes upon himself the responsibility of full citizenship, he is no longer upon the reserve. I do not desire to discuss the treaty respecting these Indians; I understand my hon. friend is asking a question which will bring the matter up. I am not prepared to discuss that matter to-day nor am I ready to give a direct answer as to whether I would advise the release of the Six Nations Indians from the control of the Indian act. For one thing, I might say that there is a very serious difference of opinion between the bands themselves on that reserve, not through any interference by the Indian department but because of a difference in their own ideas. Just whether or not these Indians are at a stage of development where they can take full responsibility for their own affairs I am not prepared to say. White people quarrel amongst themselves and I see no reason why the Indians should not be 'given that privilege if they desire it. I may say, however, that this act applies to all the Indians in Canada; under section 92 the superintendent general may do a great many things, subject always to the councils selected by the Indians themselves, whose business it is to work under this act for the good government of their reserves. They themselves are desirous of having more stringent regulations governing the licensing of pool halls, dance halls and other places of amusement on the reserves. In the bill there are a great many clauses enumerated having to do with sanitary regulations, regulations for taxation, the con-

trol and destruction of dogs destroying sheep and all that sort or thing. The council administers these by-laws in running the reserve, and this amendment simply asks for more control over the pool halls and other places of amusement.


Mr. SENN:: The pool rooms and dance
halls and places of that character are taxed by the provincial government; the pool rooms pay a flat rate and the dance halls pay amusement tax. Will that still be operative in this case?


Charles A. Stewart: No. The
Indian reserves are quite immune from any of the provisions of the provincial law. The control of the Indian reserves is under the jurisdiction of the federal government.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Life chiefs.
Charles A. Stewart: This is
merely a change substituting the jurisdiction of the superintendent general for the Governor in Council. There is a restriction for three years, but if there is any protest I have no objection to dropping this.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There are two clauses
which substitute the superintendent general for the Governor in Council, and one thought occurs to me in that connection. After all, in dealing with the members of our Indian tribes, and remembering their position as related to our own and as related to the government, I think it desirable to keep them as closely identified with the government as we possibly can. In other words, I think we might accord them this distinction, that their removal must be by the Governor in Council. It is a small thing, and really I would suggest to the minister that these two clauses be dropped. I do not think there is much need for them and it is one of those little courtesies which I think will probably smooth the paths of the department and of the minister.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not particularly keen about this; as a matter of fact I rather welcome the responsibility of the order in council, although of course the superintendent general must take the responsibility of recommending it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is very little trouble, just a pro forma order.


Charles A. Stewart: I have no objection to dropping these two sections, and carrying on as we have done in the past.
Sections 3 and 4 dropped.

Ottawa Electric Company
On section 5-confirmation by the superintendent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As to clause 5 I should
think the same thing would apply unless there is some reason for using the word "also".


Charles A. Stewart: This clause is not so important, perhaps, as the other. The other dealt with the removal of the chief and councillors and head men. This is a matter which merely deals with regulations. To provide that there should be an order in council will give an air of greater authority.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think so.


Charles A. Stewart: I have no
particular objection. The sole object was to simplify the administration, that is all we had in mind. But if there is a feeling that the matter should proceed by order in council I do not object.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is more formal.


Charles A. Stewart: I move that section 5 be dropped.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
On section 7-Acquisition of totem poles, etc., forbidden.
Charles A. Stewart: This clause applies particularly to British Columbia, and it is something that we are desirous of having, because these works of art, if one may call them such, are very rapidly disappearing on the coast.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is only one thing
I should like to ask t'he minister. I am fully in accord with the idea expressed in this clause, but some of the Indians are making a business of carving small replicas of these totem poles and selling them, which I think is a very useful thing.	Would this clause prevent
them from doing that?


Charles A. Stewart: That is not our intention. We are seeking to preserve these totem poles because of their historic value.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It says here:
No title to any. . . carved grave pole, totem pole, carved house-boat, or large rock-
And so on. The clause as it now reads would include any carved thing of that character, would it not? I know some of the Indians, for example those around Alert bay, carve these replicas and sell them to the tourists that go by on the Alaska tourist steamship route. We have a small one in our own home that was given to us by an Indian.


Charles A. Stewart: There would be no objection to the Indians doing that, although, perhaps, the clause might be interpreted to mean that they would not have such a right. I do not know how we are going to take power to prevent the sale of these historic tribal relics without having this clause in the bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The language seems to be so sweeping in its character that I think it would have the effect of stopping 'this business to which I referred, although it is one which should be encouraged, I think.


Charles A. Stewart: I quite admit the force of my hon. friend's contention, but I do not know how we are going to have the necessary authority, unless we have some such clause.	1


George Gibson Coote: Perhaps between now and
eight o'clock t'he minister may hit upon something which would overcome the difficulty.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 42, respecting certain patents owned by Albert P. Frigon.-Mr. Mercier (St. Henri).
Bill No. 44, respecting the Ottawa Gas Company.-Mr. Mercier (St. Henri) (for Mr. Chevrier).

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PAUL MERCIER (St. Henri) (for Mr. Chevrier) moved the second reading of Bill No. 43, respecting the Ottawa Electric Company.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri) moved that the bill be referred to the committee on miscellaneous private bills.
Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, just on a
point of order, is it proper, in the absence of the promoter of a bill, to move that it be referred to the committee? It may be possible that the promoter does not desire to proceed. I have no objection to this bill or to this procedure, but I think last session or the session before we laid down the rule that in the absence of the promoter the bill should stand.

Indian Act


Hewitt Bostock: The reason I put the
motion is that the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) was away on two different occasions when the bill was called before, and I thought he would like the bill to go before the committee.


Hugh Guthrie: I have no objection to
that.


Hewitt Bostock: Strictly speaking, the
hon. member is right. The sponsor of the bill should be present. However, by unanimous consent the motion may be agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration, in committee of Bill No, 56 to amend the Indian Act-Mr. Stewart j(Edmonton).
[DOT] .
On section 7-Acquisition of totem poles, etc., forbidden.
Charles A. Stewart: Our difficulty in connection with these totem poles, which are from fifteen to forty-five feet high, is that rich Americans have been coming up into British Columbia and purchasing them, and if this goes on the whole coast will soon be denuded of these totem poles if we do not take some action to preserve them. They are of great historic value. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre raised the question of Indians being allowed to practise the art of making miniature totem poles for sale. There is no objection in the world to that on the part of the department. The totem poles that we have in mind and wish to preserve are in the nature of stationary monuments, carvings on rocks, and the posts that appear along the coast. The art of making smaller totem poles would not be interefered with by this provision at all. This is merely to preserve the historic mementoes of the Indian tribes along the coast, and it applies only to British Columbia.


Hugh Guthrie: Have quite a number of these totem poles been sold?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, Americans have been purchasing them and taking them to the United States and placing them on their properties there. We want to preserve at least enough for those who come after us, or otherwise they will be found only in museums.


Hugh Guthrie: I notice that the clause
is not drafted to apply to sales, but only to removal. There is no prohibition against the sale.


Charles A. Stewart: The sale
would'not be valid; removal cannot take place.


Hugh Guthrie: There is nothing to make the sale valid. There is a provision to make the removal invalid. If a bona fide sale takes place, is the purchaser not entitled by law to remove what he has purchased?


Charles A. Stewart: It says:
No title. . . . shall be acquired by any means whatsoever by any person without the written consent of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs.


Hugh Guthrie: The word "acquired"
would cover it.


Mr. NEILL:: I would like to point out
to the minister in charge of this bill while it is perhaps desirable to retain these historic poles, I do not see why we should interfere with the Indians engaging in the occupation of making new totem poles, which is getting to be quite an industry now, just as the manufacture of old furniture is becoming quite an industry. They are copies, and they do not profess to be anything else but what they are. Why should these people who have had this facility 'handed down to them through long years of tradition and practice be prevented from selling the work of their hands from day to day? A distinction should be drawn between the old historic totem poles and the copies. I fear this restriction will apply to all copies made an the future.


Charles A. Stewart: It is not
the intention of the department that this should apply to those which are simply copies, but rather to the historic poles and monuments. They are taking the monuments as well as the poles, and anything that is a copy could be sold quite freely.


Alan Webster Neill: Not under this legislation.


Charles A. Stewart: There is
just this one restriction. May I point out that unless we have this power, all will be sold. If you make distinctions, you will have difficulty in distinguishing between what is really a copy of the historic pole and what is the real article. I wish to assure the committee that there will be no objection in the world to the Indians carrying on the art of copying these monuments and historic poles.


Alan Webster Neill: The bill does not say so,
and I suppose it is the bill that will govern the Indian agent and the Indian department.

Indian Act


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon.
friend inserts a provision that the Indians may freely dispose of the copies without reference to the department, then in all probability the historic poles will go as well.


Alan Webster Neill: I would suggest that the
clause be worded so that no poles made previously to this shall be disposed of and any poles made subsequently to this may be disposed of by obtaining the consent of the Indian agent who is always immediately available, and who can put a stamp on it and permit it to be exposed for sale. As the bill stands now, while I quite understand there is no intention of doing what I am speaking about, the bill does not say so.


Charles A. Stewart: If the Indian is permitted to dispose of copies without this restriction, without reference to any one, we shall have a great deal of difficulty in preserving the historic poles that are of value Even if you inserted in the bill a provision allowing the Indians to sell, the sale would have to be under the control of the department, because otherwise as these historic poles are almost invaluable to some people who have money to spend on articles of historic value, they will pay fabulous prices for them. Therefore it is simply an endeavour to preserve these poles of historic value, and if the Indian manufactures a new one and desires to sell it, such a sale can be very easily arranged for by the department.


Alan Webster Neill: The department will make
regulations to that effect?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: Then I would suggest that
the matter be made subject to the permission of the written consent of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, or anyone deputed by him. Otherwise every time an United States tourist wants to go ashore from a steamer and pay six bits for a little thing about six inches long, he has to get the written consent of the man down here at Ottawa There is no sense to that.


Charles A. Stewart: This would not apply to the small copies. That is the very point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), but it is pointed out that they make exact copies of the poles that are from twenty to thirty feet high. I do not know whether they do or not.


Alan Webster Neill: Certainly they do.
32649-21i


Charles A. Stewart: What my
hon. friend was objecting to was in connection with these smaller copies of the originals that are sold every day by these Indians who are practising their art. There is no interference with that at all.


Alan Webster Neill: The bill says that they have to send to the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, and he is three thousand miles away. It will take a month or six weeks to get his consent.


Mr. SMITH (Stormont):: I presume the
superintendent general would have power to delegate his consent in regard to small copies without reference to him on each particular occasion.


Charles A. Stewart: The consent in that case will be obtained from the superintendent who is located at Victoria.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: The consent applies not to the copies but to the originals. Is it the intention of the department to allow these originals to be taken away?


Charles A. Stewart: The bill
does not say anything about originals or copies. It says simply that these monuments, poles, gravehouses, carved posts, shall not be disposed of without the consent of the department. That is the wording of the bill.


Alan Webster Neill: That is hardly a fair statement. It says that they must not be disposed of without the written consent of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. If it was the department I would not have much objection, -because that consent would be obtained from the agent who is available in time, perhaps in three weeks. The bill does not say that; it says "without the written consent of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs", and there is only one man in that position. It does not say any one deputed by him. So when the United States tourist comes along from the steamer-and he is an important source of revenue to members of these bands -and says: "I will give you $75 for that totem pole", the man says "All right. Sit down and write a letter to Ottawa and you will get an answer back in the course of six weeks, when we shall be able to make a deal". I am not going to press the matter further, but I know there will be a great deal of discontent. I know the object is desirable, but it could be attained in such a way as not to
Indian Act

hurt these Indians, many of whom make a living by carrying out this very art which we say is desirable and which soon they will be discouraged from carrying out if they find they cannot get a ready sale.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman says that the object is to prevent these old historic marks from being disposed of. In that case it is a very proper thing that the written consent of the superintendent general should be had, because that would prevent their being disposed of.


Alan Webster Neill: My point is the delay occasioned in writing to Ottawa to get the written consent. The United States tourist is not going to wait while you write to Ottawa, three thousand miles away, for the written consent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The object is to prevent their being sold at all.


Alan Webster Neill: I am talking about the copies.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would not say that this applies to the copies.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
think so. Of course lawyers can make these things apply to anything, but that is not really the intention. The intention is to preserve these historic monuments. '


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will not delay the minister beyond one suggestion. I would suggest that in line 20, instead of saying:
Without the written consent of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs.
Put:
Without the authority of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs.
Then the minister by regulation can authorize the local agents to supervise the matter.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: It would be well to define what is meant by the term " totem pole ". Is that .the original pole owned by the tribe or one of the very many representations of it that are made annually? On my annual trips up and down the coast I see so-called totem poles manufactured and sold by the cord, not only to United States tourists, but to all classes of tourists. Has any one of these Indian carpenters who carves out a totem pole, before he makes a sale, to get leave from the Indian department? Surely that is not the intention. These are merely copies. It seems to me it is hardly necessary that any legislation should be passed to prevent these people from selling these carved objects any more than that they should get leave from the Indian department to sell a wicker basket.


Charles A. Stewart: I have just been trying to point out to the committee that if you give the Indians the privilege of selling exact copies of the totem poles you will have veiry great difficulty in preventing sales of .the originals and they will disappear entirely. This provision may appear to work a hardship on the Indians, but strong representations have been made to us that these monuments are of great historic value not only from the standpoint of the people of British Ccftumbia but from the standpoint of the Indians themselves. We cannot enforce an authority such as that suggested by my hon. friend, and I think on further consideration he will realize this. There is a tremendous territory to guard and there are still some very valuable historic poles to be found there.


Mr. KAISER:: Why not specially provide for totem poles of historic value?


Charles A. Stewart: If you give permission for the sale of copies you cannot very well guard the historic poles, for they will be more valuable and more eagerly sought after than the copies, with the resdlt that somebody will arrange to get the originals out of the country. True, this section provides that we may seize any article removed, but we cannot very well recover a totem pole taken into the United States, for instance. If there is any desire on the part of the people of British Columbia who made these representations to preserve these historic monuments, then we must have control over the copy as well as over the original itself.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
On section 9-Receiving money for the prosecution of a claim.
Mr. MoPHERSON: Mr. Chairman, there might perhaps be occasions when the minister would not want this section to be enforced. I can personally recall two or three instances when a considerable sum of money was obtained for the Indians of Manitoba from the American government. We have a situation there that is perhaps unique, in that a large tend of Sioux Indians came over from the States immediately after the Custer massacre and settled near Portage la Prairie. I know that during the past two years they have received from $3,000 to $10,000 from the American government. I do not know what legal charges were made for obtaining payment of that money, but I do know the money was secured through the assistance of solicitors. Under this clause those solicitors would be prosecuted. I do not think that is

Agricultural Winter Fair
quite right, nor do I think it necessary that a solicitor in such a case should have to apply to the superintendent general for permission to act. I may add that there is more money coming to those Indians, because they have in the United States a rather valuable territory. I would suggest that the section should receive further consideration.
Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, that is exactly why we want this clause -in order that we -may exercise some supervision over persons who make private bargains with Indian bands for the purpose of collecting claims, whether legitimate or imaginary. I do -not like to mention names, but a case has come to my notice since I have been Superintendent General of Indian Affairs in relation to a very large claim which we think is owing by the American government to a band of Indians located in Ontario. Notwithstanding that the department has spent considerable sums of money in securing advice as to the possibility of collecting the claim, this band made a solemn agreement) with an attorney under which he was to be remunerated for his services at the rate of nearly fifty per cent of whatever moneys might be collected by him. I could cite a dozen other instances in which representations were made to Indians with respect to certain claims, for the collection of which the Indians agreed to pay substantial remuneration. My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) would not have to go very far to cite one case-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Hear, hear.


