1927-04-01

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Jacobs.
Eighth and ninth reports of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills. -Mr. Parent.

Mr. GEORGES PARENT (Quebec West) moved:: That, in accordance with the recommendation contained in the eighth report of the select
standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, the penalty fee imposed in respect to Bill No. 221, intituled: "An Act for the relief of John Lauron Garfield Evans," be refunded. Motion agreed1 to.
CHARLO STATION POSTMASTER Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):
I beg to lay on the tajble return to an order of the House passed on the motion of the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Grimmer). I might explain that the order asked for a return in connection with the dismissal of the postmaster at River Charlo. There is no such dismissal, but there was a dismissal of George Chalmers, postmaster at Charlo Station, and I am giving the papers in connection with that.
CHICOUTIMI HARBOUR COMMISSION Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister, for the Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to authorize a loan to the Harbour Commissioners of Chicoutimi in an amount not exceeding $500,000, to carry on the construction of terminal facilities, upon approval by the governor in council of detailed plans, specifications and estimated for , such works and the deposit of debentures of the corporation to cover said loan.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted1 with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration, of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I wish, on the orders of the day, to make known to the House the proposed salary revision of the civil service to date from to-day, April 1, 1927.
1. All classes in the classification of the civil service of Canada, both inside and outside, up to and including $5,100 per annum are to be increased by $120 per annum in both minimum and maximum salary rates, and each employee will receive an increase of $10 per month dating from April 1, 1927, with the following exceptions:
(a)	No increase will be granted in the minimum for the junior clerical grades (Clerk, i Grade 1) and for the classes of equivalent or lower grade, .and for certain other classes which were increased by salary revision, 1924.
Pension Legislation

(b)	AH temporary employees will receive an increase to the new minimum of the class except in those classes where no increase is to be made in minimum salary rates.
(c)	Any employee who is now in receipt of a flat increase in salary granted by the salary revision of 1924 in lieu of former bonus payments, shall now receive an increase in salary equal to the difference between the amount of such flat increase now received and the increase provided for the class in which his position is classified not however exceeding the new maximum rate of his class.
(d)	Classes which were increased' by $180 per annum or more by the salary revision of 1924 will be increased in maximum by $60 and employees in these classes will receive an immediate increase of $5 per month.
(e)	A small number of other classes which were increased by salary revision of 1924 will receive such increases in minimum and maximum rates as to bring the classes into harmony with other closely related classes anil the employees in these classes will receive immediate increases corresponding to the increases in the maximum of the class.
(f)	Employees who are eligible to receive statutory increases from April 1, 1927, will receive this proposed increase in addition to the annual statutory increase.



LIQUOR EXPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: I would like to ask the Minister of Customs if there is any new order or regulation affecting the export of liquor from Ontario to the United States.


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Customs and Excise):: There is no such order whatever.



GEORGIAN BAY CANAL

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: I beg leave to present to the House a certified copy of a resolution passed by the town council of St. Marys, Ontario, on March 21 last-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Frederick George Sanderson: -re Bill No. 78, respecting the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.



PENSION LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: I would like to ask the government if it is the inten-

tion this year to bring down any legislation to correct discrepancies in certain statutes regarding ex-service men and their dependents, or if the matter is to be shelved again so that parliament may prorogue at an early date.


Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Health):: In making an announcement respecting pension legislation I may say that several features have been taken into consideration. In the first place the Pension Act that was originally drawn up in 1919 was amended in 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, and 1925. On several occasions these amendments were the result of long deliberation by special parliamentary committees appointed for the purpose, and on one occasion the result of a protracted investigation of general reestablishment measures by a royal commission appointed in 1922, the final report of that commission being submitted to the government as late as 1924. The important feature of all the above is that the Pension Act has received the very close attention of parliament during past years.
This year there have been presented to me by various soldier organizations, resolutions asking mainly for additional benefits to be provided by change in the regulations of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment and the Board of Pension Commissioners, and additional benefits to be provided under the Pension Act. The total number of these resolutions is approaching two hundred, of which more than fifty suggest changes in the pension legislation.
I also call the attention of the House to the fact that there was recently inserted in the Pension Act a meritorious clause under which cases of real merit or hardship can be awarded pension at the discretion of the Board of Pension Commissioners and the Federal Appeal Board, even though such cases are not provided for under the ordinary terms of the Pension Act. I may say that already a number of pensions have been awarded under this provision.
I do not think the members and the country generally fully appreciate the nature and extent of the numerous proposals which have been made. Many of these suggestions involve ramifications which can be foreseen only after careful and detailed examination. There are extended commitments involved and there must be a thorough canvass of the effect on other classes not dealt with. It would be apparent I think to anyone who read the accumulation of material which has come to me during this session that there could be no fair opportunity during a session of parliament for the government to give the con-

Privilege-Mr. Beaubien
sideration and thought which matters of this kind deserve. I may say that in the recess, attention will be given to the practicability of a consolidation of the Pension Act, and these proposals involving statutory changes will be considered in that connection.
In the meantime, I think that some of the suggestions may be found to be quite possible of being dealt with by administrative rather than legislative action and I propose to consider that method of procedure.
I can also say, and I feel sure that this will be regarded as of very great importance by those who are interested in these matters, that while the government cannot at this session consider extending the principles upon which pensions are granted, they have under consideration amendments relating more or less to procedure, one of which will deal with the extension for a further term of two years of the period within which applications for pensions may be received. It is my purpose to move this amendment when bill No. 234 is again in committee.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: The minister spoke of administrative action. Is any interim provision likely to be made for handicapped men?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: That matter is one that is always before the department, and ways and means are being sought from time to time to provide for these handicapped men. '
Mr. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury) May I ask the minister if there has been a definite promise made to the representatives of the exservice men that legislation would be brought in this year?


John Warwick King: No.


Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: Can the minister assure the House, in view of his statement that amendments to the Pension Act will not be brought down this session, that they will be brought down early next session?


John Warwick King: I would say this,
that if the government after an opportunity of reviewing the material that has been presented to it, is of the opinion that legislation should follow, we will be in a position to bring it before the House early next session.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: I
sympathize a good deal with the attitude the minister takes in this matter. There are certainly a lot of demands, and it is a very busy time to deal with them during the session of parliament, but in view of that, and the fact that the appeal board is nearly a year in arrears, what puzzles me is that the minister
should bring in a bill to lessen the number of the appeal board.


John Warwick King: The bill does not limit the number.


Robert James Manion: It does not necessarily,
but it gives power to the government to lessen the number of the appeal board.


John Warwick King: Bill No. 234 empowers the government to appoint commissioners for a term of five years, and leaves it within their power to reduce the number or to keep it as it is at present.



PRIVILEGE-MR. BEAUBIEN

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege in connection with an article in this morning's Ottawa Citizen headed " Western M.P. is Planning Move to Kill Canal Bill It goes on to say that "Mr. Bissett, Liberal member for Provencher" is presenting a resolution in favour of a royal commission. I wish to state, first, that Mr. Bissett is not the member for Provencher, although he would certainly be worthy of representing that historic county, and secondly that this article is as inaccurate as an editorial appearing in the same paper yesterday morning criticizing the Liberal-Progressives.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to
mention a matter of order. There was presented to-day by my hon. friend from South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) the resolution of a town council. Your Honour has on several occasions this session ruled such matters out of order when presented from this side of the House. I think the rule should be made known and established that all who wish to petition parliament may do so, but that they must comply with the rule, and that resolutions will not be received.


Hewitt Bostock: The rule is well known and must be adhered to. This was simply a resolution, and I would have declared it out of order, but there was so much conversation in the House at the time that I could not hear what the hon. member was saying.


Frederick George Sanderson: If the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) had heard that resolution read, which he did not, I do not think he would have made any objection to it.

C.N.R.-Branch Lines


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, I object to the form entirely.


Hewitt Bostock: Only by petition can outsiders address themselves to parliament.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- ROSEDALE BRANCH

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister
of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 178, to amend an act respecting the construction of the Canadian National Railway line being a joint section from Rosedale southeasterly, in the province of Alberta.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On the preamble.
Mr. GARDINER:: Can the minister inform the House whether the agreement in regard to this joint section between the two companies has been signed?


Mr. DUNNING:: As I explained in the
committee, the agreement has not been signed, but the negotiations, I am informed, are nearing completion.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved * the second reading of Bill No. 227, to amend an act to provide compensation where employees of His Majesty are killed or suffer injuries while performing their duties.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 49 to amend the Loan Companies Act, 1914.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Limitation of borrowing powers.
Hugh Guthrie: This section was amended, was it not?


The CHAIRMAN:: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: What is the amendment?


John Frederick Johnston: It was amended in
committee by striking out all the words in subsection (a) of this section, line 10, down to the word "called" in line 22, and substituting therefor the following:
(a) A notice of the by-law and of the meeting of the shareholders called to approve the same, shall be published in four consecutive issues of the Canada Gazette and in four consecutive weekly issues of a newspaper printed in every city or town in Canada where the company has its head office or a branch office, and the said notice shall also be sent and given by registered mail to every registered debenture holder, whether resident within or outside of Canada, and to the chief agent or chief agents of the company for the sale of debentures of the company outside of Canada, at least sixty days before the date for which the said meeting is called.


Mr. CANNON:: Section 2 provided that
companies should be entitled to increase their borrowing power to eight times their capital and reserve. Under the present act it is fixed at four times. An amendment was carried which fixed it at five times.


Hugh Guthrie: In the original proposal
the borrowing power was fixed at eight times?


Lucien Cannon: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: The committee reduced
it to five?
Mr.-CANNON: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: Has the government
considered the suggestion to make it six times as a fair compromise?


Mr. ROBB:: The government has no
objection to make it six times; indeed we advised that. In the case of many other companies there is no limit. It is purely a question of practical demonstration, but we could not re-open it in the committee. I understood there was fair unanimity with regard to the proposition to make it six times, and the government offers no objection to that if it is desired.


Hugh Guthrie: If there is no objection
to it, I move that the word "five" be struck out and the word "six" inserted in lieu thereof.


Robert Gardiner: When the matter was
before the committee a good deal of dbjeotion was taken to the provision in the bill as first introduced for increasing the borrowing power to eight times the capital. The committee discussed this matter very thoroughly and arrived at a compromise decision to allow the company to increase the borrowing

Loan Companies Act
power from four times to five times. I would like to point out that, with the exception of one company, none of the other companies have come anywhere near using the privilege they now have, which is a borrowing power to the extent of four times the paid-up capital.
I think we should leave the figure at five, because we must remember these companies can increase their borrowing power by increasing their capital stock, and it appeared to the committee that five times would be quite sufficient.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: If I remember
correctly, in the committtee there was an amendment moved to increase it to six times. The trouble in committee as I recall it was this: several of the members of the committee wished to have it eight times and some did not wish to have the figure as high as six times. In the first place a vote was taken on the proposition to fix the figure at six; those wishing to have it placed at eight, and those wishing to have it fixed at less than six all voted against the amendment, another amendment could not 'be moved and the amendment to have it placed at five was carried. I believe that had it been possible at first to vote on the question as to whether the committee would allow eight times, that motion would have been defeated, and a motion to have it placed at six would have carried-. I agree with the leader of the opposition that it should be six.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: I think the hon.
member for Moose Jaw is quite correct. I believe I was the member who moved the amendment that five be substituted for eight. The first amendment proposing to substitute six for eight was the one that most of us favoured. That was voted down and the other amendment, making it five, was carried. I think six would be more acceptable to the loan companies than five, and I recall that the Finance minister in our committee said that either six or five in place of eight, would be quite acceptable to him. So that as the one who moved the amendment to insert "five" instead of "eight", I may say that it would ibe acceptable to me to substitute "six" for "five",


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 3-License must be Obtained- Conditions for granting etc.
Mr. RYCKMAN:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to
record my objection to this clause on the ground that it is ultra vires of the parliament of Canada. A most respectful request has
been addressed to the government to have this question determined before the bill becomes law, and I think the request should be granted. As expressed by the resolution supported by the premiers of all the provinces when they recently met, they are united in the view that this provision is within the purview of the provinces. Its. enactment therefore will precipitate litigation, the result of which, following oases of an analogous character that have already been determined by the courts, must be against the clause. I am unwilling to assist in the passing of laws that subsequently may be found to be ultra vires of this parliament, and as the point in doubt could be cleared up in a short time, I think the clause should be submitted to the Supreme court.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
On the preamble.
Mr. CAHAN:: Mr. Chairman, I simply
wish to register my position in regard to this bill. I stated it clearly in the committee, and I will state it now in this House. In my view the vesting in the Department of Finance of the annual licensing of loan and mortgage companies, with power for the same department to cancel those licenses, places upon it and upon the government responsibility for preserving the solvency of such companies incorporated under Dominion statute, and makes the department the guardian of the interests of all the creditors of those companies. This policy in this as in many other cases will, I have no doubt, lead in the future to repeated applications to parliament for reimbursement of losses upon insolvency. I am entirely opposed to such a policy. I have discussed it at length in the committee, and I wish now simply to register my objection to it.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.
WINDING-UP ACT AMENDMENT Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 51 to amend the Winding-up Act.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Subject to Part III.
Hugh Guthrie: Was this bill considered
by the banking and commerce committee?


Lucien Cannon: Yes. I may be allowed
to explain the object of the bill. In the
Winding-Up Act

Winding-up Act a sort of preference is given to policyholders residing in Canada. This bill places all policyholders, whether living in Canada or elsewhere, in the same position when a company is wound up.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Application to life insurance, etc.


John Frederick Johnston: In line 15 on the
second page the word "sixty" has been changed to "ninety."


Lucien Cannon: That is to extend the time for notices in order to make sure that all the interested parties will be reached.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Chairman, I wish simply to state my objection also to this bill. It purports to take from the courts the power of declaring when a company is insolvent. Under the Winding-up Act the insolvency of a company is always a matter for judicial decision, and, before that decision is given, all parties in interest are afforded an opportunity to be heard in a judicial proceeding, whereupon judgment is given as to whether it has been clearly shown that the company is insolvent and should be wound up. This bill, together with the Insurance Act of 1917, makes it impossible for a company to carry on business except under an annual license from the department. I think that is a wrong departure, and that it is very likely ultra vires of this parliament to enact such provisions. As to whether the act of 1917 in that respect is within the powers of the parliament of Canada to enact should be judicially determined at the earliest possible date. At the present time there is a majority decision of the highest appellate court of Ontario declaring that similar licensing provisions are ultra vires. But the second point is this. When an official of the Department of Finance has declared that in his opinion the license of the company should not be renewed, the fact of the official's refusal to renew the license is taken as evidence, complete and final, that the company is insolvent. In such a case it no longer remains a matter for judicial decision as to whether the company is or is not insolvent; it is in fact decided to be insolvent by an official of the department who is utterly unqualified to exercise such a discretion, and who has not the judicial experience necessary to enable him to decide the question. I admit at once that this matter has passed the standing committee, but I regard it as most pernicious legislation in this respect. I think it is far better that the decision as to whether a company is solvent or insolvent should be

left entirely to the courts; it should not depend upon a discretionary decision, as to the renewal of the license, to be given by an official of the department who, as I say, is without experience, or to be given by any political agency such as the government of the country or any department thereof.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 52, to amend the Trust Companies Act, 1914.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On .section 1-License must be obtained.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I wish to register the same
objection to this bill as I raised in connection with -the previous one. I regard i-t as the most pernicious legislation that could possibly be placed on the statute book, to provide that the life of insurance companies, loan and mortgage companies and trust companies should be continued from year to year subject to an annual license to be granted by the minister or by any permanent official of the Department of Finance. In order to carry on the class of business which these companies do carry on it is absolutely necessary that they should make provision not for one year but for many years, and this attempt to bring these companies under political control, by providing that after they are incorporated by statute of this parliament their continued existence shall be in the control of political heads of political departments, is most pernicious. It is on its face obviously an attempt to bring the entire financial operations of financial companies throughout the length and breadth of the country under the control of a department of the government. That, I repeat, is pernicious and it will be found to be so. It promises so many evil results that I take a longer time than I otherwise would to point out some of these evils in detail. Let me mention one of -them. As in the case of the claims of the Farmers bank and the Home bank, this bill makes the minister the guardian of the interests of the creditors of all the trust companies incorporated by the Dominion of (Canada. That guardianship cannot be carefully and efficiently exercised by any officials whom that department now has in its employ, and if by their negligence or their inefficiency, if through any default

Agricultural Economic Poisons
of theirs, conscious or unconscious, these companies become insolvent, the creditors of such companies will have an even stronger claim for reimbursement from the treasury of Canada than had the depositors of the Home bank. This legislation is simply piling up trouble for the future and creating, against the treasury of the country, a vast number of claims for reimbursement from -the treasury for which precedents have already been established. Having stated that, I have nothing further to say except to register a general objection to the bill.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to regulate the sale and inspection of poisons represented as a means for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating fungi, weeds, insects, rodents, or other plant or animal pest, collectively or individually affecting agriculture, and to provide for registration, the payment of fees thereon, and penalties for infraction of the act.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: This is a resolution upon which a bill is to be based that will be referred to the committee on agriculture. It deals with agricultural poisons such as potato and apple sprays, and insecticides and fungicides generally. It is proposed to enact this bill very much after the manner of the act respecting fertilizers, and it will be regulatory in its character. Certain penalties will be provided for infractions of the law, and authority will be given to make regulations.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Has there been no control at all over these matters in the past?


