1928-05-18

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. T. THORSON (Winnipeg South Centre) presented the second and final report of the special committee appointed to consider the question of the adequacy of the remuneration paid to the judges of the various courts in Canada, as follows:
The special committee appointed to consider the question of the adequacy of the remuneration paid to the judges of the various courts in Canada beg leave to present the following as their second and final report:
Your committee, composed of fifteen members, were appointed on April 15, 1928, in accordance with a resolution passed in the house on March 20, 1928, and were empowered to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath, and to report from time to time, and were further empowered on April 19, 1928, to print their minutes of proceedings and any evidence taken by them, and to sit while the house is in session.
Your committee met for organization on April 19, 1928, and since then have held seven sessions and heard twenty witnesses. Representations were also made to your committee by letters and telegrams from numerous persons who did not appear before them. Your committee also had before them reports of committees of the county courts judges and of the Canadian Bar Association, resolutions from various organizations and information from the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Statistics.
Your committee gave careful consideration to the question referred to them and find that the remuneration paid to the judges in the various courts in Canada as hereinafter mentioned is inadequate and ought to be increased.
Your committee, therefore, recommend:
1.	That the salaries of the judges of the district and county courts of the various provinces of Canada be increased by $2,000 per annum each.
2.	That the salaries of the judges of the superior courts of the various provinces of Canada, and of the Exchequer Court of Canada be increased by $2,000 per annum each.
56103-I97J
3.	That the salaries of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada be increased by $3,000 per annum each.
A printed copy of the committee's minutes of proceedings and evidence is herewith submitted for the information of the house.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
J. T. Thosson,
Chairman.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 321, to amend the Income War Tax Act.
Mr. STEVENS:: Will the minister explain this bill ?


Mr. ROBB:: This legislation is necessary
because of the omission of some words in the revised statutes. The object of the bill is to extend the six months' limit to three years for the reason that it is physically impossible, within the six months, to determine whether or not there has been fraud in the filing.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NEW EDINBURGH MILLS PROPERTY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Henry Herbert Stevens: The other day I asked the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) to lay on the table of the house the papers in connection with the proposed purchase of the New Edinburgh mills property. I wanted the order in council and the other papers. I do not think they have yet been tabled. I would ask the minister to add to that return, if he will, the further papers in connection with a proposal, made some three years ago, I believe, for the purchase of this property for the air board. I should like to have these papers, together with certain reports on the valuations that were put on the property at that time. The object in asking for these papers was that they might be brought down before the estimates came up.


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works):: I shall be very glad to lay on the
table the papers asked for by my hon. friend. I think some of them have been prepared.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There are these additional ones which I should like to have.



DECEPTIVE MINING LITERATURE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: There is a matter to which I wish to direct the attention of the government. It may possibly be slightly out of order, but seeing that the discussion of it is in the interest of the people

Deceptive Mining Literature
generally and does not constitute any criticism of the government, I do not think any objection will be taken to my bringing it up at this stage. There have been passing through the mails in the	past two or	three	yearsvarious tipster sheets on mining stocks and things of that sort. The other day I was handed a copy of one publication which entered the country freely last year-the Financialistic Debater published in Boston, the editor being one E. T. Morton. This sheet specializes in what are called "mystery stocks," and it is purely a fake, a crooked effort to steal the money of the people of Canada, and also of the people of the United States, for that	matter.	Of	course thepeople of the United States can look after themselves;	but I	think	some	effortshould be made by the government, through the Post Office Department, to prevent a sheet of this kind from going through the mails. Last year this same paper, published, I believe,	by the	same	man,	came
through the mails in large numbers, describing the prospects of so-called "mystery stocks" and holding out the most extravagant promises, most, if not all, of which were proved later by Toronto Saturday Night and other papers to be complete fakes and nothing but a method of wheedling money out of the people. I have no doubt they succeeded in securing a good deal of money from the people of this country, because as we all know many people are gullible when it comes to promises of sudden wealth. I do not know that this publication has ever been barred from the mails, but at that time it was shown to be crooked. The other day I was handed this particular copy I have in my hand, it having been sent to someone in Ottawa. I had intended taking the matter up on the estimates of the Post Office Department, but I thought we might as well dispose of it now so as to afford the government an earlier opportunity to try to deal with the situation. It is true that the publisher has cut down the size of the sheet; it now comes through the mails more in the form of a letter than of a circular. It may therefore be harder to get at. But on the envelope containing the copy which I hold in my hand, there is printed the name of the editor, "E. T. Morton, Unity building, Boston, Massachusetts". I know the government is just as anxious as I am to see to it that the people of Canada shall not be cheated out of their money. It is difficult enough for us to raise money here for the development of our own resources as well as, to a certain extent at least, for the purpose of appeasing the gambling instinct we all possess. There is hope for some return from various mining 
propositions in Canada, but there is no hope for any return of money sunk in the schemes advertised by the Financialistic Debater. I appeal to the government to put a stop to the carriage of such sheets through our mails.