Charles A. Stewart: - in which for years the British Columbia Indians have been paying certain persons for their services in connection with claims which it had been represented could be enforced. I think those Indians -have claims-at all events for consideration. But from one end of Canada to the other it is becoming a common practice to represent to the Indians that they have certain rights, and those making the representations usually manage to get the Indians to enter into a contract providing substantial remuneration for their advisers. We think it is to the advantage of the Indians that these contracts should be scrutinized by the department in -order to protect them from exploitation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved. 1. That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the granting of financial assistance to the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair Association of Canada, for the purpose of erecting and equipping a building or buildings in the Exhibition park at Toronto, to be used to display for public inspection the live stock, agricultural and dairy products of Canada.
2.	That for the said purpose the sum of $35,000 each year for a period of twenty years, commencing with the fiscal year ending March 31, 1928, shall be paid out of the vote appropriated for "live stock, including exhibitions";
3.	That such grants shall be payable on condition that the government of the province of Ontario make to this association a grant equal in amount and for the same periods as the grants from the Dominion government, and upon such other conditions as to allocation of space, premiums, and plans and specifications, as may be prescribed.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: The primary purpose of this resolution, upon which a bill will be based, is to extend further assistance and encouragement to the live stock industry of Canada by making the definite grant stipulated in the resolution to the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair Association whose headquarters are located at the exhibition park in Toronto. We are dealing with the Royal association as well as with the live stock associations throughout Canada, and perhaps I may say a word in reference to the extensive building used at present and which has been in use for the past five years. About six or seven years ago-I think in 1921-the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair Association entered into an arrangement with the city of Toronto for the construction of a building costing $1,500,000 for the housing of the exhibits of that show. The show was increasing in proportions and the city of Toronto undertook to construct the present building, which was opened in 1922. The exhibits very soon became so numerous and the fair was so popular, being patronized from one end of the country to the other, that the building in 1923 proved1 quite inadequate to take care of all that was offered for display. In that year the building, although it covers five acres of ground space, was able to accommodate only about one third of the cattle exhibited, and all the poultry, leaving two-thirds of the cattle exhibits, all the horses, sheep and swine to be taken care of in temporary buildings
Agricultural Winter Fair

which were quite unfit for the housing of this high grade live, stock, most of which is pure bred.
The question then came up as to who would supply the additional housing accommodation which was found to be necessary. The exhibition had become not only of national but of international importance, attracting a large number of exhibits from the United States, just as the Chicago International Exhibition at-ti'acts exhibits from Canada. The association discussed the matter with the city of Toronto and the city took the ground that they had done as well as they could be expected to do, as in fact they have. They had risked their money and their judgment in putting up a building at a cost of a million and a half, believing that circumstances would justify that expenditure, and' that the exhibition would soon grow to the capacity of the building. Their belief was fully justified, for inside of two years the accommodation originally provided was found to be inadequate. The question is, should the further accommodation be provided by the province of Ontario, whose live stock men, to a greater extent possibly than those in other parts of Canada, enjoy the use of the building; or should the Dominion as a whole share in the expense? It must not be forgotten that live stock men throughout the country, from the maritimes to the Pacific, share in the accommodation afforded by the building. Should this parliament, therefore, assist in providing the necessary extension in conjunction with Ontario? The live stock men and the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair Association have agreed that it should, and have accordingly requested the government to take steps towards this end. Some two years ago we were asked to provide the necessary housing accommodation for this rapidly extending exhibition.
The resolution provides for an annual grant to the association of $35,000 for a period of twenty years. The legislature of Ontario has passed an act for a similar purpose, with the proviso that the Dominion should contribute its quota. We have agreed to do so on the same understanding. So that we have the three parties co-operating, the city of Toronto, which put up the original building at l cost, as I have said, of $1,500,000, and the province of Ontario and the Dominion government providing funds for the necessary extension on a fifty-fifty basis to the extent of $1,400,000. The building, when teomple/ted, will cover seven acres, and it is expected to oope fully with the demands. I may anticipate the question-why Toronto?
(Mr. Motherwell.]


David Spence: No one has
asked it.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, one might say that Toronto has a record of a half century behind it of putting on one of the
best exhibitions in Canada and that it was to that city's own interest to put up the original building. But the question is, should Toronto be expected to accommodate this broad Dominion's live stock, or should the federal treasury assist with a small annual grant extending, as suggested, over twenty years, to help the province? If we Contribute, I canj assure the committee that (at the end of a very short time the entire accommodation will Ibe taken up by the exhibition, and then we shall have the most outstanding international live stock show on this continent.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: If this resolution passes, is the minister prepared to guarantee that, should other cities apply for similar assistance-say, Winnipeg, or as someone behind me suggests, Oallgary-that assistance will be given? This grant of $700,000 wail, with interest, run well up into a million.


William Richard Motherwell: This includes the interest.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I did not know
that. At any rate the money is intended to extend what after all, is a local exhibition. It is called "Royal" but I do not know what that means. We were told1 a year or two ago that it was against the law to attach this name to any private institution. Further than that, we are told that it was called the Winter Fair Association of Canada. I do not know why one particular city or province should undertake to call its local exhibition a Canadian exhibition. There are a great many other places which might do that equally well. It would seem to me that essentially this is a local exhibition; undoubtedly it has been successful in the past and I do not see why it should not continue its successful career. But if the government continues to make grants to one particular locality, we should have an assurance from the government that grants on a proportionate scale will be made to other parts of Canada.


William Richard Motherwell: There is something in what my friend has said, but we will have to deal with each case as it comes before us.
I do not think we could undertake to 'have three or four outstanding national or international fairs or exhibitions in Canada at

Agricultural Winter Fair
this time, because we must have a reasonable amount of provincial co-operation before we can even have one good show, because of the scattered nature of our provinces. In the United States they concentrate on one outstanding international exhibition at Chicago; it is the centre of attraction of the whole continent, and I think most of us have the idea that we should also centre on one, but of course not altogether to the exclusion of all others. This government is giving more money to our exhibitions in Canada to-day than any other government in our history. In regard to Winnipeg, I may say that we have an allocation of what we call our "A" fairs; two of these have been allocated to each of the four western provinces but Manitoba only avails itself of one, because Winnipeg has not revived the exhibition which was formerly such a pronounced success. We are keeping a little niche in our program, however, looking to the day when the city of Winnipeg will once more conduct this fair and, by making use of the old grounds and renovating the old buildings, resume her place in the agricultural life of Manitoba. If Winnipeg does that the usual grant given "A" fairs will be made, but outside of that I cannot say anything further, except that I think at this juncture we should confine ourselves to the idea of one outstanding national exhibition, and then deal with other applications on their merits.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: Is it not a
fact that the Toronto exhibition is the only exhibition carried on in the Dominion of Canada which has the right to be called international at present?


William Richard Motherwell: I think so.


John Wesley Edwards: If you are
going to make this apply to side shows in Winnipeg and other places like that where they gather a few people together for a visit once a year or once every two or three years, the next thing will be applications from every township for the little one-day shows. The only reason back of this grant is the fact that this exhibition is international.


William Richard Motherwell: That is its only
justification.


John Wesley Edwards: It is international, and when the city of Winnipeg or any other city in Canada can establish a fair of anything near the proportions of the Toronto exhibition I dare say this parliament will be ready to take that into consideration, and it would be in the general interests of Canada to do so. But there is no comparison at all between a grant for a little show in Winnipeg and a grant for the international exhibition in Toronto.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat has .confused two things; the exhibition at Toronto is not being discussed. We were discussing the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, an exhibition for the display of the live stock, agricultural and dairy products of Canada. If the point under discussion were the relative merits of the Toronto exhibition and any western exhibition I think possibly my friend's observations, in a little different language, might be well taken, but while we in the west have not the population of the east, we do not conduct exhibitions as side shows. That must be clearly understood, because the winter exhibitions of live stock in western Canada are international in their character, as the minister very well knows; he also knows the efforts now being made to centralize these exhibitions in the city of Winnipeg this winter. I believe those efforts will be successful, because a large convention is being held in Winnipeg within the next few weeks, if I remember correctly. I know that on one occasion this parliament was good enough to vote a very large sum to Calgary to assist the exhibition there. So I would very much regret anyone giving voice to the thought in this chamber that the cattle of eastern Canada and the dairy and agricultural products of eastern Canada are in any sense better than those of the west. The population of western Canada is very much less than that of the east, but having regard to the population it is only fair to say that western cattle have taken first prizes in every part of the world where they have been exhibited; the same may be said with respect to sheep and horses, to a lesser extent, while our dairy products really form the basis of the largest export trade in dairy products which we have at present. So I would like the House to realize that it is not voting money for the great Toronto exhibition, which is international in its character, but for a cattle exhibition in the city of Toronto, a winter show for cattle and dairy products. To that extent I hope the day is not far distant when under similar conditions we may be able to make some similar appeal for one of the cities in western Canada.


John Wesley Edwards: It is quite
true that this amount is for the winter exhibition, but there is a relation between the winter exhibition and the international exhibition which .must be remembered. I venture to say that this application would never be considered for a moment if it were not for that relationship.


William Richard Motherwell: Hear, hear.
Agricultural Winter Fair


John Wesley Edwards: My hon.
friend was very bard up for an argument when he took the ground that I intimated that the cattle of western Canada were not equal to those of the east; I did not suggest that for one moment. This is not an exhibition for Ontario cattle; cattle from western Canada will be on exhibition there as well as eattle from other parts of Canada and from the United States. II repeat that there is a connection between this winter show and the international exhibition, and if it were not for the fame that exhibition has acquired all over the world this grant would not have been asked for and would not have been made.


David Spence: I hope the
committee will not lose too much time in discussing this item which the good minister has recommended. Every one knows that this is not a local fair or a local association of any kind. The live stock associations of Canada are all interested in this coliseum which it is proposed to build; as the minister said, the city of Toronto spent a million and a quarter to build the coliseum already there, which to-day will not house more than one-third or one-half of the exhibits entered. These exhibits come from the west, from every province of Canada and from almost every state in the union. This is an international fair pure and simple, and I hope the vote will go through without any further discussion which only leads to more controversy.
Mr. C'OOTE: I am very sorry to disappoint any hon. member for Toronto by not letting this amount go through without further discussion, but I am afraid it cannot be helped. I would suggest to the minister that the time to cut out these dips into the treasury, which he described so realistically, is right now before we make this grant to the royal winter fair at Toronto. He is starting out on a policy that will, I am sure, lead his government and successive governments into trouble. Since the minister assumed charge of the department he has been cutting down grants to fairs, starting with the little fairs. There is too much concentration in Toronto. There are enough things centralized in that city now without handing that city a grant of $700,000 to put up another building. They have got lots of money in Toronto to put up such a building; most of the money in Canada is corralled in that City. It would not hurt the citizens of Toronto very much to pay $700,000 themselves to put up this building if they needed it. The thing is wrong in principle. If you want a place for a central exhibition in Canada, that place surely is Winnipeg,

because it is nearer the centre of Canada than Toronto. In the years to come it is certainly going to be the centre of Canada as far as agricultural production is concerned, and dairy products at that. I do not think the minister has really given us any very good reason for embarking on a policy of subsidizing this exhibition association in order to enable them to put up a building. The minister has been hard enough on the small fairs by cutting down their grants, but he still continues to make grants to the bigger associations. I think that while he is doing that, this association should take care of its own buildings. I do not think this government, or this House should embark on a policy of putting up buildings for exhibition associations.


David Spence: The hon.
gentleman who preceded me cannot be serious. If he is, he is speaking without regard to the facts. The hon. gentleman must know that we are not making a grant to the city of Toronto. The exhibition of the royal winter fair is held in Toronto, but it is not in the interest of the city of Toronto but of the whole Dominion. Toronto is capable of looking after its own fairs and does not need to ask for anything here. What is more if it did I do not believe the Minister of Agriculture would grant it.


William Richard Motherwell: The last speaker
is quite right. This proposition is to provide for the housing of the pure bred live stock of Canada and not to house the pure bred Tories of Toronto. The city of Toronto has demonstrated for many years its capacity for putting on and pulling off excellent exhibitions. It is a large, populous centre, with good hotels and good railway connections, and it is the centre to which the live stock of all Canada are gravitating. Every provincial government helps to pay the freight bill of the respective-provincial exhibits to this great national exhibition, so that it has the sympathetic support of all the provinces of Canada. I hope my hon. friend from Macleod will endeavour to take a broad, national aspect of this undertaking, and forget that there is such a place as Toronto. Let him remember the needs of the live stock industry. This building must be located somewhere, but if anybody can find a better place than Toronto I will consider the proposition. In the absence of any better location it seems to me that Toronto is the logical place.
Now as to the necessity of this accommodation, the matter has been fought out for the last three years. The exhibits are so crowded that exhibitors are considering the idea of

Agricultural Winter Fair
discontinuing sending them because there is not proper accommodation. In the weather such as we have in November, the ground is simply nothing but a quagmire. There is such a demand for accommodation that temporary buildings, even tents, have to be provided, and for the exhibition of horses recourse has been had to box cars. While the judges are at work the horses are taken out of the cars, and then returned again to the restricted accommodation which (those cars offer. That cannot continue. The exhibition must go forward and develop in accordance with its possibilities as a great national show. It cannot be expected that in a case of this kind the whole burden should be supported by Toronto; some of it must devolve upon the rest of the Dominion.
Mr. CO'OTE:	I should like the minister
and the people of Toronto as well to understand clearly that I am not objecting to this grant because it is going to Toronto. I am objecting to it simply because I think it is wrong in principle and because I think we should not embark upon such a policy. The minister seems to argue that the building should be provided because the exhibits have been increased. In that case if Calgary wanted a new building all its people would have to do would be to come down to the minister and say, "We have got to house some live stock in box cars and we should like to have $700,000 in order to make an addition to our building." I would not object if the government or the minister think they have plenty of money for all these purposes; but when I have to pay about $2 in the shape of a tax on my sleeping car berth to the Dominion government when I want to come down to Ottawa, I think the government must be pretty hard up for money to run the country. Erecting exhibition buildings is a poor policy for us to embark on. Let me repeat to the hon. member (Mr. Spence), who resented my remarks, that I do not object to Toronto getting this grant simply because it is Toronto. I object to the principle contained in the policy we are embarking upon here of putting up buildings in which to hold winter fairs, or summer fairs either for that matter.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: As one of the
western members of this House I should like to take the opportunity of agreeing for once with my hon. friends from Toronto. The winter show in Toronto is a national show, and people come from all over the Dominion to compete. We are not giving Toronto, or the Toronto exhibition, anything in this grant; we are simply adding to the accommodation
for the annual exhibition of the winter fair so that a national show can be accommodated properly.