William Richard Motherwell: No, there has been no legislation with respect to them in the past. These poisons are exclusive of poisons handled by medical men, veterinarians and druggists.


Robert Gardiner: What is contemplated
by "controlling the sale" under this resolution?


William Richard Motherwell: Well, all these who have these poisons for sale will have to be registered.
Mr. 'GARDINER:	That is the point I
want to get at. In western Canada, for example, the municipalities sometimes secure and sell strychnine for the -destruction of gophers. Would they have to be registered?


William Richard Motherwell: Thej poisons include those for the destruction of rodents, gophers and the like. Some of the poisons that have been on the market in the past are, -it is claimed, more conducive to fattening the gophers than killing them.


Robert Gardiner: The minister did not
catch my point. I am asking particularly with respect to municipalities in western Canada. Will they have to be registered under this act, the same as druggists, if they sell gopher poisons?


William Richard Motherwell: If they sell poisons by retail I presume they will have to come under the act. I forget the terms of the bill, whether they make that plain or not, but all retail dealers selling these poisons will be expected to register. However, when the bill goes to committee that point will be elucidated.


Robert Gardiner: I should like to say
for tire information of the minister that in western Canada we formerly had to pay a high price for gopher poison, and the government of Saskatchewan passed -legislation to allow the municipalities to secure the po-ison and sell it to residents. All I want to make sure of is -that provision be made that these municipalities may buy and resell this poison.


William Richard Motherwell: When the bill goes to the committee on agriculture there will be ample opportunity to consider its provisions.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: What is the object of this proposition? Is it to protect the gophers who have been provided wth poison, or something called poison, which fattens them? What is the purpose of this proposed legislation?


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
wants to make a little fun about this matter.


George Halsey Perley: Not at all.


William Richard Motherwell: The chief industries that have asked for this provision, and have been doing so for three or four years, are the fruit growers and the potato growers of Canada. Their sprays are of vital importance to them. Unless they are able to spray successfully their fruit and potatoes it is all day with those products. We want it to be all day with the gophers and the bugs rather than the fruit and potato crops. That is the purpose of the proposed bill.
1774	COMMONS
Marine and Fisheries Department


George Halsey Perley: Does the minister mean that the sprays that have been sent out lor use in orchards have not been of any value, or that they have been dangerous when used?


William Richard Motherwell: There has been no law in the past regulating the component parts of these poisons to determine whether they were poisonous or whether they were really foods. The result is that growers have been spraying their apple trees, and sometimes their potatoes, with preparations which were not posionous at all, and sometimes, as a result of spraying with ineffective poisons, they lost their crop. It is proposed to enact that those who undertake to sell such poisons shall put up preparations that are what they purport to be and that will be effective.


Mr. HANSON:: I should like to back up
what the minister has said. Fruit growers associations, I think, have been endeavouring to get this legislation put through for the last two or three years. I am glad the minister is introducing a bill of this kind, and I hope it will be effective for the purpose for which it is intended.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Is it intended to compel the manufacturers of fungicides and insecticides to put on the package the chemical analysis of the article?


William Richard Motherwell: Approved analysts
will be appointed to whom samples suspected of not 'being up to the mark will be submitted for analysis. I suggest that we can proceed more satisfactorily if we consider the bill in committee.
, Mr. ILSLEY: I desired to call that point to the attention of the minister because I know that is what the fruit growers of Nova Scotia are demanding. They wish provisions to be enacted similar to those existing with regard to the sale of fertilizers. They regard this matter as very much akin to that of fertilizers.


William Richard Motherwell: Not only have some of the insecticides and fungicides proved1 useless, but many have proved exceedingly injurious and have destroyed the foliage of trees.


Peter McGibbon: I presume that when the minister refers to the appointment of analysts he has reference to some of the men already in the employ of the government?
Mr. MOTHER'WELL: In the case of a number of acts like those dealing with feeds and fertilizers there is provision for the ap-

pointment of what we call approved analysts. There is no salary connected with the position, but the public will know that these men are recognized by the department as properly qualified approved analysts.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it the intention of the department to set up a bureau to handle this matter? I did not understand that there were any such new officials to be appointed?


William Richard Motherwell: No.
Resolution reported, read the second time, and concurred in. Mr. Motherwell thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 257, to regulate the sale and inspection of agricultural economic poisons.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Hewitt Bostock: When shall said bill be
read a second time?


William Richard Motherwell: I beg to move that the bill be now read the second time.


George Halsey Perley: Has the bill been printed yet?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: It has been
printed and the idea is to send it to the committee on agriculture.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is the bill available so that members may read it?


Hewitt Bostock: The bill has been printed.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It has not been distributed,
I think.


Hewitt Bostock: It has been printed but
not distributed.


George Halsey Perley: It is to go to the
committee on agriculture?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The purpose
of asking for the second reading is to permit of the bill going to the committee on agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the act respecting the Department of Marine and Fisheries to provide that the department shall consist of the

Post Office Act
Marine branch and the Fisheries branch, and that two officers may be appointed by the governor in council as Deputy Minister of Marine and Deputy Minister of '.Fisheries, respectively.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it the intention to appoint to the position of Deputy Minister of Fisheries an official presently in the employ of the department or some outside person?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Beyond saying that the government will endeavour to make' the best appointment possible, I am afraid I cannot give my hon. friend any information.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That of course is no answer at all. I should like to know. A great deal of the good that we hope will come from this division of the department and the setting up of a new Deputy Minister of Fisheries will depend upon the person of the official appointed. If it is intended to make a political appointment, we shall not gain the effect that was intended to be gained by the Duncan report. If behind this move there is the intention to do what the members of the Duncan commission sought to accomplish, a great deal of good will be achieved and I heartily endorse the proposal. I believe that to be the crux of the situation. If a political appointment is to be made, the purpose of the legislation will be defeated. If the reverse is the case, I will welcome the legislation and I am sure it will be welcomed by the maritimes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The purpose
of the resolution is to carry out the recommendation of the Commission on Maritime Claims. Until the legislation is passed, in the nature of things, the government will not have before it the consideration of the appointment of a deputy. That is all I wished to imply in my reply, but an effort will be made to secure the best person possible.


Robert Gardiner: Will this entail the
appointment of a new minister of the crown?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At the present
time it will not. I should like to have it understood that later on the government may bring in a measure to create a separate department of fisheries.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think that has ever been asked for as a business proposition by the people of the maritime provinces. We are already over-governed in this country. We have too many political heads of departments in Canada now and the cabinet could very well be reduced in numbers. I think the Prime Minister, in some lucid moments which he has had in days gone by, has agreed to that proposal He would like to reduce the number, but political exigency and expediency are such that, instead of the number of portfolios in this country being Teduced, they are constantly being increased, with the result that we are top-heavy in the departments of government. There is no demand in the maritime provinces for the appointment of a political head, but there is a genuine demand for the appointment of a competent deputy who will give his whole time to the functions of the department.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Mackenzie King thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 258, to amend the act respecting the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first
and second time.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved that the House go into committee on the bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the bill been printed?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, it is-in printed form.


Robert Gardiner: I would suggest that we do not go into committee until we have an opportunity of reading the bill.
Motion stands.



POST OFFICE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Post Office Act and to reduce the postage rate on certain newspapers and periodicals from one and one-half cents to one cent.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Hugh Guthrie: Is the rate per one hundred pounds or per pound?


Mr. VENIOT:: Per pound.


Robert Gardiner: Will the Postmaster
General kindly explain the purport of the resolutions and also what classes of newspapers and periodicals it applies to?


Peter John Veniot: Under the present act certain classes of newspapers and periodicals are
Post Office Act

charged one and one-half cents a pound. Subsection (3) of section 53 of the old act reads:
Newspapers and periodicals which are required to be transmitted for a greater distance than is mentioned in the last preceding section

That is forty miles.
[DOT]-or the publication of which is of greater frequency than once a week, and the newspapers and periodicals described in the immediately preceding sub-section, upon any copies in excess of the circulation of 2,500 copies, shall be subject to postage at the rate of three-quarters of a cent on and after the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-one, and until the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two, and one and one-half cents thereafter, for each pound weight or any fraction of a pound weight, and such postage shall be prepaid by postage stamps or otherwise as the Postmaster General from time to time directs.
With reference to those newspapers and periodicals, the rate is changed from one and one-half cents to one cent per pound.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will that reduce the rate below the cost of carriage?


Peter John Veniot: The rate is somewhat below the cost of carriage now. I may say that the reason for this is that the Post Office Department is losing revenue because owing to the high rate of one and one-half cents per pound for delivery of newspapers specified in subsection 3, the large dailies especially are now using motor trucks to deliver their papers for a distance of thirty and forty miles, and in some cases they are sending large parcels by freight, and in other cases by express. W ith the rate reduced to one cent a pound, the post office will get an increased volume of business because these papers will refrain from using these motor trucks in order to send these parcels out. We anticipiate that the revenue will be increased, owing to the volume carried, to such an extent that whatever deficit there may be at the present time will not be increased.


Hugh Guthrie: Do you not carry them
free now up to forty miles?


Peter John Veniot: Not these papers; weeklies.
I will read the section that refers to the other class of newspapers:
(2) Newspapers and periodicals published not more frequently than once a week in any city, town or village which has a population of not more than ten thousand persons shall be entitled to be transmitted by mail free of postage to the extent of a circulation of 2,500 copies per issue within a distance of forty miles from their place of publication.

Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Veniot thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 259, to amend the Post Office Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Postage rates on certain newspapers and periodicals reduced from 1\ cents to one cent.
Robert Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, will you kindly see that the bill is distributed before we proceed?


Peter John Veniot: The bills have been printed; they should be distributed, but as apparently they are not, I am willing to move that the committee rise.


George Halsey Perley: I am not objecting to this proposed change in the law at all, but I want to comment on what the hon. minister said when we were in committee on the resolution. We are carrying these papers now for one cent and a half a pound at a loss, and the minister puts up the argument that by carrying them for one cent we are not going to make so big a loss. It may be true that with this decreased rate the newspapers will not use motor trucks so much or send so many of their newspapers by express, but it is an extraordinary argument to say that because you are losing money carrying them for one cent and a half, you will carry them for one cent, in order not to lose so much. The hon. gentleman would never apply that principle to any private business that he controlled himself. He would never say in regard to his own business: In order to reduce my loss, I am going to carry these papers for one cent; in that way I shall do a larger volume of business, and my loss will be less than it is now.


Peter John Veniot: I can give the hon. gentleman an example in connection with the Post Office Department. Before the letter postage was reduced some years ago from three cents to two cents, there was a defiicit in the Post Office Department, but inside of two years from decreasing the rate there was a surplus of $450,000, owing to the increased volume of business, and that is what I anticipate in this connection.


George Halsey Perley: I submit that
that is hardly a fair argument, because you were not paying the railways all the revenue you were getting for carrying the letters. The

Dominion Elections Act
reason that you had a deficit there was that you had not enough business. You were not paying the railways more than you were getting from the public for carrying their letters, but in this case you are paying the railways more than you are getting from the newspapers for carrying their papers.


Peter John Veniot: We are not paying the railways more exactly. If the hon. gentleman understood the situation better, he would not object. The whole of the cost is not the railway transportation. It is in the distribution by rail and otherwise through the Post Office Department. The railway transportation is not the whole cost.


Peter McGibbon: If I understand the
working of the minister's department correctly, the low rate given for the distribution of magazines, catalogues, and such like is applicable for a distance of thirty or forty miles, and in my town I have seen carloads of magazines coming by train and motor truck and being dumped into the post office, making a large amount of extra work for which the officials of the post office are not being paid anything extra, and through which the country must lose a considerable revenue. I would ask the minister if he has ever considered modifying that regulation in order to increase the revenue of his department.


Mr. YENIOT:: AVhile I was considering this amendment I had a discussion with some of our mail superintendents along those very lines, and the matter is being looked into, but I am not in a position to state that anything definite will be done this session. I think there are certain privileges granted under the Post Office Act that ought to be modified in regard to the distribution not only of certain periodicals but of advertising matter as well


Robert Gardiner: I would suggest to the
Postmaster General that, when the bill comes before the committee again, he have such information at his hand as can be obtained in the department, to show what the carrying of newspapers costs this country as well as any loss sustained.


Peter John Veniot: I can give that information now, but perhaps I had better wait until the matter is before the House again.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister obtain the cost of carrying on the business of the mail order houses, which are greatly injuring the retail trade of this country?


Peter John Veniot: There is no greater privilege given to the mail order houses than is given to any other wholesale or retail stores for their mail order business.


Peter McGibbon: Except it is given for
limited distribution.
Progress reported.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Dominion Elections Act and to provide that the chief electoral officer shall be appointed by resolution of the House of Commons, and shall be paid a salary of six thousand dollars per annum.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Hugh Guthrie: I would like a word of
explanation.


Lucien Cannon: The Dominon Elections
Act, section 19, says:
Air. Oliver Mowat Biggar, of the city of Ottawa, one of His Majesty's counsel, is hereby appointed Chief Electoral Officer.
Colonel Biggar, as every hon. member of the House will agree, has given full satisfaction in the performance of his duties. He has intimated to the government that he intends to relinquish his post, and notwithstanding representations made to him, he has persisted in that intention. Therefore it is now necessary to provide for his successor. The section of the act naming him as Chief Electoral Officer will require to be amended, in order that we may now appoint someone to perform his duties. The bill which will be introduced following this resolution will have two objects; first, to see that in future the Chief Electorial Officer shall be appointed, not by the government but by the House of Commons, and a resolution will be introduced this session to provide for the appointment of a person to replace Colonel Biggar. The present Chief Electoral Officer is in receipt of a salary of $12,000 a year, the salary now paid to a judge of the Supreme court, having the same standing as a judge of the Supreme court, by the wording of the act. Besides his duties as Chief Electoral Officer, paragraph (d) of section 19 says:
Dominion Elections Act

Subject to the performance of the foregoing duties, act as counsel for the crown or the attorney general in such causes, prepare such opinions, and make such inquiries as the Governor in Council may from time to time direct.
It is not the intention of the government to require the new Chief Electoral Officer, in addition to his duties as Chief Electoral Officer, to perform duties as counsel for the government, and that is the reason why the salary, instead of being $12,000, will be reduced to $6,000.


Hugh Guthrie: When the present Elections Act was passed in the House, I think in 1921, I happened to have charge of it, and I remember well this section under which the Chief Electoral Officer was originally appointed. He was appointed, I might inform the committee, under practically a joint arrangement or recommendation made between myself, representing the then government, and my right hon. friend representing the then opposition. I remember that we consulted in regard to the person who should be appointed to this position, and it was mutually agreed that Colonel Biggar would be an admirable man. I suggest to the government that there should be some consultation before any names are submitted in the present instance, and I fancy the government will probably follow that course, because I realized when the original act was passed that we were laying down a principle for the future. It is very important that the person appointed to fill this position should not only be an outstanding man, as far as possible removed from party politics, but a man who has the confidence of all panties in the House. I am satisfied there are many such available for the position. In the case of Colonel Biggar it was considered at that time that, as the government had a great deal of litigation, it would be an excellent thing to have a man who could be utilized as government counsel. I do not know that the work in that respect is as great now as it was after the conclusion of the war, and the necessity for having a government counsel may not exist at the present time to such an extent at all events as it did at that time. I would also suggest to the government, that when they come to the question of selecting the appointee, the principle of promotion should not be overlooked. With these remarks I have no objection to the resolution being carried in its present form.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might say
that I agree entirely with the hon. the leader of the opposition as Ito the coarse of

procedure. The intention of the government is to have a conference in advance between the leaders of the parties, and if possible to agree upon a name. I also agree with my hon. friend that where it is possible to recognize merit in the appointment this should be done.
With respect to the services of government counsel I might say that the government would hesitate to dispense with the professional services of Colonel Biggar, were it not that the Solicitor General has undertaken to carry on the work performed by Colonel Biggar as government counsel. I think it advisable to let the House know that the hon. the Solicitor General is undertaking, on behalf of the government much of the professional work which formerly was assigned to the Chief Electoral Officer.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What will be the tenure
of office of the new appointee? Is that regulated by the existing statute, or will it be regulated by the amendment?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It will be the same as heretofore.
Mr^GUTHRIE: His tenure of office is the same as that of a Supreme court judge; he is removable only on an address to parliament.


John Gordon Ross: Does the government intend to amend any other part of the Elections Act?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not this session.