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):: In reply to my hon. friend I would say that my attention was drawn to this publication or to a similar one a couple of weeks ago, and instructions were given to have the matter looked into in order to see what could be done. It is hard to detect these letters now that they are being sent in envelopes, but since my hon. friend has stated that the name appears on the envelope we may be able to do something. Would my hon. friend let me have that letter?


Robert James Manion: Yes, and I would like to
draw the attention of the minister to the fact that on this envelope at least, and I presume on most of the envelopes containing these letters, the name is on the outside, and I presume it will be there until these people see what action is taken by this government. As I have said, this' concern have been shown by the Toronto Saturday Night and other financial papers to be fakers, and I think something should be done to put an end to their activities.



INTERNATIONAL PEACE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: A day or two ago the Prime Minister was asked a question with regard to the Kellogg peace proposal. I see that the House of Lords have declared themselves in favour of that proposal, but the British government have taken the ground that they cannot act until the dominions are heard from. I wonder if it would not be possible for Canada to express an opinion shortly with regard to this matter?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: From what my hon. friend has just said there would appear to be an erroneous impression with regard to the attitude of the British government, if it is thought that the British government cannot act until the governments of the dominions have been heard from. I understand that the government of Great Britain have expressed the view, and certainly it has been so expressed in the House of Lords, that they arc prepared to become a party to the treaty.

Pension Act-Mr. Geary
As I understand the matter, the United States extended an invitation to the four great powers in the first instance to ascertain whether or not they would become parties to the treaty. The United States took this action before extending a similar invitation to other countries or to any of the British dominions. Now that the British government have expressed their intention of becoming a party to the treaty, I have not the least doubt that Canada also, along with the other dominions, will be asked to become a party to the treaty, and I have no doubt also that when we are asked it will be the wish of this country that we should become a party to it. At the moment, as far as any invitation is concerned, it is a matter which is receiving attention, and we may expect to be in a position to make an announcement shortly.


Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Does the Prime Minister anticipate that the invitation will emanate from the government of the United States or from the government of Great Britain?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the invitation will come from the government of the United States, and I am sure it will be the wish of the government of Great Britain that all the dominions shall join with the British Government in accepting the invitation. This, I think, will be the result.
Mr. CAHAN. The invitation will come direct from the United States to Canada?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I so
anticipate.



TOBACCO GROWING INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GOTT (South Essex):: I would
ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) if it is his intention to have a number of copies of the report of the commission which investigated the tobacco growing industry printed and furnished free to the farmers of western Ontario.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: There is an order with the
printing bureau now for 10,000 copies of this report, and we expect to be able to give every grower of tobacco one copy.



RAILWAY BELT AND PEACE RIVER LANDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: In view of the recent visit to Ottawa of Hon. T. D. Pattullo, Minister of Lands in
British Columbia, I would ask whether the government carried on or completed negotiations relative to the return of the Dominion railway belt and Peace River block in British Columbia, in accordance with the report of the Martin commission.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: There were no negotiations
carried on with Mr. Pattullo; we believe that after the session there will be a conference on this matter with members appointed by the provincial government of British Columbia.