David Spence: That is right.


John Gordon Ross: To try to build
up a national show in any other part of Canada to-day would take three or four times the amount of money asked for in this vote, and unless we are going to allow the great live stock show of Canada to retrogress, we have got to spend a little money immediately. Therefore I agree entirely that we should make this appropriation for the winter show which happens to be held in the city of Toronto-not for Toronto, but for the live stock and dairy industry of Canada as a whole.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I wish to say a word in
support of this resolution, for one or two reasons. In the first place this winter show must not be regarded as a Toronto conception at all. I have perhaps occasion to be somewhat intimately connected with it for the reason that most of the men who are associated with it come from the constituency that I represent in this House. Have the members who suggested Winnipeg or Calgary as the scene of an exhibition men in their midst who would give as much time and energy to the building up of a show as Mr. John Bright, for example, who was the live stock commissioner for Canada for a great number of years, and to whom, I think, we may attribute the building of this coliseum and the establishment of this fair in Toronto? Mr. Robert Miller, who was president of the fair two years ago. and the present president of t(he fair, Mr. Dryden, are both from my constituency, and by virtue of that fact naturally they would expect me to say something in regard to this resolution. I consider that it is a move in the right direction, and I would say to the gentlemen from Winnipeg that if they would give as much time to the development of a show in Winnipeg as Mr. Miller, Mr. Dryden and Mr. John Bright have given to the development of this fair in Toronto, they would be justified in having a grant. I know that our people will be quite thankful for the efforts that are being put forward, because the accommodation is absolutely needed. I am very glad to support the resolution.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Motherwell thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 64, for the granting of assistance to the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair Association of Canada, at Toronto, Ontario.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Old Age Pensions



OLD AGE PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a
measure respecting old age pensions, and to provide,-
1.	That the Governor in Council may make an agreement with the Lieutenant-Governor in Council of any province for the payment to such province quarterly of an amount equal to one-half of the net sum paid out during the preceding quarter by such province for pensions pursuant to a provincial statute authorizing and providing for the payment of such pensions to the persons and under the conditions hereinafter specified and regulations made under the proposed legislation.
2.	That every agreement so made shall continue in force so long as the provincial statute remains in operation or until after the expiration of ten years from the date upon which notice of an intention to determine the agreement is given by the Governor General to the Lieutenant-Governor of the province with which the same was made.
3.	That before any agreement so made comes into operation, the Governor in Council shall approve the scheme for the administration of pensions proposed to be adopted by the province, and no change in such scheme shall be made by the province without the consent of the Governor in Council.
4.	That all sums payable to any province in pursuance of any such agreement shall be payable from time to time on the certificate of the Minister of Finance out of any moneys belonging to the consolidated revenue fund of Canada not otherwise appropriated.
5.	That provision shall be made for the payment of a pension to every person who, at the date of the proposed commencement of the pension:
[Stage Direction]
(a)	is a British subject, or, being a widow, was such before her marriage;
(b)	has attained the age of seventy years;
(c)	has resided in Canada for the twenty' years immediately preceding the date aforesaid;
(d)	has resided in the province in which the application for pension is made for the five years immediately preceding the said date;
(e)	is not an Indian as defined by the Indian Act;
(f)	has not made any voluntary assignment or transfer of property for the purpose of qualifying for a pension.
6.	That the receipt of a pension shall not by itself constitute a disqualification from voting at any provincial or municipal election.
7.	That the maximum pension payable shall be two hundred and forty dollars yearly', which shall be subject to reduction by the amount of the income of the pensioner in excess of one hundred and twenty-five dollars a year.
8.	That provisions be made as to the credit to the pension authority of the annual value of a pensioner's residence, and the recovery of pension payments out of deceased pensioner's estate, and for the distribution of pension burden among provinces by proportionate reimbursement or proportionate reduction where

the pensioner resided in more than one province or transfers his permanent residence to another province, and for ceasing of payments where he transfers his residence to some place out of Canada, and the revival of his rights upon again becoming a resident of Canada.
9.	That no pension shall be subject to alienation or transfer by the pensioner, or to seizure in satisfaction of any claim against him.
10.	That on or before the thirtieth day of April in each year, the Minister of Finance shall make a full report to parliament of the operation of the agreements made pursuant to the proposed act, and of the moneys of Canada paid to the provinces under each of the several agreements entered into pursuant thereto.
11.	That the Governor in Council shall have power from time to time, on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour, and with the approval of the Treasury board, to make regulations, not inconsistent with the provisions of the proposed act, with regard to the pensions herein provided for, and such regulations shall be published in the Canada Gazette, and be laid before parliament.
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Chairman, I desire
to offer a word or two in regard to this resolution, more particularly to set clearly before the House the attitude of the Conservative party here, and I think of the Conservative party of Canada, in regard to the subject matter of the resolution; and I do so having regard to the debate which took place in this House on this question less than a year ago, which, of course, is found fully reported in Hansard.
Those who were present in the House when the former bill was introduced last session will remember quite clearly the discussion which took place. A great many members of the Conservative party in the House at that time spoke to this measure when it was in the committee stage. I have read over the debate with some care, and I think I can state with assurance that each hon. member on this side of the House who discussed the proposal on that occasion agreed as to the principle of the bill then submitted. They did not acce*t it as an ideal measure by any means, but rather took the view that it was better to accept half a loaf than no bread. Member after member on this side of the House criticised many of the details of the measure; our suggestions were met in very good spirit by the government at the time, and some most useful amendments were made to the bill as originally drawn.
Several members on this side of the House said very clearly, very ably, very forcibly, that while they were prepared to support the measure then submitted they would have preferred a much wider measure, one applying

Old Age Pensions
to the whole Dominion of Canada, rather than one conditional upon its acceptance by this province, that province and the other province, which was the proposal submitted by the government.
On behalf of the government it was urged in regard to the bill then presented, which was a sort of provincial arrangement, that in order to come within our constitutional rights in this House it was necessary that we should become practically subservient to the will of the provinces in this matter. Indeed, it was intimated on more than one occasion during the debate that this House had no constitutional right to pass an old age pension bill. Opinions were cited from some of the law officers of the Department of Justice, but the opinions cited did not bear out the contention of those hon. members who had urged that this House had not the inherent right to pass an old age pension bill if it so desired.
Another objection that was taken, and very forcibly taken, was that the government's proposal in regard to old age pensions was too limited. Some considered the age limit of seventy too high. Another criticism which had force was that the pension was not founded at all on the question of disability, either ordinary physical disability, or disability through blindness or the like. It was founded solely upon one consideration-old age, and old age did not count until one had reached the age of seventy years.


Alan Webster Neill: Old age and destitution.


Hugh Guthrie: I did not notice the word destitution. I assume that one must accompany the other. I think our position was made abundantly clear, Mr. Speaker, upon that question. It was deemed to be the unanimous wish that the bill should pass unchallenged after amendment and after discussion in the committee, and the bill did pass this House unchallenged; there was no division on it. But during the course of the election last fall I think I am safe in saying that in every quarter of Canada Conservative candidates in the various ridings: were charged with opposition to the old age pension bill. Upon almost every Liberal: platform that charge was made. I remember being in the city of Windsor during the last election and being handed an election card 'charging the present member from the city of Windsor with having voted against the old age pension bill. That is only one instance; but in riding after riding, it was charged against the Conservative party and Conservative candidates that they had opposed the passage of that bill through the House of Commons.
I am speaking at this moment in order to make our position absolutely clear upon this question. The position of the Conservative party in this House in regard to old age pensions as proposed in this measure is this. We prefer a federal scheme. We prefer a scheme which will apply equally to every corner of Canada. This bill is limited to those persons who are in destitution and who have reached the age of seventy years. Apply the proposal to the Dominion of Canada equally and let the Dominion treasury bear the expense. I say to my right hon. friend and his government:	If you will do
that, I believe you will have something in the nature of a real pension measure for the class of persons to whom it applies. I am not seeking in my present remarks to extend the measure beyond those described in this resolution, namely, those who are destitute and at the age of seventy; but taking that as the standard adopted by this government, I say:	Go further than you have gone;
make it an all Canadian scheme; adopt the federal principle and apply it throughout the whole Dominion. Then you will have a pension scheme which may and which will be of some advantage to the people who seek it.
My criticism of the present measure is just the criticism which was levelled against it last session. In all probability it will be inoperative. It is founded upon a wrong principle. We have in this confederation nine self-governing provinces. This proposal is based upon the theory that these provinces are going to agree to a measure dictated by the federal parliament. The federal parliament proposes a measure and says to each of the provinces: If you adopt this measure which we propose, then we will pay one-half of the amount that you are called upon to pay in respect of pensions to aged people. That is an improper principle. It is nothing short of dictation to the provincial governments of this country.
But what is the actual situation? Last session there was only a very faint intimation that any single province would come into the scheme. Member after member on this side of the House urged that the provinces be called together in conference to say what their attitude was in regard to this proposal. But no, the government would not hear of such a suggestion. They wanted to go boldly forward and practically say to the provinces of Canada: There is the measure; we dictate its terms; come in or stay out. What will happen if some of the provinces stay out? Supposing Ontario or Quebec decides not to come in under the present proposal, what will be the result? Other
Old Age Pensions

provinces may come in, and Ontario or Quebec, refusing to come in, must bear their proportionate share of the taxation under a scheme with which they will have nothing to do. Does that not sound a little like dictation to the provinces of this Dominion? Is that not an imposition upon the rights of the people of the various provinces? That was one of the grounds upon which we argued that your measure was faulty; that in all human probability it would never have any results; that there had been no preparation for the proposal. Indeed I doubt if any progress has yet been made in regard to obtaining the views of the various provincial governments. It has been intimated that British Columbia is now likely to agree to the proposal at present before the House, but has the government any official assurance from any other province that it is likely to come into this scheme? If it has not, I tell my right hon. friend and his government that they are wasting the time of the House in proposing this measure. They will fool the people of this country who are depending upon obtaining old age pensions at some time in the not too remote future. If your bill passes, it may become absolutely inoperative.
Have we or have we not the right to pass a federal measure dealing with this matter? I submit without hesitation, without any reservation, that under the constitution of this country this parliament can pass a federal measure. Unquestionably it has the right, and if the government will propose a measure applying to all Canada, where the whole amount is to be paid out of the federal treasury, there can be no doubt as to our constitutional authority to do so. We impose no burden upon any province. We exact no condition from any province. We ask no contribution from any citizen of any province. We invade in no respect what is known as property and civil rights in the various provinces. We have the right. The only question is: I3 the government willing to exercise that right and pass a measure which will give relief to the people mentioned in this resolution and who, I submit, will receive no relief, or very tardy relief, if the present scheme is adopted by this parliament.
I wonder if the government has considered just what the scheme means to some of the provinces. I was startled by figures which I saw to-night. This proposal involves this, that if the provinces enter into it and pass legislation practically identical with the resolution which we are now discussing, they may ask for and receive from the federal treasury one-half the amount that they are called upon

to pay for the aged poor of their various provinces. I am going to take only the single instance of Nova Scotia. An estimate has been made of those in that province who are over seventy years of age, and it is said that forty per cent of those people will be able to qualify under this clause as destitute and also as having attained that age. Does the government realize what they are imposing upon Nova Scotia? They are asking that province to contribute, in addition to what they now contribute for their aged and infirm, some $600,000 or $700,000 per annum to carry out this measure. While the Duncan report, which we hope will give some relief, suggests an additional subsidy of only $850,000 all told for that province, if this government carries out its present proposal and Nova Scotia accepts it, almost the whole of that increased subsidy will have to be paid out for old age pensions. I do not know what the figures are in regard to the other provinces. I have seen them in tabulated form, but the one that struck me was with regard to Nova Scotia. That is a burden which that province cannot bear.
I object to this scheme as a mere piece of patchwork. One of the chief criticisms to be levelled1 against it is that it will apply unequally, bear unequally, unless every province submits to the dictation of this government in matters over which they themselves have control. Now, have I made clear the position of the party which I have the honour to represent in this House upon this question? We ask for a federal measure. The cost of the present proposal is estimated at something like $12,000,000 a year. The cost of a federal scheme, according to the report of the committee which examined into these matters, would be about $23,000,000 a year. Shall we make two bites of the cherry, I ask? Why not adopt a federal scheme? Why not pay the whole amount out of the federal treasury in order that we may have a uniform system throughout Canada?-one which must bear equally upon all the provinces, because all the provinces must contribute their fair proportion of the taxation of the country.
That is the policy of the Conservative party on the subject. That is the measure for which we ask. If it is denied to us, what are we to do? Vote against the present measure? No. We will do as we did last session, we will say to the government and to the country: We will accept half a loaf or a quarter loaf rather than get no bread at all, and our support of the present bill is only by reason of the fact that this government will not bring in a federal measure, which is the one we desire and the one we advocate.

Old Age Pensions


Mr. HEENAN:: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to hear the remarks of the leader of the opposition, for if he is keen to spend $24,000,000 I am sure there will be a fair chance of getting him to vote for the $12,000,000 which we propose. As to the attitude of the Conservative party, I notice it is somewhat changed from that taken last session.


Hugh Guthrie: No.


Peter Heenan: I think there is on record a document from the then leader of the opposition to the effect that he would not consider the introduction of an old age pension plan for Canada.


Hugh Guthrie: I never heard of it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Where is the document?


Hugh Guthrie: Will my hon. friend tell us what document he refers to? I have never heard of it. I am only asking out of curiosity now.


Peter Heenan: Before the debate is over I think the document will be produced, or I am very much mistaken. If it is not produced I will take back that statement. Referring to another remark by my hon. friend, I think he said that last session every member of the opposition spoke in favour of the principle of old age pensions. Well, I sat through nearly all the debate, and it may be I do not quite understand the English language, but I thought many members on the other side of the House were not only trying to discourage the adoption of an old age pension plan, but spoke absolutely against it. Indeed I do not think my hon. friend would have very far to look to find some around him right now.