Lucien Cannon: I have the bill here. The only change, in section 19, as pointed out by the leader of the opposition, will be in relation to Colonel Biggar, stating that the Chief Electoral Officer will be appointed by a resolution of the House of Commons. Therefore the Chief Electoral Officer will remain in office according to the remaining paragraph of the section.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Having regard to the fact that the Chief Electoral Officer has the status of a Supreme court judge, does the Prime Minister think that he can get a man for the salary of $6,000 who would be of such character and standing as to command the confidence of the whole country?
Mr. MiACKENZIE KING: The status of a Supreme court judge had reference, I think, to the circumstance that Colonel Biggar was recognized as having a very high standing in his profession. The present intention is to

Civil Service Superannuation Act
have regard primarily to the capability of the appointee to fill the position of Chief Electoral Officer, not the position as well of government counsel.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Cannon thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 260 to amend the Dominion Elections Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FRUIT ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 228 to amend the Fruit Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 229 to amend the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act, 1923.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 231, to amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act, 1924.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-"Misconduct."
Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, for the
benefit of those who were not here when the resolution preceding this bill was introduced, will the minister be good enough to state shortly its purport?


James Alexander Robb: Yes. The bill is to correct
some of the anomalies and defects that have developed since the act was passed three years ago. The time for taking advantage of the act is extended' to July of this year. My hon. friend will recall that a measure for this purpose was brought in last session, but failed to pass the Senate.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there any extension of
the principle of superannuation?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Mr. MacLAREN:: Mr. Chairman, is it
proposd to extend superannuation to officers in the government marine service? I understand that those officers are not included in the civil service, nor have they the benefit of superannuation or pensions.


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps progress will be expedited by my explaining to the House that the superannuation scheme is based on contributions by civil servants, which are calculated on an actuarial basis. Any departure from the scheme will add to the cost; for instance, if the scope of the act should be widened in such a way as to change the prospective length of service basis. Such a departure would be brought about by including employees occupying obviously temporary positions liable to be terminated at any time; employees paid otherwise than on the basis of a stated annual salary; employees occupying positions which, though technically permanent, are not so. In other words, the act is not intended to include any employees whose sudden withdrawal from the service would impose unexpected demands on the funds. If the basis of the superannuation scheme were widened as I have stated, or in any other way not contemplated by the framers of the act, then undoubtedly it would be necessary either to increase the amount of contributions by the civil servants or for the government to bear a larger proportion than one-half the total cost of the scheme. So my hon. friend will see that to do what he suggests would be unfair to those who are already contributing to the scheme.


Robert Gardiner: Do lighthouse keepers
come under this act?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, those who are permanent.


Robert Gardiner: On what basis are they retired?


James Alexander Robb: I know that a number of lighthouse keepers have to engage help and they have asked for an allowance on the basis of the contribution they have made, taking into account what they have paid out to their assistants during the season. The Department of Justice rules that this would not be actuarially sound and would not be fair to minor employees.


Robert Gardiner: In such case how would the minister compute a fair salary to the lighthouse keeper himself in view of the fact that he has had to pay for help? Do you get a return from him showing what he has paid out?

Civil Service Superannuation Act


James Alexander Robb: The computation is made on the basis of a return from the Department of Marine and Fisheries regarding the salary actually due the head lighthouse keeper himself.


Murray MacLaren: I understand that in the case of civil servants on the permanent staff who went overseas their absence during military service is counted in computing their superannuation. I believe that is correct. This however is not true of those on the temporary list, even though such employees may have been in the service of the government ten years or longer; the time they served overseas is not counted towards their superannuation.


James Alexander Robb: Is my hon. friend referring to employees on the permanent staff?


Murray MacLaren: I first stated what I understood to be the condition regarding permanent employees and I am contrasting that with the position of the non-permanent men. Although a man may have been in the service of the government for many years-ten years or more-the time he put in during the war is not counted, notwithstanding that he was given leave of absence by the department. It seems to me there is a good deal to be said for these temporary employees.


Mr. PETTIT:: Does this bill make provision for men in the outside service, such as lock and bridge tenders, at the Welland canal?


James Alexander Robb: If they are on the permanent staff and come within the range of salary, and if they comply with other conditions relating to contributions.


George Hamilton Pettit: What about those holding seasonal positions?


Murray MacLaren: Has the minister no comment to make on the point to which I have called his attention?


James Alexander Robb: All these cases are considered by the Department of Justice, who advise the department administering the act. On December 16, 1920, there was passed an order in council which was amended on October 31, 1921, laying down general regulations to give permanency, by means of what was known as the blanketing process, to temporary employees. That order in council remained in force until 1924 when the Civil Service Commission advised that it had been in operation long enough and should be rescinded. It was therefore cancelled. I know there has been some criticism of this blanketing method;

those who were not included in the process at that time now claim to have a grievance. Let me direct the attention of the committee to certain provisions of the bill. Subsections 5 and 6 of section 8 provide:
(v)	periods of past non-contributory service in or under any branch or portion of the public service of Canada which had ceased to exist prior to the coming into force of this act shall be counted for the purposes of this act.
(vi)	persons whose duties or employment are of a seasonal character shall be deemed to be civil servants within the meaning of this act and eligible to be contributors thereunder and their periods of work and of lay-off from the works shall be counted for the purpose of computing any allowance or gratuity under this act.
The foregoing provisions will, I think, meet the views advanced by my hon. friends.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: I would submit the case of another class of employees, the caretakers of armouries under the Department of National Defence. Many of these men have been in the service of the government for twenty years and are to all intents and purposes permanent employees; yet they are compelled to submit to the injustice of having to .put in a renewed application every six months for the positions they hold. I know of one man in Kingston who has been for twenty years in the one position and whom nobody would think for a moment of replacing. Surely such an employee ought to be made permanent.


Hugh Guthrie: Perhaps the Minister of
National Defence (Mr. Ralston) will give some information regarding these caretakers.


James Alexander Robb: I should like to be advised
in the matter. Do they work all day or only part of the time? We have not heard about it before.


Arthur Edward Ross: They are permanently employed day in and day out, living in the armouries.


Mr. RALSTON:: A long list of such cases has been submitted to me and I am trying if possible to find some means of putting this class of employees on a more permanent basis.


Mr. MARCIL:: After the announcement
made by the Secretary of State to-day I consider this a red letter day for government employees.


Hugh Guthrie: First of April.


Charles Marcil: Civil servants are to
receive increases ranging from $60 to $120 and I wish now to speak for a class of employees

Civil Service Superannuation Act
of whom there are a good many in my constituency. These people have served the government faithfully for a good many years, some of them for a quarter of a century. They did not contribute to any pensions fund and now they are left without any resource, and the government seems unable to do anything for these faithful servants. I should like to ask the minister whether it would not be possible to do something at the present time for people who had been in the employ of the government for fifteen, twenty or twenty-five years, but who did not contribute a penny to any superannuation fund, and are now practically penniless? Is there no authority under which provision can be made for such cases?


Hugh Guthrie: There is the Old Age Pension Act.


Charles Marcil: But I am referring to
persons who are government employees. There are many such cases all over Canada, and I want to know from the Minister of Finance if there is not some authority in the existing laws whereby provision can be made for some of these cases?


An hon. MEMBER:: What particular class?


Charles Marcil: I have in mind the case
of one man who was agent on an Indian reserve for twenty or twenty-five years. He was a permanent official, but he was not asked to contribute anything to any superannuation fund. Now he is in straitened circumstances, and I thought there might be a provision in the law somewhere to take care of such a case as that. I understand that in the case of former ministers of the crown the Treasury Board has power to investigate when they are in necessitous circumstances and come to their relief. I was wondering whether it would not be possible, either under the existing law or by means of an amendment, to provide for cases of the particular nature that I have indicated.


James Alexander Robb: I do not know of any such
provision in the act nor would I care to recommend the enactment of such a provision. I think it would be a very dangerous power to confer. The Treasury Board might be met with importunities that would be hard to resist politically and that could not be met on any sound actuarial basis.
With respect to the observations of my hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Ross) that matter is under review. We shall have to see whether we can devise some method of treating such cases fa.irly, but I cannot make any commitment at the present time.


Arthur Edward Ross: It is a very worthy case.


James Alexander Robb: Yes.
Mr. MoGIBBON:	I would draw the attention of the minister to the situation of a class of postmasters in this country who have been working on commission. I have in mind one such postmaster who has been in the service of the country for nearly sixty years. He is now carrying on with considerable difficulty because owing to the low salary which he derived from commissions, he was unable to lay by anything for his old age. To-day that man is in a very unhappy position. He is endeavouring to cariy on but with very great difficulty. I wonder if the minister has ever considered providing for cases of this nature? The man I have in mind will never retire until death compels him to do so, and yet some provision should be made for him.


James Alexander Robb: I quite appreciate the position of my hon. friend's postmaster because I recall that at one time, when the present Speaker was Postmaster General, I brought to his attention the case of a postmaster in my own riding who claimed that he was the oldest living postmaster in Canada. However, under the act he could do nothing for that man at that time, and we cannot do anything now because these men do not come within the class of cases in which superannuation is allowed.


Mr. MALCOLM:: I was chairman of the
committee that made the recommendation on which the act was based. The act was designed to meet the case of new entrants to the service, but provision was made to allow those contributing under the previous superannuation acts to come in upon paying the difference in the contributions. At the time referred to strong representations were made with respect to unusual oases such as those to which the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) and the hon. member for Muskoka (M|r. McGibbon) have called attention, but those to whom the framing of the act was entrusted felt that the measure would be jeopardized if an attempt was made to provide for all such cases. I recall representations on behalf of some such servant as the hon. member for Kingston has spoken of, but he was under the Militia department and that department had its own pension system. I think there is a good deal to be said on behalf of old caretakers, however, and if the Superintendent of Insurance could frame a suitable amendment I would be glad to see the minister adopt it because the committee were certainly sympathetic to such cases.

1782	_ COMMONS
Civil Service Superannuation Act


Peter McGibbon: I ask the minister
whether he does not think that it is in the interests of the public that cases of the kind I have indicated should be looked after. Men of that age cannot live very much longer; it is inevitable that they should disappear before very long. It does seem to me that something ought to be done to provide for persons in such a situation.


Charles Marcil: Supplementing what I have already said the Indian agent in the case to which I have referred was appointed at $150 a year. His salary was ultimately advanced to $300 but the department is paying $700 to-day to the agent who is discharging the same duties. The present occupant of the office will probably benefit by a pension, whereas his predecessor who worked for half the present salary may have to be looked after by the municipality. Certainly something should be done for this man who has reached the advanced age of over eighty. It is a poor object lesson to the people of Canada if, when the time comes for them to retire, we cannot provide for those who served the country so long and so faithfully and upon the low salaries that then prevailed.


John Gordon Ross: The minister
spoke of those under the old superannuation acts having to pay the difference between the contribution fixed by the old acts and that fixed by the present law. I believe civil servants have to pay not only that difference, but also four per cent on the arrears. This has kept many civil servants from coming under the new superannuation law. Although they would be able to pay the amount of the difference they feel that they cannot pay interest on the arrears and live decently. Is there no way by which the government can do away with the provision requiring the payment of four per cent interest so that all the members of the civil service can come under the Superannuation Act? I think the government will find that in time it would pay them if they did that. Then all the civil servants would be under the new act. At present the)' are not, and some day the government will have to provide in some other way for those who have not come under the act.


James Malcolm: In reply to my hon.
friend may I say that the act as worked out by the committee was placed on an actuarial basis, one-half being contributed by the employee and one-half by the state. That made it very difficult to consider the case of a man who had never paid anything into the fund. Such a man could never be expected to pay five per cent of his total salary for

the whole period in which he was in the government service because he would not likely be in a position to make such a heavy payment. At the time the act passed this House, with very strong support on both sides, it was felt that as it had been worked out on an actuarial basis there was no further need for contributions by civil servants other than those for which the measure provides. The upper chamber however felt that there was, and that those who were under the old scheme and coming into the new, were not contributing sufficient to the new scheme. The upper chamber therefore amended the bill by making necessary the payment of 4 per cent simple interest. They did not ask that it be compounded. I do not know what influence my hon. friend has in the upper chamber. He has some relatives there, and I would suggest that he get his relatives to introduce a bill in the upper chamber and to endeavour to have the upper chamber accept the bill as it was passed by this House.


Arthur Edward Ross: I should like to
make some remarks on clause 4 if we are to take them clause by clause. As regards clause 1, many civil servants suffer because a charge is made against them, perhaps by some head of a department, and they do not have a trial. I am a great believer in the fairness of something like a court martial, so that when a man is charged with misconduct he has an appeal or a hearing before he suffers directly from the charge.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I would like to draw
the attention of the minister to what I consider an injustice in the administration of the present Superannuation Act. A man entering the employ of the government and being dismissed or leaving it in less than ten years is not eligible to secure a refund of the money which he has paid into this fund. I have had referred to me a particular case which the minister now has in his hands, showing how this injustice works out. This man was employed as a farm instructor for a period of nearly five years, and the very fact that he was in the government employ for that length of time would indicate that his services were reasonably satisfactory. He was however dismissed. I am not familiar with the reason why he was dismissed, but he is to-day in a very unfortunate position. His wife is sick in the hospital; he is without work and without a dollar, and yet the very considerable amount of money which he has paid into this fund cannot be returned to him. I admit that this is not covered by the act, but it is covered by a ruling made by the

Civil Service Superannuation Act
Treasury Board in conformity with the act. I would like to ask the minister if there is any possibility of a change being made in this ruling of the Treasury Board so that cases of this kind may be dealt with and justice rendered to the parties concerned.


James Alexander Robb: My hpn. friend will recall that under the old act a man retiring at any time, and under the present act a man retiring in less than ten years, cannot get a refund. My hon. friend will observe that even in the good civil sendee of Canada we have discovered some employees who could not get a refund if they retired voluntarily, but who, knowing that they might if they were dismissed, invited dismissal for the purpose of securing a refund. This provision is for the purpose of clearing that up.


Milton Neil Campbell: That hardly deals with
the case to which I am referring. It makes no material difference whether this was in the old act or in the new. The point is that an absolute injustice was done to this man. He perhaps may not want to pay into the fund but he is compelled to do so. He has no alternative, and yet when he is dismissed from the service, or leaves the service through apparently no fault of his, so far as I can understand, or at least does not leave the service voluntarily, a considerable portion of his salary is confiscated. Actually 5 per cent of that man's salary over a period of four and a half years service has been confiscated. That is practically a dishonest proceeding.


James Alexander Robb: Is my hon. friend arguing
on behalf of the taxpayers of his constituency or on behalf of some particular employee?


Milton Neil Campbell: I am arguing in reference to this particular case, but in a general way I am asking for justice for any employee who may be placed in a similar position. If contributions to the civil service fund were voluntary: if this man went into it understanding that he was paying the money voluntarily, taking his chances of losing it later, I could quite understand in that case he would have to be prepared to lose if he were dismissed or left the service within ten years. I would like to ask the Minister of Railways what an employee of the Canadian National Railways would say if 5 per cent or any particular amount were deducted from his salary and kept in a fund of this kind, and nothing returned to him under such circumstances.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the exact principle underlying the provident fund in connection with the Intercolonial.


Milton Neil Campbell: Is no refund made to
those men?
Mr. DLTNN1NG: The only fund we have is the Intercolonial provident fund and it is conducted on this very principle.


Milton Neil Campbell: The employees of the
whole railway would not stand for anything of that kind.


James Malcolm: They do.


Milton Neil Campbell: It is most unjust. If contributions to the fund were voluntary, I would see no injustice; but when they are compulsory, you might just as well pay the man that much less salary in the first place because when he has left the service through no particular fault of his own, he cannot get a refund.


James Malcolm: My hon. friend, in
making such a statement as he does, is certainly very poorly informed in regard to the principle of superannuation acts. There is a great difference between an annuity whereby a man gets back the money paid in, plus some small rate of interest, and an insurance policy under which he may win a large amount of money or to which he may be a heavy contributor and lose. If some did not lose there could not be the returns paid that are paid to civil servants who put in the full thirty-five years service, receive the superannuation of 70 per cent, and live for many years afterwards. Every superannuation scheme in existence;, the New York Central scheme, the New Zealand act, the Canadian Pacific superannuation act, were considered by the committee, and this act as recommended was a combination of the opinions of the men on that committee as covering most fully the views representative of all parties in the House and also of the men administering superannuation acts which were outstandingly good in America.'


Mr. HEAPS:: Were the employees consulted and were they satisfied?


James Malcolm: Representatives of men's organizations by the score were in front of us. We had actuarial advice on this plan. If a man does not want to come into the civil service on a contributory plan, he does not have to do so. Under the old act a man contributed to a plan and he got certain refunds, but the state was contributing nothing. The hon. member for Mackenzie cannot show me an act based on the principle of superannuation whereby a man is allowed to elect to make it an annuity. If a man goes into the scheme, puts in his
1784	COMMONS
Civil Service Superannuation Act
full period of service, retires and lives for many years, he is bound to get out more than he puts in. If a man after putting in his full period of service retires, draws the superannuation and lives only one year, of course an injustice is done; he never gets back all the money he has paid in. The same thing is true of life insurance. All life insurance is bound to benefit some more than others. The principle of the thing is to benefit the civil servant who lives a long time so that in his old age he will not be in want. The act also takes care of widows to the extent of 50 per cent of the superannuation of the civil servant and there is a grant of so much for each child. None of these benefits could possibly come to retiring civil servants if there were not some sources of revenue beyond the actual contributions. All cannot possibly take out with interest what they pay in under this scheme.


Milton Neil Campbell: If the contributions to the widows and orphans are largely made up by taking the money from men like this, an injustice is certainly done.


James Malcolm: No.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I asked if the employees
were satisfied to come under the act.


James Malcolm: It was the civil servants of Canada who requested this act, and they were all delighted when it was brought into force. We were pressed week after week and month after month by the civil servants themselves to bring down this act. They wanted it, and they are stall pressing for further amendments.


Peter McGibbon: That might all be true; nobody is denying it, but the principle raised by the hon. member for Mackenzie is the injustice done to a man who has been in the service five or more years and may be forced out. That is a different matter altogether. I can tell the hon. minister that there was a time when life insurance companies took that stand, but they do not do it to-day; they dare not do it.


James Malcolm: Which stand?


Peter McGibbon: The stand of retaining
the premiums of those who dropped their insurance. No insurance company would dare do that to-day. I think the point raised by the hon. member for Mackenzie is absolutely sound. You should not rob one man to pay another. It is not just that a man who has been paying into the fund for a number of years should lose everything he has put in if, for some reason or other, he is forced out

or has to drop out of the service. Nothing under heaven can justify that. If the state is not contributing enough to enable those who remain in the service to get a pension, it is its duty to contribute more. It is not fair to make a levy on the man who for one cause or another is forced to drop out of the service after contributing to the fund for a number of years. As I said before, life insurance companies once took that stand and retained the premiums of those who dropped out, but they do not do it to-day.


James Malcolm: The life insurance
company makes no contribution; it all comes from the individual. But in this case the government contributes as well as the civil servants, and all the contributions go into a general fund to pay the pensions of those who remain in the service.


Peter McGibbon: You never help the man whose money you retain.


James Malcolm: No, we help the other
man who stays on.


Peter McGibbon: You are retaining his
contributions unjustly.


James Malcolm: We do not retain his
contributions. They all go into the fund for the benefit of other civil servants who stay in the service.


Peter McGibbon: The man is the loser.
There is no justice in that.


James Malcolm: There is no justice in
superannuation anyway.


Peter McGibbon: If a bank dismisses one of its servants, they pay him what he has contributed into the pension fund, plus interest, and I submit that that case is on all fours with this.


James Malcolm: No, it is different. My hon. friend surely knows that in connection with the Superannuation Act which was brought down, and which civil servants were so desirous of having brought into force, they are quite prepared that some shall be losers for the benefit of those that stay on. When the civil servants make their contributions for the first ten years, the state makes an equal contribution. < The $10,000,000 or $12,000,000 that was in the old civil service fund was transferred to this new fund, and many of the men who were under the old scheme dropped out without any benefit whatever. There cannot be one hundred per cent justice in superannuation, because some will win more than others, and if one man wins, some other man must lose. If you want to

Civil Service Superannuation Act
have a return of contributions to those who drop out of the service, which was never discussed before the committee by the civil servants who were pressing for this bill, there would have to be a heavier levy both upon the employee and upon the government. This Superannuation Act was worked out practically on the principle of the New Zealand superannuation act, modified by some clauses in the Canadian Pacific Railway and New York Central acts, and in every instance the civil servants themselves were pressing for the bill to be brought into force.


Peter McGibbon: The minister contradicted me, but he has not said one word to justify his contradiction. I was comparing the provisions of this fund with those of a bank, and he said that there was no comparison.


James Malcolm: There is not.


Peter McGibbon: Why? Do not the bank employees pay into a fund? Do not the banks also pay?


James Malcolm: I do not know that they do.


Peter McGibbon: Then do not contradict me.


James Malcolm: I do not think the banks pay into the fund.


Peter McGibbon: I think they do. I say I have known cases, and I know it is their policy whenever they dismiss a man to return his contributions.	.


Peter John Veniot: Sortie banks do not contribute.


Peter McGibbon: Some of them do, and the case is on all fours with this. I say there is no justice in this parliament passing a law to retain a man's money to which he is justly entitled.


James Alexander Robb: As I pointed out earlier, this measure was framed after very careful consideration, and after consultation with the actuaries and also with the civil service representatives. When it was first brought down, it met with the approval of the civil service representatives, and it meets with their approval to-day, with the exception of some points where we propose some corrections after the experience of some three years. We are now bringing these amendments in to meet the wishes of the civil sendee. We brought in a measure last year extending the period during which they could determine whether they would come in under the new
act or not. We are extending it again now. My hon. friends opposite offer some objection. My hon. friend from Muskoka-Ontario brings up certain grievances, but he offers nothing constructive. How do my hon. friend and the hon. member for Mackenzie propose that the deficiency in the fund which would be created by returning contributions shall be met? Do they want the contributor's pension reduced? If they do, let them say so, and we will consider it.


Peter McGibbon: I want the parties to pay who are going to benefit-. The government ought to pay it.


James Malcolm: The government does not benefit. The government is a contributor.


James Alexander Robb: I repeat, we have pointed out to the civil service representatives, who came to us no later than this week, that it was getting late in the session, and that we were not sure that we could . get this measure through. I told them frankly that I did not propose to stay here all summer to try to put this measure through, but I am ready to listen to anything constructive. If hon. gentlemen are simply going to find fault, and raise the case of one man here and another man there who wants his money back after voluntarily contributing to the fund, and they are not prepared to offer anything constructive, I shall have to tie the bill up so that we can consider during the year what would be the effect from an actuarial standpoint. We would have to consider how much more the government would have to contribute in that case, because either the government or the other civil servants would have to contribute more if the present scale of pensions is to be continued.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I understood the minister to say that the man went into the scheme voluntarily, and now he wants his money back. I think it all depends on circumstances. It is true he went into the scheme voluntarily and made his contributions, but it was on the expectation that he would remain in the service until such time as he would be eligible for superannuation. But he has be*n dismissed, and all he asks is that you pay him back, not wha-t you contributed, but what he contributed himself.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is a good
business man, but he has missed the point. I have pointed out that in the experience of the Treasury Board we have discovered that some people were actually seeking dismissal so that they might get their money back.
1786	COMMONS
Civil Service Superannuation Act


Thomas Cantley: I am not dealing with such a man at all, but with the man who comes into the service and contributes voluntarily because he expects to stay in the service long enough to get the 'benefit of superannuation. You dismiss him and confiscate what he contributed. All he asks is that you return to him, not what you put in, but what he contributed himself. What is the answer to that?


John Gordon Ross: When a man is
dismissed, does he not get back the money he contributed?


Peter John Veniot: No, not under the new
scheme.


Thomas Cantley: What is the answer?


Milton Neil Campbell: The Minister of Trade and Commerce dismisses my plea in favour of this particular man by the assertion that the principle on which all superannuation acts are based is that some men in particular circumstances must lose and others gain, that those wTho leave the service within ten years must contribute five per cent of their salary to the pension fund for the benefit of those more fortunate who are permitted to remain in the service. That, in effect, is what he says. I want to point out where he is wrong. My complaint is not against the act. The act is all right. My complaint is against the ruling of the Treasury Board. The Minister of Finance implies that those of us who are criticizing have offered nothing constructive. I want nothing more constructive than the act itself; the act is quite satisfactory. Let me read subsection 3 of section 10 of the act:
Nothing herein contained. shall be understood as impairing or affecting the right of the governor in council to dismiss or remove any contributor from the civil service, and on such dismissal or removal the governor in council may, on the recommendation of the Treasury Board pay to the contributor the whole or any part of his contribution under this act as may be deemed expedient.
Can the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Trade and Commerce say that the act was based on the principle that a man in this position should not have his contributions to the fund returned? How can they make that assertion in view of that particular clause in the act? What I complain about is that after this act is passed and after all the arrangements are made the Treasury Board takes it on itself to make a ruling. This ruling is dated December 17, 1926, and it specifically deals with this case. It leaves this man outside the operations of the act. I am not complaining of the act itself. Some hon.
fMr Robb.]
member has asked that this document be read. It is rather a lengthy document, but I think I had better read it all. It reads:
The board had under consideration sundry submissions recommending, under the provisions of section 10 (3) of the Civil Service Superannuation Act, 1924, repayment of the contributions of employees dismissed or removed from the service. They also considered a memorandum prepared by the superintendent of insurance, at the request of the board, as to the advisability of authorizing such refunds.
The superintendent of insurance reported:
1.	That this provision was not intended to apply generally to all cases of dismissal.
I would ask my hon. friend to take particular note of that first clause.
That this provision was not intended to apply generally to all cases of dismissal.
Then section 2 reads:
2.	That employees with less than ten years' service cannot obtain refund of their contributions upon resignation; that consequently, it would be advantageous to such employees to be dismissed.
And section 3 reads:
3.	That the benefits under the act had been fixed on the understanding that there would be accruing to the fund, the contributions of employees retiring with less than ten years' service; and that if these contributions are not retained, the basis for maintenance of the fund would be destroyed. _
The board, concurring in the report and recommendation of the superintendent of insurance, are of opinion that:
1.	Refund of contributions should not be authorized to employees with less than ten years' service, who are dismissed or removed from the service.
That covers this particular case. I submit the act was not based on that principle, because the subsection I have read states clearly that the government shall have the right to refund the amount paid in by such employees. Certainly no one can claim the act was based on that. I can quite understand persons now in the service maintaining that that provision should be carried out. Why, an acceptance of the principle embodied in the ruling of the Treasury Board simply means confiscation of part of the salaries of the unfortunate employees, which was intended to be left for them in their old age, their widows and orphans. The argument that the civil service is behind it is no argument at all. Parliament is above the civil service. It is the duty of parliament to give justice not only to the civil servants who have been in the service sufficiently long to draw their pensions, but also to the less fortunate employees who are dismissed before they have been ten years in the service, and a part of whose salary is confiscated.

Civil Service Superannuation Act


James Malcolm: My hon. friend referred to the privilege of appealing to the Treasury Board. There was the case submitted to the committee of the man who might be dismissed through the abolition of his office, although he had committed no offence against the department in which he worked. The man who retires voluntarily loses his contributions under the act; the man who commits some offence relating to his position oi against the department is not supposed to get his money back, 'but. the man whose position is abolished has the right of appeal and the Treasury Board may return to him his contributions.


Milton Neil Campbell: That confirms what I
said; apparently the act intended to make a refund to employees who were dismissed.


James Malcolm: No, except where a man was dismissed without cause, such as the abolition of the office, where there -was no offence on his part. I may point out to my hon. friend that immediately after the war representations were made that we had a very large civil service. Of course some departments would naturally become less heavily manned as years went by. Where a man had to be let out through the abolition of the office, having done nothing wrong himself, he should be allowed to get his money back.


Milton Neil Campbell: The act does not say
that.


James Malcolm: No.


Milton Neil Campbell: In any case of dismissal the governor in council has the right to make a refund of the amount paid in. But the minister states there was an afterthought, that this is something that came up afterwards: that an employee who wanted to leave the office and avail himself of the opportunity could perhaps use his fists with his superiors and gets around the act. We have a ruling of the Treasury Board on that. What the minister says confirms my opinion that the act was not intended to apply as it was applied in the case to which I refer. If it was found out afterwards that is was simply tempting the employee who wanted1 to leave the service to be dismissed, then I maintain the government should have dealt with it in some other way to render justice to those who were dismissed.


Charles Avery Dunning: What other way?


Milton Neil Campbell: That he should ask the Treasury Board to carry out the original intention of the act. That is all I am arguing. I am complaining of the ruling of the Treasury Board; I am not complaining of the aot.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am a member of the Treasury Board, and as such have had to consider, along with the other members of the board, cases of this kind. The abuse which the Treasury Board sought to correct under the section my hon. friend referred to arose from the fact that an employee who retires voluntarily with less than ten years' service should not have his contributions returned. My hon. friend will admit that proposition.


Milton Neil Campbell: That is covered by the act.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Milton Neil Campbell: I am not complaining of that, but I am complaining of the interpretation given to the act by the Treasury Board in cases of dismissal.


Charles Avery Dunning: We find this abuse existing: that men knowing that if they retire voluntarily, having served for a period under ten years, they could not receive their contribution, did something which compelled dismissal. So that there had to be consideration by the Treasury Board of the circumstances of dismissal in each case, as to whether or not the circumstances were such as to warrant the return of the contributions. There is hardly a meeting of the Treasury Board at which matters of dismissal and the relationship of the fund to these dismissals have not come before it for consideration, and there has to be a complete file of the circumstances in each case to enable the board to decide whether it is a proper case for the return of the contributions. There are other classes of cases. There are men who have been dismissed on account of defalcations, and when such a case arises it has to be shown to the board that that was the cause of dismissal. Does my hon. friend suggest that there should not be discretion somewhere in order to determine whether, even in cases of dismissal, contributions should or should not be returned? I submit that the discretion is absolutely necessaiy. So far as the general plan is concerned, it is in fact a pool. A man who puts his money into this scheme does not do so expecting to get more out of it than his contributions. The principle of pooling is the maximum good of all those participating in the pool. Some must bear a greater share of the burden in order that there may be equal benefits in case of disability or old age. There is no way of over-toming that inequality unless we adopt the annuity principle. Then unquestionably the payments either from the government or the contributors, or both, would have to be substantially larger than under this scheme.
178S	COMMONS
Civil Service Superannuation Act


Milton Neil Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I submit that my contention is absolutely confirmed by the Minister of Railways. We have a frank admission from the treasury benches that as the act was framed the contributions of this class of employees were to be refunded. Therefore I submit that the contention of the Minister of Railways that the act was not framed with that in view is not correct. The present policy of not refunding in such cases is an afterthought.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend misunderstands my statement. The ruling of the Treasury Board is in conformity with the discretion given to them under the very section of the act that my hon. friend read.


Milton Neil Campbell: Apparently the discretionary powers are entirely taken away. If there was a certain discretion vested in the Treasury Board; according to the act, and they could deal with cases of this kind, I would have no complaint; but, as I say, all discretion is taken away. I claim that any employee is entitled to have the act carried out in the spirit in which it was framed.


James Malcolm: If the hon. member will recall when this act was passed he would know that the committee to which it was referred was composed equally of members from each side of the House, because at the time the government had not a decided majority. The committee unanimously recommended the bill and it was enacted. When it came into the House the then Minister of . Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) offered no criticism. In fact the only criticism came from the then leader of the opposition, Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, who said that the measure was very generous, but he shuddered to think of the payments that the taxpayers would have to assume. If we had wanted to be more generous we would have to ask a large contribution either from the civil servants or the government.


Milton Neil Campbell: May I again point out that I am not complaining of the act at all?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Peter McGibbon: It is not carried and
will not be for a while if that practice is indulged in. I protest against the Minister of Finance threatening to throw this bill over because we attempt to improve it. I am not particularly concerned about our civil servants. I think they are pretty well paid and protected in every shape and form, and I do not. think their work is very hard. Many a man in this country has got a day's work done before the civil servants commence their

duties. I am not complaining of that, for I know that the nature of the work is such that it must be transacted during certain hours. But the Minister of Railways has brought up a subject which to my mind is very important. I do not see what principle he could introduce into the Civil Service Act that would be more destructive of the morale of the service. He admits it himself and says that there is trouble every day. When people think that they are not getting what belongs to them they are going to fight for their rights, and I think he will continue to have trouble so long as this clause remains.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, I did not say that we have trouble, I said the Treasury Board has to deal with cases for the return of contributions to dismissed men. That is simply carrying out the intent of the act, it is not trouble. The only way to avoid it, as I pointed out, is to change the basis of the scheme, and provide that anyone, wdiether dismissed or retiring voluntarily, shall get his contributions refunded. In order to accomplish this the state would have to pay more and the contributors considerably more than they are now paying. We cannot carry on the scheme actuarily at the present rate of contribution if we admit that those who retire voluntarily or otherwise shall get their payments back.


Peter McGibbon: Probably I am mistaken, but I thought I distinctly heard the minister say that at nearly every meeting of the Treasury Board they have to consider these cases. If that does not indicate trouble I do not know what does.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, that is just the
ordinary business of the board.


Peter McGibbon: To my mind the principle is wrong. If the government wants to do something for the civil service, let them do it, and let them call upon those civil servants who are going to participate in superannuation help to that end; but the principle of making them contribute a certain percentage of their salary and then retain those payments is wrong.


Mr. WARD:: May I ask a question of the
Minister of Railways? He appears to be speaking for the Treasury Board.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, I just butted in.


William John Ward: If this legislation passes, will the Treasury Board still have the right to consider the cases of all civil servants who have been dismissed?