Hugh Guthrie: I have read the debate.


Henry Herbert Stevens: You had better name them.


Peter Heenan: The argument of my hon. friend that the provinces would not co-operate in an old age pensions scheme is something like the argument that was advanced during the time when other co-operative measures were under consideration in this House, yet we find in operation to-day co-operative plans between the various provinces and the federal government calling for an expenditure of over $65,000,000 from the federal treasury, and instead of the provinces trying to withdraw from those agreements they are asking for their extension.
Again, last session I heard the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) read the replies received from the premiers of the different provinces, and I believe he stated that not one of those premiers was in favour of the old age pension bill at that time.


Mr. MANION:: Hear, hear.


Peter Heenan: I had not read over the documents at that time, but I have taken the trouble to do so since, and I am glad the hon. member says, "hear, hear", because evidently he has not changed his mind. I find that the Premier of New Brunswick stated:
While I feel that it would be a good thing-
That is not against it, is it?
While I feel it would be a good thing, yet it would be impossible for me to commit the province to any action in this matter at the present moment.


Robert James Manion: Is he for it?


Peter Heenan: He endorses the principle.


Robert James Manion: But he would not commit the province to it.	[DOT]


Peter Heenan: At the present moment.


Robert James Manion: That is what we were talking about.


Peter Heenan: So that premier was in
favour of the plan.


Robert James Manion: Oh, oh.


Peter Heenan: 
Robert James Manion: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is favourable?


Peter Heenan: Would you take it that
he was against the plan?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly.


Hugh Guthrie: Have you anything subsequent to that?


Peter Heenan: Without a better understanding he said no action would be taken at the present time.


Robert James Manion: What can you have more definitely against the scheme than that?


Peter Heenan: Evidently we do not understand the English language in the same way.


Robert James Manion: Has he said anything
since?
i
Old Age Pensions


Peter Heenan: We have had something
since, but not from Nova Scotia. The Premier of Prince Edward Island replied:
I shall place the matter before my government at its next meeting and will then advise you of its decision.
Is that saying he would not have anything to do with the scheme?


Robert James Manion: It is not saying he would.


Hugh Guthrie: I supposed he welcomed
it.


Peter Heenan: The Premier of Ontario
said:
I shall be glad to consider the matter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Peter Heenan: It might be a good laugh, but it is a laugh on the Premier of Ontario.


Robert James Manion: It is a laugh on the Minister of Labour, I think.


Mr. IRVINE:: Are those the second or the third replies from the premiers?


Robert James Manion: It is their replies to the
committee.


William Irvine: I happened to be on the
committee, and I think all the premiers except one were expressly opposed to the pension scheme. I was wondering whether there had been any further replies.


Peter Heenan: No, these are the replies
read by my hon. friend from Port William.


William Irvine: I am afraid the minister
is not reading all of the letters.


Peter Heenan: I am not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: These are the most optimistic comers.


Peter Heenan: Saskatchewan replied:
While we are disposed to think that an old age pension scheme should be undertaken, the difficulties in the way of the suggested scheme appear almost, if not entirely, insurmountable.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Strongly in favour!


An hon. MEMBER:: Give us another
favourable one.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order.


Peter Heenan: If in view of these replies we now introduce a bill that removes the obstacles mentioned, would you not consider that the provinces are in favour of an old age pension scheme?


Robert James Manion: Finish the provinces'
replies.


Peter Heenan: That is an illustration of their replies without reading any further.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Peter Heenan: Well, I have some that
are in favour of the scheme.


Robert James Manion: Read us one that is in
favour of it.


Peter Heenan: As an example, the province of British Columbia was opposed to this scheme because the obstacles in the way were insurmountable, but to-day we have the spectacle of a bill introduced in the legislature-


Robert James Manion: "Spectacle" is right.


Peter Heenan: -providing for this on a co-operative plan.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about Quebec?


Peter Heenan: We will discuss the details when the bill is before the committee. From the information we have in the Department of Labour we fluid that there are many schemes of old age pensions, about twenty-eight in fact, some providing for pensions at the age of seventy, others at sixty-five, others again at sixty, while in other oases no age is specified; and others provide for a diminution of pensions if the pensioner bias an income or is possessed of property. In other words, it appears that old age pensions have been adopted in various countries to meet the conditions peculiar to those places.
In this country the subject of old age pensions has been under consideration for the past twenty years. In 1906 a resolution was introduced to deal with the matter, and again in 1908, in 1912 and in 1913, resolutions were introduced calling for the appointment of special committees to consider the advisability of adopting an old age pensions plan. In 1908 a law was passed authorizing the sale of annuities for old age. That was the first practical movement in the direction of bid age pensions ever made in Canada. In 1914 a resolution in favour of an old age pension system for this country was moved in the House, but the debate was not concluded. In 1922 the House of Commons adopted a resolution introduced by the member for Hull declaring that in its opinion the federal government should consider the advisaJbility of devising ways and means of establishing a system of old age pensions in Canada. In 1924 a special committee of the House was appointed on motion of the Prime Minister to inquire into an old age pensions scheme for Canada. That committee reported on July 1, 1924, submitting the following recommendations:
1. That an old age pension system be established at the earliest possible date for deserving indigent persons of seventy years of age and upwards.

Old Age Pensions
2.	That applicants for pension must be British subjects of at least twenty years' residence in Canada, or naturalized subjects of at least fifteen years' naturalization and twenty-five years' residence.
3.	That the maximum rate of pension be twenty dollars per month, which will be lessened by private income or partial ability to earn.
4.	That one-half of the amount of the pension payable be borne by the federal government; the other half, by the provincial governments of such provinces as express by legislation their desire to adopt the system-the cost of administration to be borne by the provincial governments.
The report of the committee was communicated to the provinces to ascertain their views in the matter. At the session of 1925 the committee was reappointed, and the correspondence between 'the various provinces was submitted to it for consideration. After careful deliberation, and having obtained advice from the Department of Justice, the committee again favoured the adoption of a co-operative system of old age pensions. The chairman of the committee in moving the adoption of its report on June 18, 1925, in the course of his remarks said:
This government has taken the initial step and we hope the matter will be proceeded with and prosecuted until it arrives at a successful conclusion in a co-operative movement between the federal government and the provincial governments.
As hon. members are aware, the government last session introduced a bill along the lines recommended by that committee, and it is practically the same measure I have the honour to introduce at this time. The bill introduced last year passed this House, as hon. gentlemen no doubt know.
In view of the fact that representations have been1 made from some quarters urging that a different system be adopted, that is to.say, a purely federal scheme, and one which my hon. friend on behalf of the Conservative party now also advocates, I desire to call the attention of the House to the fact that, when the resolution to concur in the recommendations of the committee was before the House in 1925, the committee having suggested a co-operative plan, an amendment was moved that the report be referred back to the committee with instructions to consider and report again upon a purely federal scheme. That amendment was voted down by 139 to 17 in this chamber. There is no question therefore that the decision of the House at that time was lagaindt a purely federal system. As I have already said, the House during the last session passed the bill, but it 'sras subsequently defeated in the Senate and consequently did not become law.
During the last election campaign the question of old age pensions was one of the matters which were most prominently before the electorate of Canada. One could hardly read a newspaper during that campaign without noting some refereqce to the desirability of establishing a system of old age pensions in this country. If we are to interpret the will of the electorate on that question in the way we usually interpret electoral decisions, there can be no question that the principle adopted in this bill was endorsed by the people of Canada.
During the debate last session some members advocated a contributory system. I believe the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) was one of those who espoused that scheme. But as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) pointed out at that time, practically every scheme of old age pensions in existence to-day began upon a non-contributory basis. They were all initiated at first as purely non-contributory plans. Like the Prime Minister, I feel that if we were establishing an old age pensions scheme with our younger people in view, I should myself be inclined to the contributory system. But having in mind the fact that we are facing a practical problem, and that we are legislating for our old pioneers, indigents, if you will, who have been unable through lack of opportunity or by reason of misfortune to provide for themselves, I think that the plan we are now proposing is the best one, at least for the time being. At the same time I hope to see the annuity system developed-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Peter Heenan: I trust my hon. friend will say " hear, hear " to what follows. I hope to see the annuity system developed into a broad scheme of social insurance. Of course it will be on a contributory plan, and I am hoping that it will also he in co-operation with the provinces. I have given a good deal of study and thought to the extension of the annuity system, and I see great prospects ahead for that scheme.
It has just been argued by the leader of the opposition that the provinces may not come into the scheme on a co-operative basis, and one of the reasons given is that it would be too expensive; the province of Nova Scotia was taken as an example. I am afraid those supporting that view have not considered the fact that the provinces and1 the municipalities bear the entire burden now, and by this legislation we are attempting to lighten that load by offering to contribute one-half of the cost.
Old Age Pensions


Richard Bedford Bennett: One is Charity and the
other is a pension.


Peter Heenan: It does not matter what you call it; you may re-christen the bill if you like, but we are offering to bear one-half of the cost which they bear at present.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It does not touch that.


Peter Heenan: Who is taking care of it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The municipalities.


Peter Heenan: And the provinces, and if we do it in co-operation with the provinces we will be using the machinery already in existence. I want to point out just what the establishment of a federal old age .pension plan might cost, considering administration only. I sent telegrams to several of the provincial premiers, to which I have received two replies. I asked the cost of administering the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Mothers' Allowance Act and I will give the House the replies received from Ontario and British Columbia. For the last full year in Ontario the cost of administering the Workmen's Compensation Act was $277,936.16, and the cost of administering the Mothers' Allowance Act $73,516.73, or a total for Ontario of $351,452.89. In British Columbia the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Act cost $104,980 and the Mothers' Allowance Act $16,048, or practically half a million dollars for these two acts in the two provinces. We would practically duplicate that expenditure if we set up a federal scheme of this kind, so is it not better to work in co-operation with the provinces in order to lessen the cost of administration by using their own machinery?
I think there can be no question of the necessity for an old age pension scheme for indigents; for proof of that we have only to look about us. Right here in Ottawa the city is at present taking care of 641 people, many of whom do not belong here, which is one of the difficulties all through the country in relief work. Men become indigent and come into towns and cities for relief; the municipalities often feel that they are overburdened with their own indigents, and try to evade the responsibility of taking care of the outsiders. In that way the burden is not shared equally, nor are the people treated in the same way.
I am sure that if hon. members will only think it over they will realize that we should give a better assurance to the older people, the pioneers of this country who have not been so fortunate as some of the rest of us, that in their declining years we will not throw them on the scrap heap.

Old age and poverty combined plead their own case; there is no necessity for anyone to advocate their cause, but I feel that we should not evade our responsibility by saying that we would prefer another act and therefore will not support this scheme.
This bill passed the House last session after a great deal of discussion, but was defeated in the Senate. Subsequently it went out to the electors during the last campaign, and if there was one question discussed more than another, even more than the customs scandal, it was the old age pension scheme. I contend that the principle of this bill has been endorsed by the people. To those who still think that the provinces may not co-operate let me say that when other schemes of a co-operative nature were under consideration here it was predicted that the provinces would not participate in them, yet now we have some five or six co-operative schemes in force calling for an expenditure by this government of over $65,000,000. Just last week we had representatives of the different provinces asking that we extend our activity in connection with one of these schemes. Nova Scotia was represented, and I cannot believe that Nova Scotia would have any less regard for humanity than for its progress along material lines.
The argument advanced by my hon. friend on behalf of Nova Scotia seems to be taken from other arguments advanced in another chamber during last session, and I do not think the people of Nova Scotia would agree that over forty per cent of those over seventy years of age are indigent and unable to take care of themselves. That is a guess, as many other things which have been said in this chamber are guesses. What we should do is pass a bill and get it in working order, and then we can amend it according to the experience gained from practical knowledge.
When the workmen's compensation acts were introduced, many of us thought the compensation was not sufficient, and many protests against the pittances, as they were called, were made. But some of us in the front row were fighting to get the principle established, and one of the things I would like to see established in the interests of the working men of this country now is an old age pension bill. Let us get it into working order and then it can be amended as was done with the Mothers' Allowance Act, the Minimum Wage Act for women and girls and the Workmen's Compensation Act. Now, as I say, British Columbia has not only intimated its approval in correspondence from the prime minister, but a bill was introduced at this session of the legislature providing for

Old Age Pensions
the making of an agreement between the government of that province and the federal government. So that we have made a start along the right line.
Having given a great deal of thought and study to the subject, and having taken every possible factor into consideration, I think we should adopt this measure, and the principle contained in it, as best suited to the needs of the country at the present moment. The bill will accomplish what it is intended to do. It will assist those in need who are over seventy years of age and have not been able to provide for themselves in their declining years.
I should like to see all the members of the House range themselves unitedly behind this bill. Then we could impress everybody outside parliament who may have to deal with the subject in a legislative way that we are united in the matter. It will be a cue upon which they can act so that the law will be applied throughout the whole of Canada. After the measure has gone into effect and we find that any amendment is necessary, and the country is willing to support the obligation the change may involve, we can amend it just as we have amended other measures in the light of practical experience.


Mr. GEARY:: I do not think this House
needs any particular advocacy of an old age pension bill, and that part of the address of the Minister of Labour might very well have been omitted. My hon. friend has given a very lucid description of the difficulties which have arisen in endeavouring to secure the cooperation of the provinces in this measure. And whether he intended it or not he succeeded in convincing me that the federal government has not nearly approximated to that agreement with the different provinces which must be arrived at before this measure can be of any avail.
The position enunciated to-night by the hon. leader of the opposition is no new position for the Conservative party; it is the position that we on this side took when the bill came up for discussion in the House last year. I can refer to a speech of mine on that occasion, which was agreed to by all members on this side, which stated the position then as the leader of the opposition has stated it to-night.


An hon. MEMBER:: At what page is it to be found?


George Reginald Geary: At page 2495 of the revised
edition of Hansard. The quotation in question is:	* *
There is no legal objection to the passing of a bill by the federal House assuming the entire responsibility.