Private Bills
17S9


James Alexander Robb: Not those with less than tea
years' service. I would direct my hon. friend's attention to the regulations under paragraph 8, subsection 7.


Arthur Edward Ross: Has the civil servant who is charged with misconduct any right of appeal? If so, to whom?


James Alexander Robb: He would appeal to the Treasury Board. We have had such appeals. I may say that this week representatives of the civil service have brought to our attention their desire to be represented on the board administering this act. There is much to foe said in favour of the proposal, and we will work it out later.


Arthur Edward Ross: I agree that the
committee have certainly gone a long way towards removing dissatisfaction by their definition of "misconduct," and it should do away with any cause for appeal. But some civil servants are under an immediate superior whose word goes. In case of an appeal the subordinate has to proceed through his superior officer. I know for a fact that such appeals have often been pigeonholed, and I think the civil servant should be allowed to appeal direct. I am thoroughly satisfied with that definition of misconduct, but there should be some settled way of dealing with appeals. The appeal should go to a higher authority than the man's immediate superior.


James Alexander Robb: It is a matter that comes
under the Civil Service Act rather than under this.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is there any way
in which it is covered?


James Alexander Robb: I do not know.


Murray MacLaren: How many years' service is required to enable a widow to claim a superannuation allowance?


James Alexander Robb: Ten years' service on the part of the .employee.


Robert Gardiner: I should like more
information regarding lighthouse keepers? The practice in certain lighthouses is for the keeper to hire a number of assistants. He is paid a certain sum of money and out of that he must provide all the assistants he requires, sometimes one, two or three. When the time comes for his superannuation by what method does the department arrive at the actual salary on the basis of which he will be retired?


James Alexander Robb: The superannuation allowance is made on the basis of his net salary.


Robert Gardiner: These lighthouse
keepers contribute to the superannuation fund on the basis of a fixed salary?


James Alexander Robb: On the basis of their net
salary.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall section 1 carry?


Thomas Cantley: Not yet.
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. 198, to incorporate The Premier Guarantee and Accident Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Smith (Stormont).
Bill No. 112>, respecting The Bronson Company.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Bill No. 120, respecting Joliette and Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Denis (Joliette).
Bill No. 143, to amend an Act respecting 'The Brandon, Saskatchewan and Hudson's Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Thorson.
Bill No. 155, respecting Commercial Travellers Mutual Insurance Society.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto).
Bill No. 156, for the relief of Dorothy Helen Murray.-Mr. Spence (Parkdale).
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Lotta Maria McGregor.-Mr. Spence (Parkdale).
Bill No. 158, for the relief of Harriett Louisa May MacGarthy.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 159, for the relief of Adelaide Mildred Maguire.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 160, for the relief of Dmytro Pushkedra.-Mr. Luchkovich.
Bill No. 161, for the relief of Muriel Helen Louise Dunn.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 162, for the relief of William Henry Poultney.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 163, for the relief of Cecil Chester Richardson.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 164, for the relief of Bertha Amelia Bertelet.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 166', for the relief of Evelyn May Bateman.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Bill No. 167, for the relief of Fannie Louise Dance.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 168, for the relief of Sarah Simpson.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 169, for the relief of Percy Compton.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto).
Bill No. 170, for the relief of Hazel Green Anderson.-Mr. McMillan.
_	COMMONS
Gatineau Transmission Company

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 110, to incorporate the President of the Lethbridge Stake.-Mr. Jelliff-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
George Halsey Perley: Will the hon.
gentleman wiho is in charge of this bill give us a short explanation of its purpose?


Mr. JELLIFF:: This bill passed the House of Commons and the Senate last year, but owing to the dissolution of parliament failed to receive the royal assent.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 66, to incorporate Gatineau Transmission Company -Mr. Fontaine-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
Lucien Cannon: This bill appears on the order paper as if there will be Senate amendments. This is evidently a misprint because the bill has not gone to the Senate. It was amended in committee.


Robert Gardiner: What is the nature of the amendments that were made in the committee?


Lucien Cannon: The amendment was one suggested by myself to clause 11. Certain objections were raised to clause 11 as it read, on account of the expropriation powers therein mentioned and the rights which might belong to other companies operating in the same territory. Therefore I suggested that thi clause should be amended in order that whenever the company should wish to operate ii Quebec they would do so under the supervision of the Quebec Public Service Commission, and when operating in Ontario, they would do so under the supervision of the Hydro Electric Commission, and that we would strike off, starting from line 40, all the words beginning with the word "except." There were two exceptions as to the jurisdiction of the Hydro Electric. These exceptions have been eliminated so that the company is absolutely under the control of the Hydro Electric.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 10 inclusive agreed to.

On section 11-Approval by Quebec Public Service Commission and Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario.
Mr. IRVING:: As amended?


Lucien Cannon: The clause reads now in the bill as amended in committee.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 12 to 16 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 153, respecting the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Proviso.
George Halsey Perley: I would like a
little explanation about this bill. I am rather surprised to see that there is no provision in it for protecting vested rights that have been acquired previous to this date. It seems to me that that is a very unusual omission from a bill of this kind.
Then I find that section 1 provides that the contention, on a three-fifths vote of the delegates present at any time, may pass a regulation that some of the delegates shall no longer be entitled to attend the convention, and that some of the churches may no longer select delegates for the convention.
I have received a communication from Laohute, which I did not get in time to present to the private bills committee yesterday, and as it expresses my views I shall take the liberty of reading it:
That the members of the Lachute Baptist Church hereby express their entire disapproval oi the amendment proposed to the act incorporating the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec for the following among other reasons:
1.	That it is destructive of the independence of Baptist churches.
2.	That it would give to a three-fifths vote at any convention the power to declare by resolution what is or is not in harmony with the objects of the convention, while the resolution may be entirely out of harmony with, and destructive of, the principles and doctrines held by the denomination, and through this resolution absolutely to cut off any church from its vested rights as a free and independent Baptist church in the convention.
3.	That every Baptist church in the convention is possessed of vested rights in certain trust and endowment funds held for the work of the denomination, and the cutting off of any church from sending delegates to the convention would automatically nullify all their interest in the said endowment and trust funds.
4.	That it cloches the convention with such powers as would inevitably imperil the freedom of the ministry.

Baptist Convention
5.	That it would tend to bring the domestic affairs of the churches into discussion in the' convention, either to prove that a church is out of harmony with the convention, or to enable a disappointed minority in a church to appeal to the convention to justify themselves against the minister or pastor and the majority supporting him.
(Sgd) G. F. Calder. S. Goldsworthy,
Church Clerk.
I have no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that this bill has been carefully considered by the committee. I am not a member of the private bills committee myself, but it seems to me that these two objections to the bill are very serious ones. In the first place, there is no saving clause in regard to the vested rights of any community of the Baptist church, and further, it seems to me hardly in order that three-fifths of the members present at a convention should be able to pass a resolution excluding the delegates from some of the Baptist churches, or a resolution that certain Baptist churches should no longer have the right to send delegates to the convention.
I should like to have some explanation of these matters from some member of the committee here who is conversant with them.


James Layton Ralston: I am perhaps not too conversant with the facts out of which this bill has arisen, but the sponsor for the bill is not here tonight, and he asked me if it did come up to say a word in explanation to the committee.
I am sorry that my hon. friend from Argenteuil was not at the committee, because I can assure him that if he had been there he would have listened for at least three hours to a complete discussion of all the points to which he has referred by gentlemen who were thoroughly in touch with them and would have been able to give him very much more close range information than I can.
In a word, the purpose of the bill, as I understand it, is to bring the organization known as the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec into line with the organizations of that body existing in other parts of Canada. I understand that the Baptist convention is incorporated in British Columbia and the western provinces, and there they have the usual powers of any domestic corporation as to discipline, as to the conduct of their affairs, and who shall send delegates. Down in the maritimes, particularly in New Brunswick, there is a similar act of incorporation, but the Maritime Baptist Convention is not, I understand, incorporated as a convention.
I would draw the attention of the committee to this, that a convention which is not incorporated has, I think, in law the power
to do exactly what is suggested in the section to which my hon. friend has referred, so that all that is sought here is to supply an omission in the old act of 1889, in which it is provided that each regular church is entitled to send delegates, and nothing is said whatever as to the disciplinary powers which may be possessed by the convention, in case it becomes necessary or is thought advisable to use those powers. In the case of any club or domestic organization, its domestic affairs are under its control, but I understand that this body is advised that because of this omission there is doubt whether they have power to control who shall and who shall not send delegates to the convention. The purpose of this section is to supply that omission.
With regard to property rights, may I just say a word? The Baptist churches throughout the world are autonomous bodies. Each church owns its own property. The convention or the cooperative assembly through which they work has no property whatever, and has no interest in the property of the churches, so the body which is incorporated here holds no property, and has no interest in the property of the individual churches, and all that the churches may do, and the only interest they may have in the cooperative work, is to send delegates who can vote on various matters that come before the convention, with regard to the good of the denomination and relating to the objects for which the convention is brought together. In that connection 1 want the committee to have the fullest information, because there are two or three boards which are appointed by the convention, namely, a board to hold funds for the home missions, a board to hold and administer funds for foreign missions, and a board to administer superannuation funds for aged and infirm ministers. The convention as such has no property in the fund whatever. The funds are contributed by the individual churches and all the convention does is to nominate the members of the board. My hon. friend from Argenteuil probably does not know also that under the act which incorporated McMaster university this convention is authorized to appoint a board to deal with matters pertaining to that educational institution. That is not under this act, but under the act incorporating McMaster university, and so, as was pointed out before the committee, in connection with the question of property rights it would seem as though those who go to vote at the convention have no more interest in the property which is being administered by those boards whom they elect than the persons comprising the governor in
Baptist Convention

council which elects the board of the Canadian National Railways would have in the property of the Canadian National Railways. I therefore think that the suggestion which was made to the committee is sound, that if you insert what is called a saving clause with respect to property you give some astute lawyer an opportunity of saying " Well, parliament must have thought, notwithstanding the apparent plain provisions of the act, that there was some property interest somewhere ", and probably an argument would be founded on that basis. I submit that it would be unwise and unnecessary to insert such a provision, because if you look at the proviso proposed it is purely a section for the purpose of excluding the church from sending delegates to the convention and does not purport to affect property. I submit there is no such thing as property in this concern, and the operation of this association is such that it does not normally acquire property.
The other proposition was as to the three-fifths vote. My suggestion to the committee is that the usual procedure for action by such a corporation is to proceed by a majority vote-majority in matters of discipline as well as matters in connection with property and the general affairs of the corporation. In this case I understand that it was the idea of the promoters of the bill that whoever it dealt with might be assured that there was no desire captiously to interfere with the attendance of anybody at the association, and so the three-fifths majority was suggested. In the ordinary case I think it would be fifty per cent.
I desire to refer to another matter. Under the provisions of this act it does not come into force until it is ratified by the convention itself, which gives full notice to all interested of the possibility of action under this legislation. Although I am a member of the denomination, I do not happen to be a member of this convention. I understand there are some 508 churches in the convention and that a protest, was received-any hon. member can correct mei if I am wrong-or sent in by thirty-five churches to the people who are opposing this bill. The further statement was made that a protest has been received from individual members of 120 churches in all but when it was analyzed it was found that that rtieant that one individual member of a church might count as one of the 120. So that I think as the matter stands the bill represents _ the desire of 508 churches, with the exception of 35, and with the exception of some individual members from some 85 other churches.


George Halsey Perley: My hon. friend
says there are no property rights involved, and I am quite sure he is stating it as he understands it. Sometimes errors are made in a matter of this kind. Would there be any objection to putting in a clause safeguarding any vested rights, a clause similar to that which has been put in other bills? We inserted such a clause in a bill a few minutes ago.


James Layton Ralston: I anticipated that suggestion, and I made what seems to me to be the only answer which could be made to it, namely, that I have no idea that there is any property of which any church referred to in section 1 will be deprived. I have not exhausted my investigation, but I have taken some pains to get information and I cannot see that there is any likelihood of any church being deprived of property interest by being refused the right to send a delegate to this convention. I do suggest, therefore, being a member of the bar myself, that it would be unwise and would be unduly casting a cloud on this association if we insisted that, as a condition to this corporation getting the power that other corporations have, they should have. something added that would in a lefthanded way suggest that somebody had ' property rights when apparently none exist.


Hugh Guthrie: I think it is well that
the committee should understand that this is a private bill and cannot be amended without notice.


Mr. SPENCE (Parkdale):: I think if the
hon. member for Argenteuil had been at the meeting of the committee yesterday he would have agreed with everything the hon. minister said. I endorse every word which has been uttered by the Minister of National Defence. This bill will have no effect on the endowment fund or superannuation fund. Before the committee we had Rev. John Mac-Neil, Doctor Shields and others. Already the thirtjr-five ministers represented by Doctor Shields have started a seminary college of their own and have withdrawn their support from the organization. The committee on private bills yesterday carried the bill unanimously. and there is nothing else for us to do; therefore I hope the measure will pass through this House without further discussion.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

Civil Service Superannuation Act

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 240, for the relief of Jessie Wright.
[DOT]-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 241, for the relief of Audrey Idelle Knowles.-Mr. Young (Toronto).
Bill No. 242, for the relief of William Edward Couch.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 243, for the relief of Clara Cairney. -Mr. Bowman.
Bill No. 244, for the relief of Annie Sophia Gordonsmith.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 245, for the relief of May Elizabeth Chambers.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 246, for the relief of Violet Gladys Cockerton.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto).
Bill No. 247, for the relief of Mary Eleanor Kennedy Ledden.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 248, for the relief of Arlee Lillian Helmsley.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto).
Bill No. 249, for the relief of Merton Egbert Ellsworth Kittredge.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 250, for the relief of William Newton Anglin.-Mr. Young (Toronto).
Bill No. 251, for the relief of Annandale Ramsden.-Mr. Goodison.
Bill No. 252, for the relief of Willie Rosenberg.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 253, respecting certain patents owned by the Sealright Company, Inc.- Mr. Young (Toronto).

[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. G. ODETTE (East Essex) moved the second reading of Bill No. 255, respecting the Great Lakes and Atlantic Canal and Power Company, Limited.
George Halsey Perley: This bill, I understand, has not yet been printed and some of us would like to see the terms of it.


Hewitt Bostock: The objection is well
taken. The motion stands.
Motion stands.



PATENTS OF ALBERT P. FRIGON CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PAUL MERCIER (St. Henri) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 42, respecting certain patents owned by Albert P. Frigon.
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 231, to amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act, 1924;-Mr. Robb -Mr. Johnston in the chair.
John Frederick Johnston: When the committee
rose at six o'clock section 1 was under consideration.


Murray MacLaren: I want to direct to the attention of the minister now in charge of the bill a concrete case which has been submitted to me. Suppose a civil servant should die, say, six days before the expiry of the ten year period which is necessary to entitle his dependents to superannuation. I understand that it is the practice at present to pay to the dependents of civil servants who die during the month the full amount of salary for that month. If that were done in the case I am supposing-and this is not a hypothetical case, for it has been brought to my notice only to-day-would not the fact that the salary would be paid for the full month extend the time of service of the deceased so as to complete the ten year period? What is the minister's interpretation of the statute in regard to this point? Would the dependents, under such circumstances as these, be entitled to the allowance?


Hugh Guthrie: By the way, who is in
charge of the bill?


Lucien Cannon: The bill stands in the
name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), but I understand that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) is familiar with the subject. There was a good deal of discussion this afternoon which I think might be continued in the absence of the Minister of Finance.


Peter McGibbon: Will the minister give an estimate of what the bill will eventually cost the country?


Murray MacLaren: First of all I should like to have an answer to the point I have brought forward. As I say, this is not a hypothetical case; it has actually come to my notice. A civil servant dies six days before the end of his ten year period, and the present practice is to pay his salary up to the end of the month in' which he dies. Does the minister think that this practice would apply to the payment of the superannuation allowance so as to complete the ten year period? I should like to know whether the minister thinks that in that case the dependents would be eligible to receive the allowance.
1794	COMMONS
Civil Service Superannuation Act


James Malcolm: I do not see that it would make much difference whether death occurred one month or one year before the end of the period. I agree with imy hon. friend that it does seem an injustice to deprive the dependents of the allowance which they would otherwise receive, merely because the man died just a few days before the necessary time had elapsed. However, the ten year period is arbitrary, and the same problem would arise no matter what length of time we might fix.


Murray MacLaren: But I am pointing out that the present practice in the payment of salaries is to grant the salary to the end of the month in which the civil servant dies. If that same practice were observed in the case I have cited the result 'would be to extend the time of service so as to complete the requisite period.


James Malcolm: The date of death determines the status of the beneficiary.


George Hamilton Pettit: As I understand the act, the civil servant is not entitled to repayment of moneys paid in unless he has been, in the service the full ten years. It seems to me that anyone who becomes incapacitated or who is removed by the department from any cause other than misconduct as set out in subsection 1 should be entitled to receive what he has contributed.