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
I am interpolating some words:
If the government feels it can go the whole way and provide the money for the scheme throughout the Dominion of Canada, I shall be very glad. Failing that, and in the hope of getting something, in the hope that the Prime Minister may prove to be right when he says that he is sanguine that it may lead to results, I shall support the measure.
Now that was a very definite agreement with the measure that was submitted, and members on this side of the House unanimously took that same position. Therefore there was never any question as to this side being opposed to the old age pension scheme on principle. We agreed to the measure. There was no vote against it. There was no suggestion of a vote against it. There was only the suggestion that it was a poor measure, inasmuch as it would not produce the result aimed at, but that if the government would consent to take all the responsibility on behalf of the Dominion, then we would get a bill that would be workable. That is the position we took then, that is the position we take now; and if the government can see its way clear to say that it will introduce a bill assuming full responsibility financially for the measure, then we on this side, as I understand my leader, are prepared to and will accept such a measure proposed by the government.
I agree thoroughly as to what was said as to the representations during the last election. Personally I met those representations in various ridings. They were most unfair, they were not justified by anything approaching the facts. They were made from Liberal platforms for the purpose of securing votes for Liberal candidates against Conservative candidates. They were untrue, they had no basis in fact, and what is more they were not sporting or fair; it was not putting this party in its proper light, nor stating the position this party took when the measure came up.
In 1924 this matter was almost identically reported on by the committee in the terms in which we have the bill to-night. Two years passed by before the government introduced the bill. They had communicated in a very slim sort of way with the different provinces, but they had made no effort that indicated any serious intention to get the provinces into communication to discuss the matter and see if an agreement could be arrived at which would enable the bill to be worked out. I am subject to correction but I do not think I can be corrected in the matter when I say that all that was done was to send a communication to each premier of a province, and to take the reply and file it away. There

[Stage Direction]
Old Age Pensions
[Stage Direction]
was no real effort to arrive at some sort of round table conference by which we would know what the provinces would agree to and what suggestions as to alterations they wished to make. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) can probably add very much to the information which this House possesses at present as to the genesis of this bill last year. Whether the government intended to introduce a bill or not I do not know but it clearly appeared from the proceedings-from the remarks made by my hon. friend and from the story of his visits to the Prime Minister-that it was only on his insistence and, in a way, on his threat, that the government did introduce the bill we have now before us. It was not mentioned, as one of my hon. friends close by says, although important enough in every sense, in the speech from the throne in 1926. The government might have had the intention to introduce the 'bill but they did not mention it, although they mentioned, goodness knows, almost everything else in the speech from the throne; and it was not until the hon. member was able to interview certain members of the government and secure from them the letter which he placed on Hansard that this bill was brought down.
I have nothing more to say in advocacy of old age pensions. As to that I think we all agree. I said what I had to say last year, and I stand on the record of Hansard as to my views on that occasion. We did not vote against old age pensions; we only suggested to the government that if it desired a bill that would work and that would give an old age pension to the people of this country, almost at once, or as soon as the effective machinery could be put into force, then they should adopt our suggestion and assume the whole financial responsibility.
Well, I look with a good deal of apprehension upon the progress of negotiations with the province. We have already found from negotiation that some of the provinces are not agreeable to this measure. Whether other provinces will assist in its going through this year, despite the disagreement of those who will not come in, I do not know. We look upon a path that is beset with difficulties, and desiring earnestly and sincerely as we do a workable scheme of old age pensions, we think the government should adopt the suggestion we made last year, and have again made at this moment, to frame the bill in such a way that the federal authorities will assume full financial responsibility. You will effect your object, and you will not be taking too much in the way of advice from us. You will be getting, after all, what the gov-
IMr. Geary.]
emment claims to want and what the members on this side of the House want.
I only suggest in closing, Mr. Chairman, that the government even at this late stage- and we are early in the session yet-do reconsider the proposition that they have before them, and that they remodel the bill in the sense that I have indicated. If they do, I believe that it will secure the unanimous support of the House, and that we shall get a workable measure. Failing that-I represent my own feeling of last year and this, and endorse every word the leader of the opposition has said-we on this side of the House will support the measure that is now before the committee.
George Gibson Coote: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary for me to say that I am in favour of old age pensions. I have been so for several years. More than that I have been in favour of a purely federal scheme if it could be secured in this House. I am rather glad that our friends to the right have had a change of heart, and that they now favour a federal scheme. I remember very well less than two years ago, when the report of the special committee which was considering the matter of old age pensions was being considered in this House-and by the way, that report recommended, I believe, that a conference should be held between the Dominion and the provinces to consider some joint scheme-the then member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine), who had been a member of the special committee, and who was in favour of a federal scheme, and was of the opinion that the communications from the provinces to the Dominion did not give any indication that they were ready to proceed with a joint scheme, moved, on June 18, 1925:
That this report be referred back to the committee with instructions to consider and report upon a purely federal scheme.
That motion did not meet with a great deal of support in the House. The division upon it is recorded at page 4433 of Hansard, 1925, and I find that the following members voted in favour of Mr. Irvine's motion: Messrs. Bancroft, Bird, Black (Yukon), Campbell, Church, Coote, Davis, Gardiner, Garland (Bow River), Good, Irvine, Kellner, Kennedy (Edmonton), Leader, Shaw, Ward and Woodsworth; a total of seventeen. Those voting against the motion totalled 139. The list is too long to read, but it included all the other members who were in the House at that time.


Mr. DUFF:: Read the list of the Tories. Put them on record. [DOT]

Old Age Pensions


George Gibson Coote: I am afraid it would be taking up the time of the committee. The Tories and the Grits, I presume, are all mixed up in this list, for this was one occasion when the Tories and the Grits voted together, except for two Tories, all honour to them, who voted with us upon that occasion.
Lest there be some misapprehension in the minds of the committee as to how hon. members to our right, and I suppose those who sat opposite, felt when they voted against this motion, may I quote the remarks of one of the members of that committee. I shall be very brief. The member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) said:
As one member of the old age pension committee, I may say that we have given this matter a great deal of consideration, and I hope that at this late hour of the session we shall not take up too much time discussing it. The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) has given the House the effect of the recommendations of the committee, and may I say that the recommendations we have made will get somewhere?
Might I interject there, the members to our right have changed their minds. They think now it will not get anywhere. He goes on:
But the amendment moved by the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine), and supported by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth), is simply playing to the gallery.
I wonder what my friends to my right are doing now? He goes on:
We had no intention of stalling this old age pension question; that was not our desire at all We have made a recommendation, not to the effect that a special conference should be called, but I understand that a conference is going to be held this fall of the premiers of this Dominion, and at this conference this matter can be taken up. We cannot hope to go into this scheme at all.
Mr. Irvine: Why not?
Mr. Spence: The cost is entirely too high. At the present time this country cannot bear it.
Might I interject that, we cart now afford to build a $700,000 exhibition building. The
debate continues:
Mr. Irvine: Then why not have the courage to say so, to tell the people the truth?
Mr. Spence: We are.
Mr. Irvine: You are not.
Mr. Spence: We feel that the administration by the provinces would be much cheaper. The overhead would not be so large. We have given this matter all the consideration that is necessary, and I hope the House will pay absolutely no attention to the amendment that has been moved to the committee's recommendations.
It is true that the House did not pay very much attention to the motion of the hon.
member for Bast Calgary, but I am very glad that Hansard ia in existence to prove that there were some of us at that time who bdieved in a purely federal scheme. I am still of the belief that it is the best thing. I believed that a year ago. I did not oppose the government's bill, because we had this division recorded here giving us the views of the members of parliament, and the majority of the members of both the old parties in this parliament apparently were strongly opposed to a purely federal scheme. Under the circumstances, what were those of us who wanted an old age pension scheme to do? The only thing we could do was to accept the bill the government brought down a year ago.
If the government will change the principle of the measure we have now before us, to make it a purely federal soheme, I shall be very glad to support it, and I would support it with much more vigour and enthusiasm than I shall this particular measure, but if they will not da that, I shall support this measure to the best of my ability, because I think it is time we inaugurated some old age pension scheme in Canada. If we pass this bill, we shall find out whether it will work or not. As a final wOrd to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan;), I would say that I Still believe in a purely federal old age pension scheme as the proper thing, and I should be very glad if even now he could see his way dear to change the principle of this measure to make it a purely federal scheme.


Mr. J. E. FONTAINE (Hull) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be brief in my remarks. Having, however, set my heart so much on this question of old age pensions, I deem it my duty to state that I shall give this resolution my utmost support. I say, Sir, that I have at heart this question, and to give further proof, in 1922, as the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) stated a short while ago, I had the honour to move a resolution requesting the government to favourably consider the enactment of legislation with the view of providing for old age.
It was only in 1924 that a committee was appointed in order to inquire into the matter, and last year, in 1926, a bill was brought down by the government making provision for old age pensions. This act was based on the report of the committee appointed in 1924, and by which a pension of $20 per month was to be paid to destitute old people having attained the age of seventy.
It is true, as the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) stated a short while ago, that the opposition of that -time did not
Old Age Pensions

oppose this measure; however, as in the present case, those who then formed the opposition put forth all kinds of arguments in order to criticize the bill, and slanderous tongues even went so far as to state that the leader of the opposition of that day -Mr. Meighen-had influenced his friends in the Senate in order to have the bill disallowed in the upper house.
As it was previously stated by the leader of the opposition, this question was freely discussed by the public in the course of the last electoral campaign, and so far as I am concerned, I know that in my riding and especially in the city of Hull, a large number of votes were cast in my behalf because I had stood up as the sponsor of this measure. It seems to me but just that the state should come to the relief of the workers and citizens who have laboured all their life, when their hands cannot render the same services and they find themselves unable to earn the same wages. Pensions have been provided by the government for various classes, namely for judges, civil servants, and I think it is but right. By providing a system of pensions, railway companies, among others, come to the assistance of their old employees. I think it is the duty of a country to look after their old servants whose only fault is to have worked for small wages, to have raised large families and not to have provided for their old age. I often hear it said that these people should have been more thrifty and wiser, that they should have set aside savings. But how can you expect people who earn wages of two or three dollars per day to lay aside savings when they raise large families and have to provide for them?
If there is a sad spectacle, it is to see people who have been good citizens all their life forced to take the road which leads to the poor house because they were unable to lay aside savings and because the government does not come to their rescue.
I think the resolution is well in order and I wish to thank the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for the activity which he displayed to have this resolution carried. Moreover, an old age pension act is part of the Liberal program and I can recall that at the time of the 1919 convention, a special clause was adopted with such a view. I also remember that our old leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, at a large meeting held in Montreal in 1916, stated that one of the first questions which he would consider when he returned to power would be the enactment of a system of pensions for old people.

Mr. Speaker, I am entirely in favour of this resolution and I trust that it will be unanimously carried by this House. I also hope that this year the Senate will reconsider their decision and acknowledge that they made a mistake last year, and once for all will accept with good grace this old age pensions bill, thereby displaying not only patriotism but especially a philanthropic spirit.


Mr. RYERSON:: 
William Irvine: I am very glad, Mr. Chairman,, to note the general agreement in- the committee with respect to old age pensions. I do not think any hon. member is really opposed to such a scheme, and an my short experience of parliament I do not recall any other proposal that has met with such unanimity. I need not say that I am very much in favour of old age pensions,, having advocated their being provided for on several occasions in preceding parliaments. However, I am afraid that the bill to be based on the resolution now before us will be very unsatisfactory and that the Minister of Labour will find himself in the position of Mother Hubbard-he will have a lot of people coming to his cupboard but he will not have a bone to give them.
There is absolutely no assurance that this bill will result in anything tangible. When the Minister of Labour' was seeking to assure the committee of the willingness of the various provinces to accept the legislation he told the committee, in replay to my question, that he was reading th# letters which had been sent to the pamlraimentaTy committee which dealt with this subject in 1925. I wish to read a little more fully the letters that the Minister of Labour presented to us in order to leave 'it to the committee's judgment to say whether we can be assured that when we have passed the proposed bill it will meOt with any practical success. The first is from the New Brunswick government, under date of May 23, 1925. I am quoting from Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons dated June 16, 1925. The premier of .that province wrote:
This province is now considering the establishment of what is known as widows' pension and we are not prepared to take any decision in the matter of an old age pension. While I do not disapprove of the old age pension, and feel that it would be a good thing, yet it would be impossible for me to commit the province to any action in this matter at the present moment.
Under date of February 17, 1925, the Minister of Public Works and Labour for Quebec wrote:
On the occasion of the recent visit of the delegates of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, this question was taken up and, al-
Old Age Pensions

though it was not submitted in the regular way to the cabinet, X understood from the remarks of my colleagues that it could be no question for the province of Quebec, considering the obligations actually imposed upon it, of adopting a law which would take care of the old age pensions in this province.
Under date of June 2, 1925, the Premier of Nova Scotia Hon. Mr. Armstrong, wrote:
In view of the importance of the subject matter, and the lack of an opportunity to fully consider the same, I was instructed to advise you that without a further and better understanding of the subject matter and without an opportunity to fully discuss it with your committee, no action would be taken upon the matter at present.
Under date of May 22, 1925, the Premier of Prince Edward Island, Hon. M'r. Stewart, wrote:
In this province, as you probably are aware, except in the towns, we have no municipal government, consequently all assistance to indigent and aged persons is furnished directly by the provincial government, either in the provincial infirmary or by monthly contributions to private persons who become responsible for their support. I have read over your letter and the accompanying report with interest. I shall place the matter before my government at its next meeting and will then advise you of its decision.
The Premier of Ontario, Hon. Mr. Ferguson, under date of November 24, 1924, wrote:
I shall be glad to consider the matter.
Under date of Bebruary 25, 1925, the attorney general of Manitoba, Hon. Mr. Craig, wrote:
We are in the midst of our session just now with the multiplicity of matters requiring immediate disposition. I shall, however, take up the matter with the premier and the minister of public welfare at the earliest opportunity.
If the Minister of Labour-has not yet heard from the Manitoba government I presume they are still taking the matter up. Saskatchewan, under date of November 19, 1924, when the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) was premier and the present Premier of Saskatchewan, Hon. Mr. Gardiner, was the minister of labour and industry for that province, the latter wrote:
The government of Saskatchewan is of opinion that an old age pension scheme for Canada can best be adopted by the federal government alone. There would seem to be so much difficulty in the way of providing any scheme that would be suitable to all the nine provinces of Canada as to make it almost impossible, and it will be readily understood that if any number of the provinces were to remain out, it would he almost impossible to adopt any scheme that would not subject those provinces within the arrangement to considerable expense that should rightfully be borne by those outside the scheme.
IMr. Irvine.]
While we are disposed to think that an old age pension scheme should be undertaken, the difficulties in the way of the suggested scheme appear almost, if not entirely, insurmountable.
Now, I believe that Alberta has prepared a bill in anticipation of this legislation, which it is ready to accept. I understand from the Minister of Labour that the British Columbia government is considering this scheme favourably. But with the exception of those two governments, unless the minister has some information which he has not given to the committee, the other provincial governments are not in favour of this bill. If they are not in favour of it, we have really no bill. In other words, the bill will be absolutely impracticable. It may be regarded as a good move on the part of parliament to be so kind as to pass an old age pensions bill, but that will not feed very many aged ladies and gentlemen in this country.
Now, I think the proposal is an expensive one, apart from the fact that it will not be very likely to meet with any success. Surely if a sum of $24,000,000 is to be collected in taxes to finance this proposal, it would be easier and cheaper for one government to do the collecting. Otherwise there will be a duplication of administrative machinery, and the cost of collection will be doubled, and there will be no gain to offset that duplication. If I as a citizen of Canada living in Alberta have to pay $10 in taxes for old age pensions, do I feel particularly pleased because I have to spend a two-cent stamp to send $5 to Ottawa and another two-cent stamp to send the other $5 to Edmonton? Would it not be better if I sent the whole ten dollars direct to this government? That is of course direct taxation. I do not know by what means the government intends to raise the money, but it matters not what method is adopted, there will have to be two systems of collection and the same people will pay the money. What is to be gained by this? It appears to me that this parliament is actually ignoring or attempting to escape its responsibility. The Minister of Labour in his closing remarks urged that we should be very careful not to shirk our responsibility in this matter; yet I think the bill provides a means whereby we may all do so. If the provinces adhere to the opinions which they have expressed, according to the letters which are on record, then I cannot see that we are likely to have any old age pensions in Canada. May I remind the committee that when we were discussing the subject in 1925 the special committee appointed to take the matter of old age pensions into consideration was dissatisfied with

Old Age Pensions
these letters, as one would naturally suppose. The committee instructed its clerk to write to the various governments again and ask if they were sure that they understood what was meant, and to reply as speedily as possible indicating their views. I do not know that any replies have ever come; if they have, the Minister of Labour has not given them to us. I can only assume therefore that the provinces which are on record in the matter still hold to the opinions they have already expressed, and we have no right to assume that they will alter those opinions when we pass the bill.
I am of course in favour of a federal scheme, as I was in 1025, and I am glad that the leader of the Conservative party has taken a firm stand on the matter. I am sorry that his party did not do so before. I am not blaming the government for doing as it did, because a reference to the vote which the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) placed before us will show that the overwhelming opinion of parliament at that time seemed to be that a federal scheme should not be proceeded with. The government, with that opinion to guide them, went ahead with this scheme in the hope that it would be better than nothing at all. Now however that the Conservative party has taken a definite stand on the question I cannot see why the government could not accept the federal scheme, and let parliament assume the responsibility for it. Why should the government be so anxious to assume responsibility for a bill which will prove impracticable when all parliament is willing to become responsible for a better measure? Of course, if the government will not take the suggestion offered by all members on this side of the House, I for one will not vote against this Mrs. Hubbard proposal. It is better than nothing even to be able to say that one has considered the question favourably. I do hope, however, that the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister will carefully reconsider the whole proposal before refusing to accede to the expressions' of opinion which have come from this side of the House asking for a federal scheme.


Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: I desire to
associate myself with the sentiments expressed by all those on this side of the House as being in favour of a federal scheme of old age pensions. In the absence of such a scheme, however or of any legislation looking to that end, we are prepared to support the resolution before the House inasmuch as it recognizes the principle of old age pensions on which we are agreed. Reference was made to the position
Nova Scotia would occupy under this joint scheme of old lage pensions, and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) was very modest in his estimate of the amount it would cost the province under the proposed' legislation. I have before me the figures which I may say are based on the operation of.the old age pensions scheme in Australia in which forty per *cent of those eligible to receive pensions actually apply and do receive assistance under their scheme. The working out of the scheme in this Dominion on the same basis as applied in Australia shows that in Nova Scotia our share would amount to $1,188,000 annually. That would be our staggering contribution towards the project. Take the little province of Prince Edward Island; its proportion would be $255,000 odd. In other words, over one-third of the revenue of Prince Edward Island would be absorbed in its contribution towards this old age pensions scheme. And what applies to Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island applies equally to New Brunswick. We are the old provinces of the Dominion, and the proportion of older people is far greater than in the western provinces or even in central Canada.
*It has been stated that there is some constitutional question that prevents this parliament from passing a federal old age pensions bill. As I understand it, the opinion came from the Department of Justice in 1924 or 1925, based upon a section of the British North America Act, that the civil and property rights of the provinces were clear and distinct and could not be transgressed by the federal authorities. It seems to me that if the federal scheme is unconstitutional on these grounds it is a much more unconstitutional matter to force a province to contribute to a scheme into which it has not entered. In other words, if Nova Scotia or any other province decides not to participate in the scheme as brought down in the House to-day while other provinces do so, then Nova Scotia will be contributing to the expenses incurred for the benefit of the rest of the Dominion without receiving any benefit. That is far *more unconstitutional than any interference with property and civil rights of the provinces as suggested by the decision given by the Department of Justice in 1024.
A suggestion was made last year by the hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Miacdougall) which appealed to me as being of considerable sense and importance in connection with old age pensions legislation. The hon. member stated that there were certain hazardous and arduous occupations such as coal mining, steel
Old Age Pensions

working and the employment of women in factories which should be classified under an old age pensions bill as constituting eligibility for pensions at the age of sixty. I cannot help endorsing that suggestion as humane and highly important.
I do not know that there is anything more for me to say except to repeat what I stated in opening, that we on this side of the House favour an old age pension scheme, preferably one of a national character inaugurated and operated by the federal government, one which will do justice to every individual part of Canada. In the absence of that, then we accept the next best thing, the resolution brought forward by the Minister of Labour to-night.


Alan Webster Neill: I would like to answer a few of the criticisms made in reference to this resolution for fear that it may be criticized to death, as was done last year, or so damned with faint praise as to be ineffective. I would like first to deal with the remarks of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine), who quoted a number of letters received from the different provinces, nearly all of which were unfavourable to the idea of co-operating with the federal government in an old age pension scheme. But he did not tell the situation and the circumstances. He and I were on a committee of this House in 1924 when this question was taken up and we decided that the first thing to do was to put it up to the provinces. We assumed that they knew what we thought we knew, that it was a provincial matter, but we had no authority to say so and we asked their opinion on that occasion. In response to that request we received the letters which the hon. member read and which, as he said, were all more or less antagonistic. I think the province of British Columbia went further than any of the others, practically telling us to mind our own business and attend tc our own affairs. Then the matter was referred to the same committee, in 1925 and we were attracted by the trend of thought which seemed to be prevalent, that it was our funeral and none of the business of the provinces, so we decided to ascertain whether we had been wrong. In doing so we obtained an opinion from several of the best law officers of the crown, gentlemen who are supposed to be expert and who had the experience acquired in previous questions to guide them. Their report was made in writing and is on record, and it stated emphatically that so far as the British North America Act was concerned this matter had nothing to do with the Dominion, but was entirely a matter for the provinces.

They did add a corollary to the effect that if this House chose to do so it could aid any scheme initiated by the provinces, but they stated emphatically that we could not pass an act containing anything of an obligatory character. So we found that our previous conviction was right, and that the conviction so pronouncedly held by the provinces was wrong. We then sent out another circular or round robin to the provinces, conveying the report of those law officers, and then found the situation entirely changed. Instead of finding that we were trying to shove some of our obligations on them, a thing they naturally resented, the provinces found on the contrary that the obligation was entirely theirs and that we were trying to help the thing along by giving half or nearly half of the cost if they would take up the scheme. It was then that the provinces took a different view and modified the position which they had previously taken. For instance, we find British Columbia writing to say that they now understood the situation in a different light, and further evidence of that fact is to be found when we note that just a few days ago the legislature of British Columbia unanimously passed the second reading of a bill accepting any bill which this parliament may pass along the line of that now before us. That is a very decided change of attitude from that expressed a couple of years before, when we were practically told to mind our own affairs.
Then again the hon. member spoke of Quebec, of a letter from some member of the cabinet apparently speaking without authority. But in that committee of which I spoke there was present at least one representative of Quebec, and that representative agreed heartily with the resolution or report of the committee. Again the hon. member said that the government of Alberta was moving toward the acceptance of such legislation as well, which makes two provinces out of nine, or an average of twenty-two per cent, willing to accept this measure which has not yet been introduced. Surely we might hope that when the measure is fully explained and put before those governments, the pressure of public opinion in the different provinces will enable more of the others to come in as well.
Then again the hon. member introduced the argument that, after all, this money is paid by the people, so why not let it be paid by way of federal taxation? There is an answer to that, my friend said that it would be necessary to duplicate everything, but that is not so. It is not yet indicated in what manner the money will be obtained, but

Old Age Pensions
I believe the suggestion is, that it is to be taken out of the consolidated funds, and in that case it would simply come out of the general taxes and would not cost anything more to collect. Then there is another feature of it. If we make it a federal scheme we will have to	start	a	federal departmentto deal with it,	with	a	minister at	$14,000a year and extras, a deputy at $8,000 a year, and a large staff, and in that way it would cost far more to administer such an act than it would if it were carried out according to the suggestion of British Columbia, for instance. That province is somewhat in advance of some of the others in the handling of the Workmen's Compensation Act; there it is done at a	very	fractional cost	of thetotal expenditure,	and	it	is proposed	to put
the old age pension scheme under the control of that same board. The head of that board told me a few months ago that they already have the necessary machinery, and that it was only a question of a little more clerical assistance to carry on the administration of such an act. This same board looks after the mothers' pensions act and it would cost very little more for them to do this work as well. In the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Act there is someone right on the spot or some one who can go anywhere at short notice, so that it would be infinitely cheaper and easier to do it in that way than to do it by any method which could be controlled from Ottawa.
Two hon. members opposite, particularly the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) spoke of the prohibitive expense to some of the provinces in the east, particularly Nova Scotia, and I particularly noted that the leader of the opposition said that Nova Scotia would be saddled with this expense in addition to the present cost. I take issue with him there; it would not be in addition to the present cost but it would be less the present cost. The present relief work may not be done adequately; it may be done in a grudging spirit, but it is done and the cost is very large. I have a clipping in my hand, in which it says that in Vancouver the cost of relief ran up to over three thousand dollars for twelve days. That was only in one city in British Columb a -a sum of $3,000 was piaid out in twelve days and coming on to the spring of the year.
The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) questioned the constitutionality of legislation on old age pensions. But it is on record that the party of which he is a member, a few years ago introduced identically the same principle in connection with the
Highways Act. They voted a large sum of money-was it twenty millions?-on condition that each province put up a certain percentage. I think the amounts were forty per cent and sixty per cent. The same argument was used then that the hon. member for Cumberland has used to-ni^ht. Certain provinces said, " If we stay out of this thing we will have to bear the burden of those who have gone in ". The answer was, " Then, come in ". The success of the scheme was such that provinces which did not come in at first came in later. They realized the advantage they were getting, the substantial sum they were receiving, and all the provinces finally came in. So we have got the precedent of constitutional practice for that phase of provincial contributions as well.


William Irvine: Would1 the hon. member
say what form of question was submitted by the committee to the law officers of the crown? I am of the opinion, although I may be wrong, it was as to whether the scheme which the committee was then considering would be constitutional. I do not think we ever asked the law officers if this government had power to pass an old age pension bill from a federal point of view without considering the provinces at all.


Alan Webster Neill: My impression is different
from that of the hon. gentleman.


William Irvine: I may be wrong.


Alan Webster Neill: Speaking from memory, we asked them in general terms What was the jurisdiction as between the provinces and the Dominion in connection with support for destitute old age. Here is the answer:
The subject of old age pensions does not fall specifically within any of the enumerated subjects given to the Dominion under section 91 of the British North America Act, but does fall within the subject of property and civil rights committed to the provinces under section 92.
And then the Deputy Minister of Justice added this:
I am of the opinion that the subject matter of pensions has been entrusted to the provincial legislature rather than to parliament. I do not mean to suggest that parliament has not the power to legislate upon the subject so as to assist-
Mark that.

so as to assist the provinces or to establish an independent voluntary scheme, provided that in either case the legislation does not trench up on the subject matter of property and civil rights in the province, as, for example, by obligating any province or person to contribute to the scheme.
Old Age Pensions


John Livingstone Brown: That is, it fixed the obligation on the provinces?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes.


George Reginald Geary: Does the hon. gentleman
state that as his authority for saying that a bill passed by this House, assuming full responsibility, is ultra vires of this House?


Alan Webster Neill: It could be questioned. If
the action were voluntary it might possibly be so. But the point that was submitted was " Were these provinces right in saying that the sole responsibility rests on us?" The answer was, " The sole responsibility does not rest on you, but on the provinces." That was the point.


George Reginald Geary: The hon. gentleman does
see from that opinion that the federal government might assume the responsibility, and the opinion of the Minister of Justice, expressed in a reply to a question of mine last year during the course of the debate, was in agreement with that.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member who has
just taken his seat made some reference to the unanimous way in which this legislation was received on that side of the House last year. Well, that is a matter of degree, I suppose. The Right Hon. Arthur Meigheu wanted to know what the cost of it would be, and those of us Who were there remember that he used this language; "I do not expect a close estimate at all, but say within a hundred million dollars or so." Then we find Sir Henry Drayton saying:
I am not at all certain that it is a good thing for this parliament to try and look after other business than its own. This is entirely a provincial matter.
Then we find the hon. member who represents West Calgary saying:
I do venture to plead with my hon. friends opposite to urge the government not to proceed with this at the present time.
Faint praise, surely. Then we find the hon. member for Muskoka asking:
Are we prepared at present to put everyone on the payroll of the country? It seems to me that we are getting into the habit in this parliament of going, I was going to say mad, in the way of such legislation.
That could hardly be called friendly comment and criticism. Then we find-I am speaking now from memory, but I know I can prove it if necessary-one gentleman referring to it as "impossible" legislation. Another one waxed more enthusiastic and said it was "a washout." Another member rose to the highest flights of his oratorical vocabulary and called it an "abortion." Poor comment, in

the light of the opinion of this gentleman who now claims that this legislation last year passed the House unanimously.
I recall that the bill was very much talked about in the last election, nowhere more so than in British Columbia. I recall a speech that the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen made in opening the campaign, I think, in this city It was a great speech, worthy of a great man and a great occasion. I read it with much care, but I could find nothing in it on that subject which afterwards became so important in the campaign, that of old age pensions. You would have thought that a matter that was so much in the public mind, or at least was going to be, would have been foreshadowed in some way in this platform in which he was enunciating the program of his party in his appeal to the country. As a matter of fact I think I know when, and where, and how the hon. gentleman, like Paul at Damascus, got light on the subject. The right hon. gentleman came west. I am not familiar with the speeches he made along the line in his journey from the east to the west-hon. members from Saskatchewan and Alberta will be more familiar with that subject than I am; but I do know that I cannot recall any mention of old age pensions in his speeches, as a platform, until he reached British Columbia. I do not think there was any mention made of it even in Prince Rupert, the first place in the province where he spoke. He did me the honour to speak in the district of Comox-Albemi, and I have it on the authority of one of his own supporters, who told us of it at a public meeting, that he had said to Mr. Meighen, "Something has got to be done about old age pensions; people have asked about it and we know very little about it." Mr. Meighen said, "You shall have it." That is where the right hon. gentleman got his light and introduced the subject into his program. I have here, shown in big headlines, the announcement made by the Conservative organs the day after he made his next great speech in the city of Vancouver. The announcement in those headlines was, "Mr. Meighen declares himself at Vancouver meeting." Yes, he declared himself for the first time on that subject. Mr. Meighen dealt with old age pensions, the Australian treaty and co-operative marketing, but he put his contemplated promise of action on the subject of old age pensions first. Under the circumstances I think I am justified in saying that it was only when Mr. Meighen got into British Columbia and found out how urgent the situation was, how worked up public sentiment was, and how insistent the people of the province were.