James Malcolm: I do not believe my hon. friend was in the House this afternoon when the mattf^- was discussed. Certain objections were raised which appeared to be well taken. However, the purpose of the bill is to provide certain benefits for civil servants. When the bill was first introduced that question was very carefully considered. It has to be admitted that the benefits of the money paid in do not accrue to those retiring after a service of less than ten years. In case of dismissal, as has been pointed out this afternoon, the Treasury Board has discretionary power to review the case. As the Minister of Finance pointed out, to add provisions to the bill conferring any further benefits would really entail a complete revision of the assessment necessary to provide the payments. Therefore I do not think the committee would be well advised to disturb the principle of the bill at this stage.


George Hamilton Pettit: The minister spoke of those dismissed for misconduct, but what about those who have become incapacitated? Should not provision be made for them?


James Malcolm: The bill provides for
those who become disabled within the ten year period.
fMr. MarLaren.]


John Evans: Will those employees who
have served continuously under the Soldier Settlement Board for the last seven or eight years be reckoned as permanent employees, and will they come in under this scheme? It does seem unfair that they should be regarded as temporary employees after serving continuously so many years. Moreover, it would be very hard for many of them to reestablish themselves in their pre-war occupation.


James Malcolm: The question of the treatment of employees of the Soldier Settlement Board is under review by the Department of Justice. A separate bill will have to be framed to cover those cases.


Milton Neil Campbell: Before the House rose at six o'clock I was appealing to the minister on behalf of an employee who had been in the service of the government for about four and a half years. During that time this man had paid in five per cent of his salary to the superannuation fund, and under subsection 3 of section 10 the governor in council, on the recommendation of the Treasury Board, is empowered to refund to him the amount he paid in. Owing, however, to a ruling of the Treasury Board the taking of that course is prevented. I would ask the minister if this particular ruling of the Treasury Board, is, like the law of the Medes and Persians, not subject to change, or if there is a chance of this man, through appeal to the governor in council, getting a redress of his grievance.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: There is
always a chance that an appeal can be taken to the Treasury Board. The decision in that man's case is not final; his case may be reviewed again.


Milton Neil Campbell: As I understand it there is no appeal from this ruling. I should like to have some assurance from the minister that this man can appeal to the governor in council and have his case heard.


Charles A. Stewart: There is
nothing final about a ruling of the Treasury Board. A restatement of the case before the board may be asked for, and the board have full authority to revoke their previous decision. There is nothing final about the board"s decision in the sense that it cannot be reviewed.


Milton Neil Campbell: Do I understand that the Treasury Board are now in a position to hear and consider an individual case notwithstanding the ruling given?


Lucien Cannon: In this special case the
decision can be changed by the board itself,, or can be changed on appeal.

Civil Service Superannuation Act


Milton Neil Campbell: To whom can this man appeal? Is there any appeal from the decision of the board?


Lucien Cannon: He can always appeal to
the governor an council from the decision of the board.


Milton Neil Campbell: But apparently, according to subsection 3 of section 10, the governor in council can only refund this money on the recommendation of the board. In that case I understand there is no appeal.


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend will
allow me: We will assume that there is a decision of the board adverse to this person in whom he is interested. In that case the only remedy that lies is either to come before the board in some way or other and have the board change its decision, or, if that method cannot be taken, proceed by way of appeal.


Milton Neil Campbell: Appeal to whom?


Lucien Cannon: To the governor in
council, in order that the decision already given by the board may be altered.


Peter McGibbon: Before we go any
further, can the minister give the House an idea as to what the cost to the country will be?


James Malcolm: It will depend a good
deal upon how many civil servants under the old act are transferred to the new act. Civil Servants have the option of remaining under the old act, and the period of election to come under the new act has been extended and has not expired yet. I am very sorry that I cannot give my hon. friend the figures that I thought were here. The balance to the credit of the fund in 1927 was $13,999,000, practically $14,000,000, or about three and a half millions greater than the year previous.


Peter McGibbon: Would that be the
ultimate cost per year?


James Malcolm: That will be about the
average yearly cost.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall section 1 carry?


Arthur Edward Ross: Before the section carries I should like again to bring to the attention of the minister the possibility of arranging for some definite appeal in regard to dismissal for misconduct. I would therefore move:
That section 1 be further amended by adding the following:
That in case of appeal by a civil servant against his dismissal for misconduct, such appeal
shall be heard by a representative of the minister of the department concerned, a representative of the Justice department, and a representative of the Civil Service Commission.


John Evans: I would draw the attention
of the Solicitor General to a question that was asked in this House on March 21 referring to employees of the Soldier Settlement Board. The reply to that question was given by Mr. Robb who said:
I will direct the matter to the attention of the superintendent, although I think it has already been submitted to him by the board.
Has anything been done in this direction yet, and cannot the government promise any relief for these men, seeing that they are practically permanent employees? I think they should come under the Superannuation Act.


Lucien Cannon: I will inquire and let my
hon. friend have the information.


Mr. NEILL:: I would suggest that this
amendment is out of order. I do not wish to prevent the hon. gentleman from discussing it, but this clause refers to the interpretation section of the original act, and I think it would be out of order to hitch on to one of the paragraphs of the interpretation section of the original act a provision for an appeal from a dismissal. No doubt there is in the act some other place where such a provision could be inserted,


Arthur Edward Ross: I do not care
where the provision for an appeal is inserted; so long as it is inserted in the act.


Charles Avery Dunning: The proposed amendment is not a proper one to this act, which is the Civil Service Superannuation Act. It could appropriately be offered as an amendment to the Civil Service Act, because the question of causes of dismissal and the like is dealt with in that act.


Hugh Guthrie: I think it is proper.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Application of part I.
Alan Webster Neill: I think this is the appropriate place to bring before the government and the House the claim of two small bodies, in the one case of civil servants and in the other of persons who ought to be classed as civil servants, to come under this act. This is not a revolutionary matter or a suggestion to change the basis of the act. It involves no greater contribution or no less superannuation allowance. Possibly it involves a little extra

Civil Service Superannuation Act
expense on the part of the government, but only in the regular proportion which the government contributes under the act. The amount is small because they are two small bodies. If they had not been small bodies numerically and serving the country in remote-places, perhaps their claim would have been considered before now. If they had numbered two or three thousand and lived in Ottawa, the justice of their case would have ensured that it receive consideration before- now. The one case is a matter of including civil servants who are now really civil servants but who are not allowed superannuation. The other is a matter of including as civil servants people who should be classed as civil servants, and I cannot for the life of me understand why they are not so classed. I have in my hand a very modestly drawn up petition from the officers of the ships of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, -a petition which in polite and respectful language sets forth their case. The trouble with these men is that they are prohibited from being members of the civil service because the Civil Service Act contains a section which reads:
This act shall not apply to any position on any ship of His Majesty until parliament otherwise enacts.
Of course, not being civil servants, they do not come under the Superannuation Act. It is unnecessary for me to argue or stress the advisability of giving superannuation to civil servants, because that has been conceded all along the line and that is what this act is about. We will therefore commence with the premises that it is just and proper that men in the service of the country should be encouraged, .by looking forward to superannuation, to stay with their department and give it the value of their experience. These men are prevented from doing that. They have to do a great deal of rather strenuous work. They serve the fisheries protection service and also the lighthouse service. They are out in all sorts of weather and under very strenuous conditions. They are expected at times to risk their lives in the performance of their duties. This is not a particularly nice service, and it is the very type of service that makes it highly desirable for the government to encourage them to stay with it because their experience is worth a great deal more than that of a man in a merely clerical position.
I am more familiar with the Pacific coast, and I know that the knowledge which these men must acquire in performing their duties makes it eminently desirable that the government should encourage them to remain in the service

instead of having the best men picked up by the commercial companies because of their usefulness. I do not suppose more then sixty or seventy men would be involved so that the expense would be small. If they were made civil servants, they would be eligible for superannuation. That covers that phase of the question.
The other class to which I wish to refer is that of telegraphists, agent operators, agent linesmen and linesmen in the government telegraph service. They may be a little more numerous. They are prohibited, for a totally different reason, from enjoying the benefits of superannuation. Those who are telegraphists, agent operators or agent linesmen are all civil servants, appointed by the Civil Service Commission, so that with the exception of linesmen they are all civil servants, and they are certainly permanent because they continue in the service for twenty or thirty years. Why are they not allowed to enjoy the benefits of superannuation?
In the case of the employees of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment the argument used for prohibiting them was that the department was only a temporary establishment which would in time pass away, and the government did not want to have the heavy responsibility of pensioning these people after only a few years' service. But people of the class to which I am now referring continue in the service practically all their lives. I know of oases of both men and women telegraphists who have been twenty-five years in the service, and who, if they are laid off to-morrow, will not get a cent of pension. Many of these people do not appreciate the position they are -in because they have been drifting along under the benefits of the Calder Act under which a number were superannuated and received a reasonable superannuation. Many of them hardly grasp the fact that when the Calder Act under which they were eligible for superannuation was done away with, they were no longer eligible under this superannuation act. The quibble, for I can hardly call it anything -else, which was employed to deny them the right to come in under the superannuation act like other civil servants was this. Some brilliant genius invented the theory that they were not paid a stated annual salary and the act states that only those are eligible who are in receipt of a stated annual salary. The fact that these salaries are paid monthly does not seem to make any difference. Some of them have been paid for twenty-five years. For instance, a woman has drawn her stated annual salary, receiving it month by month, received her annual holiday and every-

Civil Service Superannuation Act
thing else; she is a permanent civil servant; but because of this beautiful theory that she was drawing what was called current wages and not a stated annual salary, she was declared ineligible. That is a mere quibble that should be set right. These people are not drawing current wages because that would suggest that the amount was fluctuating from month to month; that if the market was a little brisk, we would expect to see their wages increase. These people like all other civil servants receive an annual salary paid monthly and the amount of their salary will be found year out and year in, in the Auditor General's report. Now because of that theory, that obsession I might almost call it, that they are not being paid a stated annual salary, they are not allowed to come in. I think that is practically the whole case, and it needs only to be stated, I think, to show the injustice they are suffering. I hope that if the minister in charge of this bill cannot see his way to insert this amendment, which would not involve much trouble or expense, he will at least give us the assurance that he will consider the matter during the recess with the prospect or the intention of bringing these people in next year. But I would like to hear the minister's view as to why these two classes of men are not eligible to come under this act.


James Malcolm: The hon. gentleman has both asked and answered the question. The answer he gave was the very answer which I would have given. They were not included because none of the prevailing-rates men were included, and they were treated at the time the bill was introduced as being prevailing-rates men. To give my hon. friend the assurance that their case would be reconsidered would not be very difficult for me, because I recall distinctly that some of us on the committee at the time were of the opinion that some further consideration should be given to the prevailing-rates men who were kept on permanently year after year, and were in receipt of what was practically an annual salary, although it was not regarded as such. I think the member for Comox-Alberni knows that the Minister of Finance is going to consider these cases further during the recess, and I think that assurance is all he requires.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: I have received a number of letters with regard to certain classes of civil servants. There are, for instance, a number of civil servants in the Income Tax branch, which will shortly come under the National Revenue department, who have been in the service and doing the same work in some cases for thirteen or fifteen years, but who are still
32649-1H
classified to-day as temporary employees, and because they are receiving $100 per month, no deductions are made for superannuation, and they do not come under the Superannuation Act. Some of these employees desire to be classified as permanent employees so that they may come under the Superannuation Act. All that is required, I understand, is that they should be classified as permanent employees in, order to enjoy the benefits of this act, and I would like the minister to give me the asssuranee that their case will be considered.


James Alexander Robb: Such of the employees as are considered of a permanent nature might' be considered.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Surely a man who has been in the employ of the government and doing the same work for thirteen to fifteen, years should be considered a permanent employee.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What constitutes a permanent employee?


James Alexander Robb: It is pointed out to us from time to time that there are employees who have been in the public service for many years who are not classified as permanent. All those who are permanent contribute.


William John Ward: Is it true that there are even departments of government that are not considered permanent departments, the employees of which could not possibly be considered permanent employees under any circumstances?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: We have elevator operators and cleaners who have been working in the public buildings here for fifteen years, and who are classified as temporary employees and therefore cannot come under the Superannuation Act. Surely the lowliness of their occupation cannot be debarring them from receiving the benefits of this act. Though their occupation be lowly, it is just as useful and just as honourable as the work done by a man drawing $1,500 a year, and it should not debar them from coming under this act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Calculation of allowance contributor having served previously to becoming a contributor.
Mr. MALONEY:: On several occasions
during the last year it has been brought to my attention that previous to the war, and for a few years after its commencement, several civil servants were superannuated on



Civil Service Superannuation Act
the basis of their salaries of those days. That superannuation allowance seems very, very small indeed at the present time, and I would ask the Minister of Finance if he would not give consideration to the cases of these people many of whom to-day are aged and actually in need.


James Alexander Robb: Of course, my hon. friend understands that their superannuation is based upon their contribution, and their contribution is based upon their salary.


Arthur Edward Ross: 
James Alexander Robb: I cannot find anything in the clause under consideration that places them in any worse position than they now are.


Arthur Edward Ross: They cannot be in a worse position.


James Alexander Robb: They have the option of coming in under this scheme or of remaining under the old scheme to which they have contributed. We have already extended the time for coming under the act, and by this legislation we propose to extend it till July of this year. There is nothing in this clause that puts them in any worse position than they now are, but if my hon. friend will write to the department indicating just what he means, it can be taken into consideration.


Arthur Edward Ross: The department
know the position very well; they have been written to in regard to it. These employees have not the amount of money which it would be necessary for them to pay in in order that they might be brought under the act; therefore they must stay out, and if they stay out they have nothing.


James Alexander Robb: They can pay it by instalments.

Civil Service Superannuation Act


Arthur Edward Ross: But the large instalments which they would have to pay would leave them practically nothing to live on. The longer a man remains in the service the worse position he is in, because this money is not his; he is deprived of it on account of some infraction or some little technicality after he has given perhaps twenty-six years of good service.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend will admit that there is nothing whatever in this measure which takes away the gratuity. He knows, too, that in insurance matters we must work on an actuarial basis.


Arthur Edward Ross: My hon. friend will admit that we have had actuarial bases which we believed were perfect, but we afterwards found they were wrong and the figures had to be changed several times. These old employees were under the old Penitentiaries Act, which provided that the gratuity would not be taken from them; yet it has been taken from them, if I understand this measure. The government has broken its agreement. If they come under the Superannuation Act they lose this gratuity, and the Penitentiaries Act stated that they would not lose it.


James Alexander Robb: I will have the matter looked into, but I do not know that anything has been taken away.


Peter McGibbon: Take the case of a
widower with children over eighteen years of age; if he dies what becomes of his contributions?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend speaks of children over eighteen years of age. Subsection 3 of section 7 of the act says:
If a contributor dies while in the civil service and leaves no widow and no child under the age of eighteen years, the governor in council may grant to the dependents of the contributor, in accordance with regulations made by the governor in council under the provisions of section eleven of this act, an amount not exceeding the amount of the contributions made by the contributor under the provisions of this act without interest.
That is, there is power now to make that allowance to dependents provided there is no widow and no children under eighteen.


Peter McGibbon: It is not obligatory, but permissible.


Charles Avery Dunning: Each case is treated on its merits.
32649-114.1


Peter McGibbon: It strikes me there would be a large number of those cases. I think something should be put in the act so that these people, would know what position they were in.


Charles Avery Dunning: In practice the dependents always get it.


Peter McGibbon: I would like the minister to give us an assurance of that.


Thomas Cantley: What is meant by dependent in that case?


Charles Avery Dunning: The words are:
"Dependent" of a contributor means and includes the father, mother, brother, sister and child of a contributor who is at the date of death of the contributor dependent upon the contributor for support.
That answers also the question of my hon. friend from Muskoka. The section I read previously uses the word "dependent."


Peter McGibbon: As long as it is reasonably certain that the amount of money they contribute will be returned I am satisfied.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, provided they are
dependents.


Alan Webster Neill: Would the minister not consder striking out of the clause the words which require the civil servant to pay four per cent interest on the arrears of his contribution?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Alan Webster Neill: That is the condition in
which the government originally passed the act. and presumably the government feel the same way about it to-night. It was changed in the Senate, but perhaps the Senate would be more inclined to accept it now.


James Alexander Robb: This brings it into harmony
with the act as passed by the Senate last year, and I would like it to go through in this shape. I do not want to take any chances.


Peter McGibbon: Does that money go
back to them whether the children are actually dependent or not?


Charles Avery Dunning: Under this section they
have to be dependent.


Peter McGibbon: I think that is unfair
I daresay thousands of men have come under that provision in the act; they have been forced for ten or twenty years to contribute five per cent of their earnings, and when they die the money cannot be collected for their children.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh no.


Peter McGibbon: Am I wrong?

Civil Servants' Widows' Annuities


Charles Avery Dunning: I can only quote the law to my hon. friend:
"Dependent of a contributor" means and includes a father, mother, brother, sister or child of a contributor who at the date of death of the contributor is dependent upon the contributor for support.