Old Age Pensions
that he gave any explanation of his halfhearted support of, or to speak more truly, his attacks upon, old age pensions in the House. It was then he suddenly discovered that he was in favour of this legislation.
I will not at this stage of the resolution go into some of the comments that were made on this question during the last campaign and the attacks upon those of us who supported that legislation. Some of it was entirely comical in its attitude, and some of it was almost sad in the ignorance it displayed of those who were putting it forward, but I will deal with that perhaps on another occasion. I only hope this will not follow what happened last year. The country has certainly shown, as the hon. member for Wet-askiwin (Mr. Irvine) said, that no subject appeared to go so closely home to the hearts and minds and interests of the people during the last election campaign as this question of old age pensions, and it had more weight at the close than it had at the beginning of the campaign. I hope that the other honourable body of this parliament will realize when this bill comes up to them that they are not facing a party measure sent up by this House, whether as a party or by the whole House, but that they are facing the almost unanimous wish of the people of Canada.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Mr. Chairman, it is only
fitting that as the Labour member representing East Calgary I should put my views on record regarding this measure. I fully agree with the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote). I would prefer a purely federal measure, and there are many amendments I would like to see made when the bill comes down. I would prefer the age limit to be sixty-five instead of seventy years. But I regard this as a stepping stone to better things. We have in the measure before us a fifty-fifty proposition. I had hoped that the government would make it a sixty-forty proposition, and perhaps if this measure should prove a success they will yet make it a sixty-forty proposition, and perhaps by-and-by a seventy-five-twenty-five proposition, and ultimately perhaps a purely federal measure.
There is one thing quite sure, that this measure was discussed on nearly all the platforms in the last campaign, and there was no measure presented to the people in my *constituency at all events which contributed more to the success of myself and the Liberal candidates generally than this one, and it was entirely on a fifty-fifty basis. As to the characterization of this measure by my hon. friends who opposed me in that election,
I remember particularly the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen himself when he visited the Pavilion at Calgary describing the proposed legislation in these words: " It is a sham; it is a Sham; it is a sham." These words echoed and re-echoed throughout my constituency in connection with this fifty-fifty proposition, but I am glad to see my friends to my right perfectly willing now to support a measure which erstwhile they called "a sham, a sham, a sham." Not only did they call it that, but they advocated a measure that would be entirely contributory, and which if it had passed would have entirely left out those who could not contribute, whereas this measure is put forward, I believe, for the benefit of those who are unable to contribute in their old age.
If the provinces should not fall in line with this measure, the only thing that can be said is that they are not obeying the dictates of the people: they are not considering what was in the hearts and in the minds of the people in the election campaign of last September, and in that campaign the old age pension scheme contributed more largely to the success of the Liberal candidates than any other measure put before the people.
There is another matter which I think deserves attention. It has been stated here tonight that this measure would be imposing something on the provinces against their will. The other side :of the question is more correct.: It will be relieving the provinces of fifty per cent of their obligations in 'maintaining their poor. I have been associated with the relief department of the city of Calgary, and the gentleman who is now the manager of that department told me that he was looking forward to the time when even this fifty-fifty measure would become law, for he said that the number of old people in that city who required assistance and had to be kept by the city was growing every year, and that if this measure should pass it would relieve the city of many thousands of dollars it would otherwise have to pay out in relieving these old people.
I do not think I need say anything more at this stage. While I would have preferred a purely federal measure, and while I submit for the consideration of the Minister of Labour that he put this measure on a sixty-forty basis instead of a fifty-fifty, and while I hope that he will make the minimum age 65 instead of 70 years, if he cannot see his way to making these 'changes I shall 'have bo support the measure as it is.
Old Age Pensions


Hugh Alexander Stewart: At this stage I shall occupy the time of the icommitfee very briefly indeed, because my leader has fairly and fully set before the House his attitude, which corresponds I think with the attitude of hon. members who sit behind him. I know that he has expressed very fully and very clearly my views upon this question.
This is a very important measure, and it is much in the minds ard seriously occupying the attention of the people of Canada at this time. Unfortunately the matter was one of considerable controversy in the last election, and I can only say that the attitude of those who sit on this side of the House was much misrepresented indeed in the last campaign. Speaking for myself, I was pictured first as one who had voted against this measure, although there was no vote upon it: it carried without a vote. Then when that was pointed out to be incorrect, it was asserted that I opposed the measure, but Hansard will be searched in vain for one sentenJce uttered by me in opposition to this measure. I am in favour now, as I was in favour then, of old age pensions, but I believe that whatever is worth doing is worth doing well, and I suggest that this measure is not doing justice to the question. If we are to have a wholehearted scheme of old age pensions, then this parliament should deal with it exclusively and should not make libs grant conditional upon a grant by the provinces. I am afraid that a great many of the old people who are expecting old age pensions will be keenly disappointed, because, unless the provinces adopt the scheme there will be no pension for them. As one speaker has said, it will be a case of Old Mother Hubbard going to the cupboard, and when she gets there finding it bare. That is about all I have to say at this stage of the debate. When the bill is in committee I may have some further observations to make.
In conclusion, I want to say that there is an element of unfairness and injustice in this bill, because a province that does not adopt a system of old age pensions will be called upon indirectly to pay its proportion of the cost of old age pensions in every other province that does adopt the system. That is a serious matter to Ontario, to Quebec, and to all the other provinces, but notwithstanding that injustice, notwithstanding that defect, and because it is, if nothing else, at least a gesture in the direction of old age pensions, I am going to support this measure. I would much more heartily support a measure that would ensure at once bring about for the deserving old people of Canada an immediate

pension. I fear this only puts it off, but if we oppose it we shall be charged with placing obstacles in the way of this measure. For that reason, while not satisfied with it as a wholehearted, substantial measure, I am going to give it my support.


Hugh Guthrie: Might I suggest to my right hon. friend that it might be a good thing if the committee were to rise now and we take up another order of business? There are still many on this side who desire to speak on this question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If there is a desire to have this discussion prolonged, I agree that the suggestion made by my hon. friend is much to the point. I was hoping that we might pass the resolution to-night. If it is the wish of hon. gentlemen opposite to continue there will be an opportunity on the bill for any who may wish to speak. We might perhaps agree on passing the resolution, and then have a further discussion on the bill.


Hugh Guthrie: I have an idea that if we have the discussion on the resolution, the bill will pass much more speedily than if we allow the discussion to go over on the bill. I know there are still several on this side who desire to speak on the question, and as I understand there is other 'business to be done to-night, it might be well to let the committee rise now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is another matter which I desire ,to bring to the attention of the House before the sitting is over, and I shall be pleased to accede to the request of my hon. friend and have the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



DIAMOND JUBILEE OE CONFEDERATION


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On the Votes and Proceedings of to-day, hon. members will see a notice that I have given of a resolution which reads:
That from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied a sum not exceeding $250,000 towards defraying any expenses that may be incurred for the celebration of the sixtieth anniversary of confederation.
I understand that the Senate in all probability will conclude its sittings this week, and will then adjourn for some little time. It is

Diamond Jubilee of Confederation
desirable, that as rapid progress as possible should be made with the formation of the committee to have charge of the celebration of the diamond jubilee of confederation, and if the House will grant its unanimous consent, I should like to have permission to introduce this resolution to-night and if possible to introduce as well the bill which in this connection, the government proposes to introduce. I might say that I have before me an important precedent for this procedure. AVhen the House was asked to give its approval to the treaty of Peace between the allied and associated powers and Germany, Sir Robert Borden, then Prime Minister, on the afternoon of the 4th September, 1919, asked the House to agree to a resolution, notice of which had just been given in the Votes and Proceedings. I would like to ask the House now to allow me to 'have this resolution placed on the order paper for consideration as for this date, and if it is passed I will introduce the bill based upon it. I beg to move:
That it be resolved that the proposed resolution as it appears as a notice of motion in the Votes and Proceedings of the 14th instant, as follows:
"Resolved, that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied a sum not exceeding $250,000 towards defraying any expenses that may be incurred for tlie celebration of the sixtieth anniversary of confederation"
be placed on the order paper for consideration this day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied a sum not exceeding $250,000 towards defraying any expenses that may be incurred for the celebration of the sixtieth anniversary of confederation.	[DOT]
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.
James Shaver Woodsworth: I think we ought to have some explanation as to how it is proposed to expend this large amount, how the committee in charge is to be formed, and matters of that kind.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall be very happy to give my hon. friend the information as soon as His Honour the Speaker leaves the chair.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It has been
thought by the government that the management of the celebration would be better effected if the whole matter, rather than being dealt with departmentally, were put into the hands of a national committee, this national. committee to form an executive committee; the executive committee to be given the powers that will be set forth in the bill which will be introduced. I might say that the government is following in this regard the example that was set by a previous administration with respect to the administration of the Canadian patriotic fund. When the committee for the administration of the Canadian patriotic fund was formed, a number of gentlemen were named, because of their representative positions, as members of a provisional committee. The provisional committee was fairly large. It held one meeting at which it selected certain of its numbers and others who were not of its membership as members of an executive committee. This committee held meetings at regular intervals during the time that the fund was in existence. .
It is proposed in the bill that will be introduced to incorporate a body to be known as the national committee for the celebration of the diamond jubilee of confederation. The personnel will consist of Their Excellencies the Governor General and the Viscountess Willingdon, the lieutenant governors of the several provinces, the premiers of the several provinces, the Speakers of the House of Commons and the Senate, a few members of His Majesty's Privy Council for Canada, a few senators, the Chief Justice of Canada, the deputy heads of certain of the departments of the public service, the presidents of the two large railway systems, the heads of a few representative organizations of Canada, among the number being the President of the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League, the President of the Canadian Battlefields Memorial Association, the President of the National Council of Women of Canada, the President of the Imperial Order of Daughters of the Empire, the President of the Daughters of Canada, the one lady member of this House of Commons, the chairman of the Ottawa Improvement Commission, the chairman of the Executive Committee of the Association of Canadian Clubs. I think I have summarized those whose names are mentioned as being among those of the committee to be incorporated and regarded as the provisional committee. The names have been chosen regardless of party affiliation and with the view as far as
350	COMMONS
Diamond Jubilee of Confederation
possible of making the committee representative of the whole of the Dominion. Naturally there are many organizations that might appropriately find a place in its membership, but if a beginning is made in one direction it will have to be followed in Others and this will involve the addition of a very large number of names. I should like the House to understand that this is a provisional committee, and that it will have power to add any names that in its wisdom it may deem desirable.
The bill gives the committee .power to receive moneys the parliament may appropriate or any moneys that may .be contributed for the purpose, and allows it to determine how the money is to be spent. In other words, the government is not desirous of dictating the particular programme which shall be adopted by the Dominion with respect to a great national celebration of this kind. We think it will meet with .more general satisfaction on the part of the public if a representative body such as this is given power to make all the arrangements that may be necessary.
I may say to my iron, friend that communications have come from a very large number of sources containing all kinds of suggestions, from pageants to the publication of histories, and other schemes too numerous to mention. The government proposes to turn over to this committee all the suggestions that it may receive and to place upon the committee the responsibility of deciding what shall be done.
May I say to hon. members, so that they will have reason to know there is no effort to prevent the fullest discussion as to how this money shall be spent, that the House will be given an opportunity bo discuss the matter when the estimates are under consideration, because this item of $250,000 will have to be voted in supply. The committee will have to have -its accounts audited and will have to make to parliament a full statement of how it has conducted its affairs.


William Irvine: Will this vote constitute a limit for the committee, or will there be any limitation at all?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It depends
entirely upon what the -committee recommends. The committee may come to parliament with a request for an additional vote, but so far as public funds are concerned, I would say, that the committee will be restricted to the amounts given to it by parliament. Parliament will have to consent to any addition to the appropriation.


Samuel William Jacobs: Are the provinces to be
invited to contribute to this fund?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: One of the
purposes of having this committee formed is that it may immediately get in touch with the provinces and if possible work out some form of joint celebration. A number of municipalities will no doubt also wish to have their own celebrations. This committee will seek to coordinate efforts from one end of .the Dominion to the other, as they relate to provinces or to municipalities, with whatever the federal government may attempt.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, may I point out -that in the -outline the Prime Minister has given us, although he says that the appointment of this committee -will be entirely irrespective of party, its personnel is very largely political in character? The organizations mentioned are of a particular type, they are not in any sense .representative of all the different classes of the people of Canada. As I 'think of the people -who have made confederation worth while, I think of the large farming population in every one of these provinces, yet so far as the Prime Minister has intimated -there is no farmer appointed on any of these committees. We have large farm organizations in each of the three prairie provinces which I kno-w best-very large and very representative farm organizations, both men's and women's-and yet apparently these have been entirely overlooked. I think of the particular group which I have been representing in .this House, the labour group in each of the provinces. I suppose there are over 150 distinct labour organizations in Canada representing the rank and file of the people who are contributing very largely to the upbuilding of this country. Apparently they are entirely overlooked in the outline which has been given us by the Prime Minister. If a celebration of this kind is to be made of any very great educational value, I should think that those who would be in the very forefront would be the representatives of our educational system, members of the universities, -and especially school' teachers. We have school teachers' organizations in almost every province of the Dominion to-day. These school teachers are in touch with a very large proportion of our population, that is, the younger part that is attending school, the most impressionable part, and they ought to be most interested in a celebration of this kind. These teachers are apparently overlooked in the selection that has been made of the people who are to determine what character

Select Standing Committees
will be given to this event. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that these matters require a little further consideration than would appear to have been given them from the outline that has been so far presented to us.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, may I say to my hon. friend that I think he would be nearer the mark if he were to recognize that persons holding representative positions, such as the lieutenant governors of the several provinces hold, such as the premiers hold, such as the hon. Speaker of this House holds, represent in a broad way, all classes. They are not chosen from any one particular class, they are chosen because they happen, to fill representative positions that are broad enough to include all groups. My hon. friend says that no recognition has been given to the agricultural class. As I understand it, the Premier of Manitoba is a graduate of an agricultural college and a well-known agriculturist, and I am sure that so far as agriculture might need special representation he is splendidly fitted to give it. The Premier of Alberta, although a lawyer, is the head of a government which is recognized as a farmers government.