Peter McGibbon: That is the point I
make; it spoils the whole thing. You take part of a man's estate, and although he may have children over eighteen years of age that he would probably want to educate, the fact that they are over that age makes it impossible.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend understands that if they are dependent upon the contributor for support, even though they are over eighteen they come within the provision.


Peter McGibbon: There are very few
children over eighteen years of age who would benefit.


Charles Avery Dunning: But there are a good
many fathers and mothers.


Peter McGibbon: True, but a great many of them may be dead.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 to 9 (inclusive) agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 232 to provide annuities for the widows of certain civil servants.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-"Contributor"-"Widow".
Henry Elvins Spencer: Would the chairman
kindly read each section? Some members have not had time to peruse the bill.


Hewitt Bostock: Mr. Chairman, may I
raise my voice in favour not of the widows but of other dependents of old civil servants? I have in mind the case of a bachelor who has a sister, and should he unfortunately die, she will Ibe left absolutely penniless. He has asked me to use my influence with the Minister of Finance to insert an amendment in the bill which would provide for the dependents of unmarried civil servants.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Chairman, we have had representations similar to that just made by
[Mr. MnGibbon. 1
His Honour the Speaker on behalf of other classes of dependents. It has taken us more than two years-as a matter of fact it is not quite complete, but complete enough for this purpose-to estimate the cost to the country of including widows in the annuity benefits, and if we are to take in bachelors' relatives and others, I say frankly to the House that I will withdraw the measure because I am not in a position to tell the country how much extra cost would be incurred.


Peter McGibbon: I suggest that the minister take in fishermen and miners.


James Alexander Robb: Not in this bill.


Robert Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, if I
understand the situation correctly, this is an enlargement of the provisions already in force. Will the minister explain the bill a little more ful|ly so that we may have a better grasp of its purpose?


James Alexander Robb: I will present the memorandum which I have here in explanation of the bill:
This bill provides for the payment of annuities to widows of contributors to superannuation funds Nos. 1 and 2 who died in service or after superannuation.
Any contributor to those funds who remained in the service after July 19, 1924, was eligible to transfer to the new fund, which provides for annuities to widows of contributors to the fund who die in service or after superannuation.
If, on such transfer, the contributors do not make good the difference between the contributions actually made to the old funds and five per cent, the rate required under the new act, the widow's allowance is one-fourth of the husband's allowance.
This proportion has been taken as the basis for the allowance to widows under this bill. The bill provides for annuities to widows equal to one-fourth the allowance the husband received or would have received if he had been retired at the date of his death.


Robert James Manion: If a man in the civil service pays money into any superannuation fund, is it not paid back to his dependents after his death?


James Alexander Robb: I do not know of any cases
where that is not done.


Robert James Manion: I have had a number of
complaints at different times of men who have paid into the superannuation fund for several years, but on their death the money has not been applied for the benefit of their relatives. It seems to me that under no circumstances should money so paid into the superannuation fund be kept back from the relatives.


James Alexander Robb: Where there are dependent
relatives they always get the money.

Customs Act Amendment


Robert Gardiner: Will the minister state
from what source the funds for these annuities will come?


James Alexander Robb: This will come out of the
consolidated revenue fund. The estimated total cost this year is about 8105,000.


Milton Neil Campbell: If a widower dies leaving a family all over the age of eighteen, do his children receive anything out of the fund, or has he simply been paying into the fund out of his salary without any prospect of compensation so far as his dependents are concerned?


James Alexander Robb: This has nothing to do with
the fund. My hon. friend was not following me when I read the memorandum as to those who were eligible under this bill.


Milton Neil Campbell: I am merely asking a question as to the position of a widower under the present superannuation act. If he dies there is no widow to get the money and if his children are all over eighteen it would appear that his contributions go for nothing.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is conflicting this with the old act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Remarriage.
Thomas Cantley: I take it that the Treasury Board is to constitute itself censor of the morals of widows.


James Alexander Robb: No, but someone must stand up for the taxpayers, including my hon. friend, who ipays taxes. There must be some board to determine in these cases who should be entitled to come under the act. This makes provision for those who remarry. Surely my hon. friend does not want the country to pay everybody in the land indiscriminately.


Thomas Cantley: No, but I believe in the country carrying out its contracts.


Mr. BROWN:: Judging by the remarks that are made here, and by what was said by civil servants who appeared before the committee when we were drawing up this measure, the idea seems to prevail that we are building up an estate for people to leave to whomsoever they please. That is not the case. It is intended to provide for the declining years of civil servants and their immediate dependents. Once let us free our minds of the notion that we are creating estates for civil servants
to dispose of as they please, and we shall get rid of some of the difficulties that appear to worry us about seeming injustices to people who do not get back all the money they put in. This legislation is intended to relieve distress under certain conditions and not ta build up estates.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from March 24, consideration in committee of Bill No. 172, to amend the Customs Act-Mr. Euler-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
John Frederick Johnston: When the House was last in committee on this bill section 15 was under consideration.


William Daum Euler: On the last occasion an objection was raised to the fact that the amount of $200 provided for in this section might be regarded as including the duty. My colleague the Postmaster General has an amendment to move in this regard.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: I move that section 15 be
amended to read:
(a) If the value for duty of the goods is under $200, be further liable on summary conviction before two justices of the peace to a penalty not exceeding $200 and not less than $50, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and not less than one month, or to both fine and imprisonment; and
(h) If the value for duty of the goods is $200 or over, be guilty of an indictable offence and liable on conviction to a fine of $500, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years and not less than one year; or to both fine and imprisonment.


John Livingstone Brown: I think that "dutiable
value" would be a happier expression.


Peter John Veniot: No, the term used is the
usual customs term.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall clause 15 as
amended carry?


Hugh Guthrie: Before it is carried I think I can express the regret of a good many hon. members on this side that the minister in charge of this bill has surrendered.


William Daum Euler: To whom?


Hugh Guthrie: To some of his own
followers, after the rather courageous stand which he took in this House when the bill was last under discussion.
Customs Act Amendment


William Daum Euler: I made this suggestion the
other night when the bill was under discussion. The only actual change made is with regard to the value for duty.


Hugh Guthrie: The committee will remember that when the bill was last under discussion, the minister's own supporters were not prepared to accept the measure in the form in which the government presented it to the House. I believe that the bill as printed and (presented to the House was in the form recommended by the committee as a result of the investigation last year.


William Daum Euler: No.


Hugh Guthrie: It carried out the idea
of that committee and was drafted by the government to carry out their recommendation. We had the spectacle here the other evening of this bill being vigorously attacked by the government's own supporters, to such an extent in fact that the Minister of Finance, who was leading the House at the time, had to give up the fight and ask that the committee rise. Throughout a rather strenuous evening the Minister of Customs stood well to his guns and he showed some spirit and some courage. We on this side regret that he has surrendered at last and that he has come before the committee to-night with a prearranged amendment which one of his colleagues has moved reducing the penalty by providing for an alternative penalty of fine or imprisonment, or both, whereas the government's proposal originally was that the penalty for those guilty of this offence of smuggling where the value of goods was over $200 should be fine and imprisonment. I regret that the minister and the government have surrendered in this matter.


William Daum Euler: Just one word in reply to
my hon. friend. He has repeated the word "surrender" quite frequently. He ought to know because he was here himself, that this very suggestion was made on the evening when this bill was debated before. Moreover I explained at that time that the word "and" was an error; that it was never intended to put the word "and" in the section and it should not be there.


Hugh Guthrie: Such errors do not occur in government bills.


William Daum Euler: There is absolutely no surrender in any respect whatever. The bill is exactly the same as when I proposed it with

the one exception that we are adding the words "value for duty" so that the duty itself will not be added to the value so far as the penalty is concerned. That is all that has been done.


Hugh Guthrie: I have made my protest.


William Daum Euler: I wish to say to my hon.
friend that I resent his suggestion that I have surrendered in any respect whatever. The bill is exactly as it was before with the exception of the addition of the words "value for duty."


Robert James Manion: Perhaps it is very far
from a surrender when the minister brings in the change on Friday night when all those members who talked on the matter have left for their homes.


John Gordon Ross: It is pretty nearly time that the government and the opposition both realize that the elected representatives of the people should have something to say in framing the legislation of the country.


Mr. CLARK:: Did you cause the surrender?


John Gordon Ross: No, there has
been no surrender.
Mr. ADSHE.AD:	In estimating the value
for duty are narcotics and liquor that are smuggled included?


William Daum Euler: It includes all kinds of
merchandise.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: And narcotics?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Narcotics and liquor
should be entirely separate.


William Daum Euler: Narcotics are dealt with under the Narcotics Act.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I understood the minister to say that they came under this law.


Mr.   ELDER@: They come under the Customs Act as well but they are dealt with under the Narcotics Act.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The Postmaster General
suggested the other night that where there was an officious officer reference was made to the department before prosecution took place. I think that is rather an objectionable system. As I remember it last year-I was not in the House but there was a good deal of election talk on the matter-there was a gentleman by the name of Moses Aziz who took part in an election campaign and was recommended to be prosecuted for smuggling liquor. His case was sent to the department and the papers

Customs Act Amendment
were left there for several weeks because the minister was too .busy to deal with them. The opposition took occasion to say it was purposely done 'because he was a favourite of the government. I do not say that, but I do maintain that the reference to the department of the question as to whether or not a man should be prosecuted lends itself to the accusation of patronage or favouritism in the interests of party. I really think it should be [DOT]left to some independent tribunal, not connected with the department, to decide whether the man charged with smugging should be prosecuted or not.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In subsection (a) those guilty of smuggling have to be tried before two justices of the peace and are liable to a penalty not exceeding two hundred dollars and not less than fifty dollars, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and not less than one month, or to both fine and imprisonment. That is where the value of the goods is under $200. Does the same thing apply in paragraph (b) ? Will an offender under paragraph (b) be tried before two justices of the peace?


William Daum Euler: Under paragraph, (b) we
deal with indictable offences. If the offender so desires, instead of being tried before two justices of the peace he may be tried by a judge and jury.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Will the minister give
consideration to my suggestion in regard to an independent tribunal to decide whether men charged with smuggling shall be prosecuted or not?


William Daum Euler: Does the hon. member
mean with regard to an amendment to this bill?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Will the minister take
the matter into consideration?


William Daum Euler: I shall be glad to do that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 16-If articles not found sum equal to the value forfeited.
William Daum Euler: These clauses are all of the same nature, and we are making the same change with regard to the value for duty.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: I move that section 16 be
amended by striking out the word "and" in the third line of subparagraph (b) of subsection (2) and inserting in place thereof the word "or"; and by adding at the end of subparagraph (b) the words "or to both fine
and imprisonment," and by inserting the words "for duty" after the word "value" in the first line of subparagraph (a) of subsection (2) and in the first line of subparagraph (b) of subsection (2).


William Daum Euler: This makes only this change:
It makes the value for duty $200 instead of having the duty included, for instance, in the invoice price. The other change makes it optional whether the penalty is to be fine or imprisonment. That is the whole purpose of the amendment.


Mr. GLEN:: The first sentence of subsection (2) reads:
If the articles so forfeited or any of them are not found

And so on. What is 'the meaning of these words? If the articles are not found, how will it be possible to arrive at their value?


William Daum Euler: From any other available
evidence. For example, there might be invoices.


James Allison Glen: If the minister will refer to
the section that is being amended, it reads:
If any goods are imported into Canada in any vehicle, other than a railway carriage.
And so on. This is only the interpretation or elucidation of the section. Subsection 2 reads:
If the articles so forfeited or any of them are not found, the owner at the time of importation, and the importer, and every other person who has been injtny way connected with the unlawful importation of such articles; shall forfeit a sum equal to the value of the articles.


William Daum Euler: You might be able to get
at the books of the exporter so as to ascertain the value.


James Allison Glen: The minister misunderstands
me. Articles might be brought into Canada by some vehicle, and those articles would be forfeited, but if they are not found how can you arrive at their value? And if you cannot arrive at their value, how can you lay a prosecution under this section?


George Hamilton Pettit: The value might be very
small, as shown in evidence before ithe justice of the peace. I would suggest that the value there be the value as fixed by 'the government appraiser.


William Daum Euler: I would say again to the
hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen) that there are various ways of arriving at the value of the goods even if they are not found.
Customs Act Amendment

The man might have invoices in his possession. You might have access to the books of the man who sold him the goods. That would establish the value, but until you have some knowledge of the value you cannot of course proceed in this way.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 17-Forfeiture of sum equal to value if goods not found.
Peter John Veniot: That section 17 be amended by striking out the word "and" in the third line of subparagraph (b) of subsection (2) and inserting in place thereof the word "or;" and by adding at the end of subparagraph (b) the words "or to both line and imprisonment," and by inserting the words "tor duty" after the word "value" in the first line of subparagraph (a) of subsection (2) and in the first line of subparagraph (b) of subsection (2).


Robert James Manion: This has the same effect
as the other amendment?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. DONNELLY:: The fourth line of
paragraph (a) reads:
Not exceeding $500 and not less then $50. Should that not be $200?


William Daum Euler: That is right.


Peter John Veniot: I move that the word
"five" be changed to "two" in the fourth line of paragraph (a).


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. QLTINN:: Is the same mistake not
made in paragraph (b)?


William Daum Euler: No. That is correct. The
offence is an indictable one.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 18-Conductor and employees.


Peter John Veniot: There is a similar amendment to be moved to this section as was made to section 17, and I move accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 19-Vessels used in conveying liable to forfeiture.
Peter John Veniot: That clause 19 be amended by striking out all the words after the word "offence" in the fifth 
line of subsection 3 of proposed section 196, and inserting in place thereof the following: "to a fine of five hundred dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years and not less than one year, or to both fine and imprisonment," and by inserting the words "for duty" after the word "value" in the ninth line of subsection 2 and in the third line of subsection 3.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 20-Procuring persons to assist in smuggling.
William Daum Euler: This section deals with the procurer. As it stands here, the procurer is regarded as a greater offender than the smuggler himself. That would not be fair, and we are going to recast this section in such a way that the procurer will be punishable in exactly the same way as the smuggler himself.
MR VENIOT: I move:
That section twenty be amended by striking out all the words after the word "customs" in the sixth line of proposed section one hundred and ninety-seven, and inserting in place thereof the following:-shall
"(a) If the value for duty of the goods is under two hundred dollars, be liable on sum mary conviction before two justices of the peace to a penalty not exceeding two hundred dollars and not less than fifty dollars for every person so procured, hired or induced, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and not less than one month, or to both fine and imprisonment, and,
(b) If the value for duty of the goods is two hundred dollars or over, be guilty of a indictable offence and liable on conviction to a fine of five hundred dollars for every person so procured, hired or induced, or to imprison ment for a term not exceeding seven years and not less than one year, or to both fine and imprisonment."


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Does that mean that he shall be liable for a term of one year and. not less than one month for every offence? From the way the amendment has been read I take it that the fine is for every offence, but that there is only one single term of imprisonment provided for. I think the intention probably was to make the punishment imprisonment for every offence.


William Daum Euler: If one person procures half a dozen other people there is only one term of imprisonment, and that is for the procurer.


Malcolm McLean: There will be
six fines, but only one term of imprisonment for the procurer if he is found guilty? I think that is hardly fair. If a procurer induces three persons to smuggle goods across, he may be fined by the courts $600 or not

Customs Act Amendment
less than 1150, if he is proven guilty, but as against that he can only be given a sentence up to twelve months and not less than one month. lit might be more profitable for him to take the imprisonment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
William Daum Euler: Section 23 has not been
carried, Mr. Chairman.
On section 23-Placing dutiable goods in building upon the boundary line.


Peter John Veniot: I move to insert the word "or" in place of the word "and" in the twenty-fourth line, page 9 of the bill.


Robert James Manion: Was this a mistake of the draftsman using the word "and" instead of "or" all through the bill?


William Daum Euler: Yes, it was the intention to make the punishment optional, but the bill was drafted the other way. That was in the mind of the draftsman, but not in the mind of the minister.


Robert James Manion: The minister is sincere
about that?


William Daum Euler: Quite so.


Robert James Manion: He actually looks it.


William Daum Euler: I stated that the other evening when the question first came up. I read the explanation which had been placed in my hand, and which stated that it was within the discretion of the court to inflict either fine or imprisonment or both, and hon. members behind me found fault with that and said: No, it is obligatory on the court to inflict imprisonment. I was surprised, and when the House met after eight o'clock I made the explanation that it was not so intended, and it certainly was not, according to the information I gave the House before we rose at six. We are making these changes all through the bill to conform exactly with the intention in the first place. There is no surrender.


Robert James Manion: The minister made so many explanations tihat we cannot be expected to remember them all. However, if my hon. friend from Melfort, who found most complaint, is satisfied, I do not see why we should complain about it over here.


Malcolm McLean: I was simply
trying to make this bill more workable, more efficient, so that the country could be rid so far as possible of smuggling. I can tell my hon. friend that I and my constituency are
not interested in smuggling, for two reasons: We do not believe in it, in the first place, and we are too far away from the border. My intention in speaking the other night was simply to make the bill more workable, be- . cause if you make the penalties too severe, such as the justices will not care to inflict, your object is defeated. That was experienced in Ontario in connection with the Ontario Temperance Act. Magistrates would not send their neighbours to gaol for breaches of the law. The hon. member for Fort William will realize in the near future that if his law and regulations have not the sympathy of the magistrates, the law will not be given effect to. That was the only purpose I had in speaking the other night. It was to help the minister draft a law that would be satisfactory.


Robert James Manion: I wish to congratulate my hon. friend from Melfort and the Minister of Customs. They both seem to be satisfied tonight.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Thomas Cantley: Will the minister give us some information about section 21?


William Daum Euler: That was passed the last
time the bill was before the House.
On section 25-Being on board of smuggling vessel.


William Daum Euler: I move that section 25 be struck out. There is no necessity for it.


Robert James Manion: Is this part of the retreat?


William Daum Euler: No. We had thought of
making every person found on board a boat carrying smuggled goods prove he was innocent of smuggling. Perhaps it is going a little too far, and I am willing to have the section struck out.


Robert James Manion: We have learned that
people on boats are not always guilty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 37-Counsel fees.
William Daum Euler: I move to strike out this section. It merely has reference to fixing counsel fees in the discretion of the court, and has nothing whatever to do with smuggling.


Robert James Manion: Have you any more lawyers you wish to appoint as counsel?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 38-Maximum penalty.
William Daum Euler: I move that we strike out subsection 2 of 285A section 38. That deals
1S06
Canada Grain Act

with the powers of magistrates to suspend sentence. We thought it was a little severe. AVe are quite willing to leave it to the judges whether a sentence be suspended or not.


Robert James Manion: It has been suggested that instead of imposing a penalty for the offence we should give a medal to those who get through with it.


William Daum Euler: Will my hon. friend donate one?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 39-Distribution of proceeds.
John Frederick Johnston: An amendment was moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-
That all the words after the word "repealed" ill the nineteenth line to the word "forfeiture" in the twenty-sixth line be struck out.


William Daum Euler: I ask the committee not to insist on this amendment. It deals with the matter of informers and the paying of informers. There is great difficulty in getting these informers to work if they do not receive their pay quickly after giving the information. It is most unfortunate that we have to use these men, but it is necessary. This has particular reference to the matter of informing in regard to the smuggling of liquor, and it usually becomes advisable for the informer not to remain in the neighbourhood long after he gives the information, yet he ought to be paid.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Were we not informed that the person who lays the information respecting the smuggling of liquor receives no money at all?


William Daum Euler: If the liquor is sold he certainly gets his share of the proceeds.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The liquor or the cash?
Amendment (Mr. Woodsworth) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 40 agreed to.
Preamble and title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill No. 235, to amend the Canada Grain Act.

Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Robert James Manion: Does this bill cover all the amendments that it is intended to make to the Canada Grain Act?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. '
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



ST. JOHN HARBOUR COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved the second reading of Bill No. 226 relating to the harbour of St. John in the province of New Brunswick.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, after some conversation with the Minister of Railways I understood that his was the first bill to come up to-night and that none of these harbour bills would be dealt with. The members interested have, I think, left the chamber on that understanding.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend does not wish to proceed with this bill we can take up another, but I may say to him that the bill dealing with the Halifax harbour is almost verbatim et literatim with this, and we thought that if we could get through one of them to-night we might save that much time.


Robert James Manion: If the member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) has no objection, and the Prime Minister is agreeable, we might dispose of this bill with the exception of one clause, for I think the member for St. John-1 Albert (Mr. MacLaren) would like to be present before the measure is finally disposed of. Maybe the minister in charge of the bill can give us an explanation of its purpose.


Mr. CARDIN:: Mr. Chairman, this bill is simply to incorporate the harbour commission of St. John along the same lines as the harbour commissions of Montreal and Vancouver, and it contains practically the same clauses as are in the acts relating to those two harbours. We might proceed with the bill, and if it contains anything which is not satisfactory to my hon. friend we can reserve it to be dealt with when we reach the third reading. I may say that the bill has been submitted to the city council of St. John and they have accepted it.

St. John Harbour Commission


Robert James Manion: I do not doubt at all what the minister says, but I should like the member for St. John to state his views. I observe that he is here now.


Murray MacLaren: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the mayor and city council of St. John are willing to accept the bill as drawn.


Peter John Veniot: I might add that recently I had an interview here with representatives of the city council of St. John and they are favourable to the bill. Besides that, the mayor has wired me that he is perfectly satisfied with its terms. There is necessity for immediate action on the adoption of this bill because the legislature of the province is sitting, and should this bill pass they will have to enact legislation empowering the city of St. John to conduct a plebiscite under its act of incorporation. If there is no serious objection to any of the clauses, it would be well to put the bill through to-night so that the legislature could be advised on Monday and proceed with their legislation.


Murray MacLaren: I trust that we will
proceed with the bill now. There are many urgent reasons for putting the bill through at the earliest opportunity.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am quite agreeable to the passage of the bill. I was simply waiting until the members directly interested were in their seats. The city of St. John owns a very substantial amount of harbour property. Is there any provision in the bill for taking it over? If so, at what price?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, at an agreed price of $2,135,000.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: I have not had an opportunity to look over the bill. Will the control of grain operations fall under the jurisdiction of the Board of Grain Commissioners?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is my information.


Peter John Veniot: Under the regulations they
have power to make any rules for handling the traffic of the port.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am anxious to see this bill pass, but the success or failure of the harbour under a commission will depend very largely on the cost to be borne by the traffic going through the port. Does this bill provide that the tolls or rates to be charged by the harbour commission shall be subject, to the approval of the governor in council?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: I should like an answer to my inquiry, Mr. Chairman.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My understanding is that the grain traffic in the local elevators will be under the control of the grain board.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Are the tolls charged by the harbour commission subject' to approval by the governor in council?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, the tolls have to be
approved.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is that the case with regard to the Vancouver harbour board?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is the case with all harbours. [DOT]


Mr. KELLNER:: I do not think the Vancouver harbour commission is under the jurisdiction of the department so far as the operation of elevators is concerned. The tariffs charged by the elevators are not subject to the approval of the governor in council and when any change is required it is simply referred to the Board of Grain Commissioners.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is speaking of the grain elevators?


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: That is different from the harbour commission. In that particular case the elevators are operated by the harbour board. Of course, tolls charged by the elevators are subject to the Board of Grain Commissioners.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it the general policy to confer powers of expropriation upon harbour commissions? Powers of expropriation are extreme, and I see by section 13 that this power is conferred on the corporation. I appreciate the fact that it mav be necessary, but in such legislation passed in the province of New Brunswick it is customary where this power is granted to make it subject to the approval of tlhe lieutenant governor in council. Of course, if that is not the practice in Dominion legislation I have no objection, but if this is a departure I think the approval of the governor in council should be required.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This provision appears in the other acts. It involves capital expenditure which of course must be passed on by the governor in council.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I appreciate that, but it is hardly the point I make.


Mr. BELL (St. John):: An understanding
has been arrived at, I believe, between the city of St. John and the minister, and the terms of the bill as presented are quite satisfactory. I should however like to make a suggestion here with regard to tolls. I have

St. John Harbour Commission

been asked by the city council to find out whether it would be possible for the government to consider including in the bill the following provision:
Rates, tolls and charges for the conduct of business shall not at present be imposed in excess of those now in force and such rates, tolls and charges shall be fixed from time to time so as to enable the port of Saint John to compete successfully with other ports and places on the Atlantic seaboard in the United States of America or elsewhere.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It would not be practical to fix the rates, which must depend upon the circumstances of the port. If we' fixed the rates 'by statute we should be obliged to come back to parliament to make suich changes as might be found necessary. The rates are determined by the commission and submitted to the governor in council for approval, and that I think is the proper way to deal with the matter.
Mr. MaoLAREN: I understand that the provisions of this bill are similar to those in other acts relating to harbour commissions.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Absolutely.


Peter John Veniot: The rates will be fixed by the port of St. John, in whom the city council will have faith.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I do not think there is any desire on the part of the city to introduce any contentious question. In the past there has been some trouble in the matter of rates and the city council would like to have something definite enacted in (his regard. However, if that is not possible the bill as drawn will be satisfactory. I do not bring the question up for the purpose of criticizing the bill.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This bill is framed to meet the recommendations of the Duncan commission, before whom representatives of St. John appeared and gave evidence. As regards the rates to be charged, I think we may safely leave this matter to the harbour commission; they will undoubtedly look after the interests of the port of S't. John. The commission will comprise men residing in the locality and taking a special interest in the development of the port, and it is only natural to assume (hat they will frame their schedule in such a way as to attract trade to the port. It is much better, I think, to leave the matter to a commission of local men rather than to officers residing in Ottawa. We should have some confidence in the men who are to be appointed as commissioners and we can safely rely on them.


Leslie Gordon Bell: That explanation
is satisfactory.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister will agree
that the success or failure of the traffic through the port will depend on whether the tolls are reasonable or excessive.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Certainly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And naturally (he rates
will be made as attractive as possible. I have no further objection to offer.


Robert Gardiner: With reference to the
question raised by the hon. member for Lethbridge, as to whether any elevators that may be established will come under the grain commissioners, I would remind the minister that in 1925 when the new grain act went through -I am speaking from memory of course- provision was made for putting all harbour commission elevators under the control of that board. It may be necessary to include in this bill a section putting in the same category the elevators in this case. I will look up the act of 1925 and in the meantime perhaps the minister will let this section stand.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: On the third reading of
the bill we can deal with my hon. friend's suggestion.


Robert Gardiner: That will be satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On section 6-Harbour limits defined.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Are there any parts of the harbour that are exempted?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: None excepting the ferry
landing and certain lots for fishing purposes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 13-Expropriation of land.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is not the expropriation
power given to the corporation in this section too wide? If the power to expropriate is made subject to the approval of the governor in council I shall 'be perfectly satisfied. In New Brunswick it has not been customary to grant such power to private corporations or public corporations without the consent of the governor in council. That is the only suggestion I have to make with regard to this clause.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The clause as framed is
practically a reproduction of the clause which appears in the statutes relating to other har-

1S09
St. John Harbour Commission
hour commissions. We thought it would not be fair to place the harbour commission of St. John in a different position from that of other harbour commissions.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, I have thrown out
the suggestion.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 14 to 32 inclusive agreed to.
On the preamble.
Robert Gardiner: Before the preamble is
carried I would ask if there should not be a provision in the bill for an annual audit of accounts of the harbour board?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is already provision
for an audit in the Revenue and Audit Act. My hon. friend will also find that there is provision in one of the clauses for an officer of the Marine and Fisheries department making an investigation and audit of the books and affairs of the harbour commission. I think therefore, that the question of an audit is already adequately provided for. However, the matter can be raised again on the third reading of the bill if my hon. friend deems it necessary to take that course.


Robert Gardiner: It is quite proper that
an officer of the department should make an independent audit, but what I had reference to more particularly was the desirability of an annual audit. If the minister will find out whether these harbour commissions come under the Audit Act and will let us know when the bill comes up for third reading, I think that will be satisfactory.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I can state to my hon.
friend now that they do come under the Audit Act.


Robert Gardiner: There is another point
I may as well bring forward at this particular time, and that is that members of the House should have a little more information with regard to the financial standing of these harbour commissions, which are very important bodies having the control of public property. But we do not get any reports from them as to their financial condition and how they carry on their business. I would suggest to the minister that it might be advisable to supply hon. members with a copy of the annual statement of the different harbour commissions so that we can get in better touch with the business they are doing. I am satisfied that would save a good deal of trouble both to the minister and to the commisioners
themselves. If we are in possesion of full information on these matters we would prdb-ably not be so suspicious as we are sometimes inclined to be.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think it is already
provided that information of the character asked for shall be supplied to members of the House.


Robert Gardiner: In that case I shall
only ask that the minister ascertain whether an audit is provided for under the Audit Act and give us that information when the motion for third reading is made.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I feel sure that provision
for an audit of the accounts of harbour commissions is made in the Audit Act, but I will ascertain beyond doubt and inform my hon. friend.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it an independent audit or a departmental audit?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is made by the Board of Audit which has been created to carry out work of that character.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If that is so it should be
satisfactory.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think there is an error
in section 25 which I have just noticed. It is provided that the corporation may "in the following cases seize and detain any vessel within the limits of the province of Nova Scotia''. That is manifestly an error.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In my copy of the bill it
is "New Brunswick''.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My copy is wrong then.


Murray MacLaren: In my copy it reads
"within the limits of the province of New Brunswick".
Mr, CARDIN:	Then the error has been
corrected in other copies of the bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I draw the minister's attention to the fact that the bay of Fundy is partly within the province of New Brunswick and partly within the province of Nova Scotia and that it has been looked upon as a mare clausum. Has the minister given any consideration to that matter? I am just suggesting it for his consideration.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I will give consideration to that point.
Preamble agreed -to.
Bill reported.
Special War Revenue Act

Mr. CARDIN moved the third reading of the bill.


Robert Gardiner: It was understood that (his bill would not be read a third time to-day,


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



LONG TERM FARM LOANS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 62, for the purpose of establishing in Canada a system of long term mortgage credits for farmers.
Robert Gardiner: Are these amendments satisfactory to the minister?


James Alexander Robb: The bill as it passed the
House of Commons was identical with the bill which passed the House of Commons last year, with the exception of two small amendments, one in section 5 subsection (2), in which the shares of the board are declared to be non-transferable. The amendment in the House of Commons was to insert after the word ."transferable" the words "except at the option of the board." The bill, as it comes back to the House for concurrence is in exactly the same form as the bill which was concurred in by the House last year, with the exception of the provision for recognition of colonization societies, and this was an amendment made by the House of Commons itself.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



SPECIAL AVAR REVENUE ACT, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 230, to amend the Special AArar Revenue Act, 1915.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Power to determine fair price.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister explain the last paragraph in section 2?
fMr. Cardin.]


James Alexander Robb: In some cases companies have set up subsidiary organizations to whom they sell their products, and taxes are paid on values lower than the fair market price. The present section is designed to protect our revenues against this.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Regulations.
Robert James Manion: Before we go on with this bill, might I suggest to the minister that the ex-Minister of Finance, the hon. member for AArest Calgary (Mr. Bennett) is not present. I have no particular objection to this bill going on provided that -we report progress on the last clause and, if necessary, allow any discussion on the last clause when the bill comes before the committee again. AA ill that be satisfactory?


James Alexander Robb: That will be all right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
' On section 8-Trustees, assignees, executors, et ceteTa, to obtain certificate that all charges are paid before distribution.
Robert James Manion: This is the clause that is to be held up. I believe the bill regarding the Halifax harbour commissioners is to go through, and then I think we shall have done a fairly good day's work.
Progress reported.



HALIFAX HARBOUR COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved the second reading of Bill No. 22.5, respecting the Halifax Harbour Commissioners.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1.
Robert Gardiner: These two bills respecting the harbour commissions at Halifax and St. John are not exactly the same. Will the minister explain the difference?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They are exactly the same except that in the case of St. John, the harbour was under the control of the city, was city property, and we had to assume certain obligations of the city of St. John. That was not the case in Halifax. That is the only difference.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 17 inclusive agreed to.

Halifax Harbour Commission
On section 18-Borrowing powers.
Robert Gardiner: I notice that in this
bill, as in the other one, we are granting certain borrowing powers. Does that mean that the commission will have power to float bonds and debentures, or will they have to come to this House just like the other commissions when they want to borrow money?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Everything they borrow
has to be approved by the governor in council. They can borrow money and give as a guarantee the revenue of the port, but all subject to the approval of the governor in council.


Robert Gardiner: Is this a similar section to that contained in the other acts?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: It is to give the governor in council an opportunity of looking over the proposed borrowings, and probably to keep the commissioners from landing into the mess the Vancouver harbour commissioners got into?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have the power to stop any borrowing.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 19 to 27 inclusive agreed to.
On section 28-Powers of corporation not to be restricted by provincial statutes.
Mr. MacNUTT:: This section says:
Notwithstanding anything contained in any act of the late province of Nova Scotia or of the new province of Nova Scotia-
Might I ask what is meant by the late province of Nova Scotia and the new province?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That relates to certain
by-laws which have been passed by the city of Halifax with the authorization of the provincial government.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 29 agreed to.
On the preamble.
Robert Gardiner: I presume the minister will give the same understanding here with regard to the elevators being brought under the grain commission?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is one order here for the consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 61, to amend the Soldier Settlement Act. The government is prepared to accept those amendments. and if hon. gentlemen opposite have no objections we might take that up now.


Robert James Manion: I do not think it will take any time at the next sitting of the House. I myself would not object but there are some members who are not present now who might wish to discuss them.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.27 p.m.
Monday, April 4, 1927