Henry Herbert Stevens: John Oliver.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, and the
Premier of Saskatchewan. I did draw particular attention to the fact that the government had placed among these names, the name of the hon. member for Southeast Grey. I think if anyone in this House has given attention to agricultural problems the hon. member for Southeast Grey is entitled to special recognition in that regard. As I have already said, the committee is a provisional committee. Undoubtedly when it comes to determining the executive there will be included many persons whose names would come within special groups. As a matter of fact, in considering the subject, a number of names were suggested, for example, the name o.f Mr. Tom Moore, president of the Trades and Labour Council, was proposed. It was pointed out that if Mr. Moore was to be on the committee then representation ought to be given also to the manufacturers' association, and if the manufacturers' association then the chambers of commerce; then some other organizations would be entitled to representation. And so it would run on; any number of organizations might be included. If it were the intention to embrace every organization that may wish to take part in this celebration, I am afraid we would have a committee incapable of functioning.
This much said, may I add that I think my hon. friend has been quite right in directing the attention of the committee to the importance of seeing that all classes are represented, and I shall be very much astonished if, when this provisional committee meets, any class that desires to have special recognition in connection with the program is not given every opportunity of having its voice heard and its interests considered.


Mr. BRADY:: With respect to the committee that has been mentioned by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), I still feel that an omission of great importance is noticed. I do feel that the diamond jubilee of confederation is of such far-reaching importance that the educational aspect of it should be given great prominence. It will be a wonderful time among the youth of Canada and I consider that the chancellor or the president or the representative direct of the educational system of Canada should receive recognition. I know myself what it will mean if we enable the youth of Canada to come to a realization of the past history, of the Dominion, and to form some idea of its unity in the future. I therefore respectfully request that the university system of Canada, as represented either by a chancellor or by a president, receive special mention in that particular committee which has been referred to this evening.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend will run through the list of names he will find that a large percentage are those of university graduates, and he may, I think, rest absolutely assured that in the hands of that provisional committee, the educational interests of the country will be well taken care of when the executive committee comes to be formed.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Mackenzie King thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 65, to incorporate a national committee for the celebration of the diamond jubilee of Confederation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Health and Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment) presented the report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the select standing committees of the House as follows:
[Stage Direction]
Select Standing Committees

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Beaubien,
Bell (Hamilton West), Bell (St. Antoine), Bennett,
Blatchford,
Cahan,
Cannon,
Casgrain,
Clark,
Denis (Joliette), Edwards (Frontenac-Addington),
Elliott,
Goodison,
Hanson,
Heaps,
Jacobs,
Kennedy,
Kellner,
King (Kootenay East), Lapointe,
MacDonald (Cape Breton South), McPhee,
McQuarrie,
Marcil,
Mercier (St. Henri), Balston,
Rheaume,
Ryckman,
Stewart (Leeds)-29.
Milne,
Morin (Bagot),
Neill,
Parent,
Perley (Sir George), Petit,
Pouliot,
Price,
Rennie,
Robitaille,
Ross (Moose Jaw), Rowe,
Ryerson,
St. Pfere,
Sanderson,
Seguin,
Simpson,
Smith (Cumberland), ^ Smith (Stormont),
Speakman,
Spence (Maple Creek), Spencer,
Stevens,
Stewart (Leeds), Stirling,
Sylvestre,
Taylor,
Thorson,
Tobin,
Totzke,
Tummon,
Vallanee,
Verville,
Ward,
White (Mount Royal), Wilson (Wentworth), Young (Saskatoon), Young (Weyburn)-129.
[Stage Direction]
No. 2 ON RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of twenty-five members.

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Anderson (Halton), Anderson (Toronto-
High Park), Arthurs,
Auger,
Bell (St. Antoine),
Bell (St. John-Albert), Bennett,
Bettez,
Blatchford,
Bothwell,
Bourgeois,
Bowen,
Boys,
Bradette,
Brown,
Cahan,
Cahill,
Campbell,
Cantley,
Casgrain,
Casselman,
Charters,
Church,
Cotnam,
Cowan,
Delisle,
Denis (Joliette),
Denis (St. Denis), Dionne,
Donnelly,
Drayton (Sir Henry), Dubuc,
[Stage Direction]
Dunning,
Dussault,
Embury,
Esling,
Evans,
Fafard,
Fansher
(Lambton East), Fansher
(Last Mountain), Fraser,
Gardiner,
Geary,
Gershaw,

Girouard,
Glen,
Goodison,
Gott,
Goulet,
Guerin,
Hanson,
Harris,
Heaps,
Hepburn,
Hocken,
Howard,
Howden,
Jelliff,
J ones,
Kay,
Kellner,
Kennedy,
Lacombe,
Lacroix,
Laflamme,
Lanctot,
Lapierre,
Lavigueur,
Letellier,
Lovie,
Lucas,
Luchkovich,
MacDonald (Cape Breton South), Macdonald (Kings), MacLaren.
MacLean (Prince), McIntosh,
McKenzie,
McLean (Melfort), McPhee,
McQuarrie,
McRae,
Maloney,
Manion,
Marcil,
Mathews,
Maybee,
Mercier
(Laurier-Outremont), Mercier (St. Henri), Millar,
Messieurs
Adshead,	Letellier,
Anderson (Halton),	Lucas,
Baldwin,	Luchkovich,
Barber,	MacDonald
Bell (Hamilton West),	(Cape Breton South),
Blanchard,	MacDonald
Boucher,	(Glengarry),
Bowen,	MacLaren,
Boys,	McMillan,
Brown,	McPherson,
Casselman,	Mercier,
Chaplin,	(Laurier-Outremont),
Clark,	Morin (St. Hyaeinthe-
Delisle,	Rouville),
Denis (St. Denis),	Morrissy,
Descoteaux,	Parent,
Deslauriers,	Peck,
Embury,	Pettit,
Fansher	Power,
(Lambton East),	Rheaume,
Fontaine,	Robitaille,
Fraser,	Rutherford,
Garland (Bow River),	Sanderson,
Glen,	Seguin,
Hall,	Senn,
Hanson,	Short,
Jlsley,	Spence (Parkdale),
Jacobs,	Spencer,
Johnstone (Cape Breton Stinson,	
North-Victoria),	Telford,
Kaiser,	Thompson,
Kay,	Verville,
Lacombe,	Wilson (Wentworth),
Lacroix,	Woodsworth,
Langlois,	Young (Saskatoon)-65.
Lennox,	
An that the quorum	of the said committee
do consist of ten members.
[Stage Direction]
ON STANDING ORDERS Messieurs
Anderson (Toronto- Blatchford, High Park),	Bourgeois,
Bell (Hamilton West), Brady, Blanchard,	Campbell,

Select Standing Committees
Desaulniers,	MacDonald
Deslauriers,	(Glengarry),
Donnelly,	MacNutt,
Ernst,	McGregor,
Euler,	McKenzie,
Evans,	Mercier (St. Henri),
Gershaw,	Morin (St. Hyacinthe-
Gervais,	Rouville),
Grimmer,	Perley (Sir George),
Harris,	Roberge,
Ilsley,	Ryckman,
Lacroix,	Speakman,
Ladner,	Young (Toronto North-
Lavigueur,	east)-33.
Lucas,	
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of seven members.

[Stage Direction]
(Members to act on the part of the Commons)
Messieurs
Baldwin,
Boivin,
Charters,
Edwards
(Waterloo South), Embury,
E sling,
Evans,
Hocken,
Hubbs,
Lapierre,
McIntosh,
Marcil,
Morrissy,
Prevost,
Quinn,
Raymond,
Rennie,
Rinfret,
St. Pere,
Speakman,
Steedsman,
Verville,
White
(Mount Royal)-23.

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Adshead,
Arthurs,
Bell
(St. Antoine), Bennett,
Bettez,
Bird,
Black
(Yukon),
Boys,
Brown,
Cah an,
Cannon,
Carmichael,
Casgrain,
Casselman,
Clark,
Coote,
Denis
(Joliette),
Deslauriers.
Drayton (Sir Henry), Dubuc,
[Stage Direction]
Edwards (Frontenac-Addington),
Fiset (Sir Eugene), Girouard,
Goulet,
Guerin,
Hanson,
Ilsley,
J acobs,
Jelliff,
Jones,
Kennedy,
Laflamme,
Lapierre,
Lennox,
Lovie,
Macphail (Miss),
McDiarmid,
McPhee,
Manion,
Odette,
Parent,
Perras,
Pouliot,
Preston,
Raymond,
Rheaume,
Ross
(Kingston City), Rutherford, Ryckman,
Smith
(Cumberland),,
Smith
(Stormont),
Spence
(Maple Creek), Stewart (Leeds), Stinson,
Taylor,
Telford,
Thorson,
Tobin,
Tolmie,
Tummon,
Young
(Saskatoon).-62.
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of twenty-one members.

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Allan,
Auger,
Bell
(St. Antoine), Bennett,
Benoit,
Bettez,
Bird,
Black
(Halifax),
Black
(Yukon),
Bothwell,
Boulanger,
Cahan,
Cahill,
Cantley,
Carmichael,
Casgrain,
Chaplin,
Clark,
Coote,
Cowan,
Denis
(Joliette), Desaulniers,
Donnelly,
Drayton (Sir Henry), Dubuc,
Edwards
(Waterloo South), Ernst,
Fafard,
Gardiner,
Garland
(Carleton),
Geary,
Goodison,
Guerin,
Hanson,
Harris,
Hay,
Hepburn,
Howard,
Ilsley,
Irvine,
Jacobs,
Jones,
Kaiser,
Ladner,
Lang,
Lapierre,
Macphail (Miss),
McGibbon,
McIntosh,
McLean
(Melfort),
McMillan,
McPhee,
McQuarrie,
McRae,
Maloney,
Mathews,
Morin
(Bagot),
Morrissy,
Odette,
Pettit,
Raymond,
Rheaume,
Robb,
Robinson,
Robitaille,
Ross
(Moose Jaw), Rutherford,
Ryckman,
Ryerson,
St. Pere,
Sanderson,
Senn,
Short,
Sinclair
(Wellington North), Smith
(Stormont),
Smoke,
Speakman,
Spence
(Maple Creek), Spencer,
Steedsman,
Stevens,
Telford,
Tobin,
Totzke,
Vallance,
Ward,
Wilson
(Vaudreuil-
Soulanges),
Woodsworth,
Young
(Saskatoon),
Young
(Weyburn).-90.
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of twenty-one members.
[Stage Direction]


Select Standing Committees No. 8


[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Allan,
Anderson
(Halton),
Arthurs,
Barber,
Benoit,
Bissett,
Boivin,
Both well,
Bouchard,
Boucher,
Boulanger,
Bowen,
Bowman,
Brady,
Brown,
Campbell,
Cayley,
Charters,
Coote,
Cotnam,
Delisle,
Denis
(St. Denis), Desaulniers, Descoteaux,
Dionne,
Donnelly,
Dubuc,
Edwards
(Frontenac-
Addington),
Embury,
Evans,
Fafard,
F ansher
(Lambton East), F ansher
(Last Mountain), Fontaine,
Fraser,
Gardiner,
Garland
(Bow River), Garland
(Carleton),
Gervais,
Glen,
Gott,
Hall,
Hay,
Hepburn,
Hodgins,
Hubbs,
Kaiser,
Kay,
Kellner,
Lacroix,
Ladner,
Lanctot,
Langlois,
Letellier,
Lovie,
Luchkovich,
Maephail (Miss), Macdonald (Kings),
MacNutt,
McGibbon,
McGregor,
McLean
(Melfort),
McMillan,
McPhee,
McRae,
Maloney,
Maybee,
Millar,
Milne,
Morin (Bagot),
Motherwell,
Neill,
Peck,
Perley (Sir George), Preston,
Price,
Roberge,
Ross *
(Moose Jaw),
Rowe,
Rutherford,
Seguin,
Senn,
Short,
Sinclair
(Wellington North), Smith
(Stormont),
Smoke,
Spence
(Maple Creek), Spence
(Parkdale),
Spencer,
Steedsman,
Stewart
(Leeds),
Stirling,
Sylvestre,
Taylor,
Telford,
Thompson,
Thorson,
Tobin,
Tolrnie,
Totzke,
Tummon,
Vallance,
White
(London),
Young
(Saskatoon),
Young
(Weyburn).-105.
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of twelve members.

Bancroft,
Beaubien,
Bissett,
Blanchard,
Bouchard,
Bourgeois,
Brady,
Cantley,
Cardin,
Dickie,
Dionne,
[Stage Direction]
Dussault,
Ernst,
F ansher
(Last Mountain) Grimmer,
Jenkins,
Kennedy,
Luchkovich,
MacDonald
(Cape Breton South)
Messieurs
Macdonald (Kings), Macdonald
(Richmond-West Cape Breton), MacLaren, MaeLean (Prince), McPherson, McQuarrie,
Marcil,
Morrissy,
Neill,
Pouliot,
Price,
Quinn,
Short,
Sinclair (Queens),
Smith
(Stormont), Stevens,
Ward.-37.
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of ten members.
[Stage Direction]
No. 10 ON MINES, FORESTS AND WATERS
Messieurs
Anderson
(Toronto-High-
Park),
Baldwin,
Barber,
Beaubien,
Bell
(St. John-Albert),
Bird,
Black
(Yukon),
Blatchford,
Boucher,
Bradette,
Cahill,
Cantley,	I
Dickie,
[Stage Direction]
Esling,
Fiset (Sir Eugene), Garl and
(Bow River), Gershaw,
Howden,
Ilsley,
Irvine,
Jelliff,
Johnstone
(Cape Breton North-Victoria),
Lanctot,
Lang,
Lapierre,
Letellier,
Macdonald
(Richmond-West Cape Breton), Macdougall,
McLean (Melfort),
Millar.
Robinson.
Sanderson,
Simpson,
Smith
(*Cumberland),
Stewart
(Edmonton West).-36.
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of ten members.

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Bancroft,	Bissett,
Bell	Black
(St. John-Albert), (Halifax),

Questions
Bourassa,
Chevrier,
Church,
Cowan,
Geary,
Gervais,
Grimmer,
Hall,
Heaps,
Heenan,
Howard,
Irvine,
Johnstone
(Cape Breton North-Victoria), Laflamme,
Macphail (Miss), MeGihbon,
McIntosh,
McMillan,
Malcolm,
Morin
(St. Hyacinthe-Rouville), Morrissy,
Neill,
Prevost,
Ross
(Kingston City), Thorson,
Tolmie,
White
(London),
White
(Mount Royal), Wilson
(Vaudreuil-Soulanges), Woodsworth,
Young (Toronto Northeast).-35.
An that the quorum of the said committee do consist of ten members.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the select standing committees of this House shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the House, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.40 p.m.
Wednesday, February 16, 1927