PENSION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Health) moved the third reading of Bill No. 289, to amend the Pension Act.
Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: I do not propose to take up more than a few minutes of the time of the house in connection with one particular section of the bill now under consideration; I refer to section
5.	This section was not passed upon and brought to this house by the committee considering this question, but was inserted by the government. Just in passing I would like to say that from what one can hear each individual member of that committee may take to himself the gratitude of a great many returned men, and of course I include in that committee the minister himself. The returned soldiers are grateful for the assiduous manner in which the committee carried out its duties and for the thorough way in which the problems of the returned soldiers were dealt with and solutions recommended to this house. That committee functioned particularly well under the very sympathetic chairmanship of my gallant and honourable friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power).
The section which was inserted by the government however is a retrograde step, I venture to say. I presented my reasons for this statement a short time ago and do not propose to take up the time of the house by repeating them. Section 5 of this bill repeals sections 4 to 8 inclusive of the present act, and substitutes three other sections therefor. Section 4, which it is proposed to repeal, is as follows:
The commission shall be provided with suitable offices at the city of Ottawa for the commissioners and for the officers and employees of the commission, such branch offices elsewhere as may be required and all necessary furnishings, stationery and equipment for the conduct, maintenance, and performance of the duties of the commission.

Pension AcL-Mr. Geary
Thus the pension commission not only had separate, independent quarters, but also had its own staff and functioned as an independent body. There is no provision in this proposed amendment for the accommodation of the commission and nothing is said which would indicate that it is to have its own staff. Instead of that, it will have to depend upon such assistance as may be given by a department of the government, the department headed by my friend the Minister of Pensions and National Health. Section 5, which it is proposed to repeal, is as follows:
The commission shall have all the powers and duties of a deputy head of a department for the purpose of the Civil Service Act.
2. The salaries and other remuneration of the officers, clerks and employees of the commission, and all the expenses of the commission incidental to the carrying out of this act, shall be paid out of moneys to be provided by parliament.
This section is to disappear entirely; the commission will no longer be a deputy head, and if one turns to the Civil Service Act it is easy to see how far-reaching this change really is. Under the Civil Service Act it is the deputy head who organizes the particular branch under him and provides in a general way for appointments, for remuneration, for duties and so on. It strikes me particularly with regard to this section that we are not maintaining the independence of the board of pension commissioners but rather that we are striking at that independence in causing the board to be attached for all purposes to a political department of the government. As I have indicated, this is a matter which has attracted the attention of the officials of various soldier organizations, and which is abhorrent to them. They see that this commission is likely to drift more and more into politics and further and further aw:ay from that independence which has been so important in the minds of those who have had to depend upon the board. Pensions should be kept out of politics and should be looked after by a body which is independent and subject to no dictation from or leading by a department of the government. I take it that under the existing act we are functioning in the right way with regard to pensions, but if we let pensions drift into politics in any way we are not carrying on in the proper manner. We do not know how far the removal of the status as deputy head of a department for the purpose of the Civil Service Act may go, but it will go a long way. If you run through the provisions of that act you will see how much its operation depends upon the fact that the spokesman for the department is treated as a deputy head. The Board

of Railway Commissioners is a deputy head under the Civil Service Act. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is not the proper method to engage men to give the attention that should be given to pensions, and then place them under the management and jurisdiction of a department of the government.
The government had a report from Mr. G. W. Scott in October, 1927, and Mr. Scott was asked to make that report because there were certain unsatisfactory conditions with regard to the administration of pensions. Among other things, Mr. Scott recommended that the board of pension commissioners should be given such a staff of medioal examiners, investigators and clerks as would enable them to function as an independent body for the purpose of collecting all necessary information and evidence relating to matters relevant to eligibility of ex-service men and their dependents for pensions, rendering decisions thereon, and calculating the pensions payable. I submit that this suggested amendment of the government goes entirely contrary to that very carefully considered opinion and recommendation of Mr. Scott. We are ignoring those recommendations and going in the opposite direction. It seems to me that the full investigation that Mr. Scott gave the matter is entitled to consideration. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by M|r. Casselman, that in effect old section 5 be re-enacted, or left in the statute. My motion will read:
That the said hill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions that they have power to add thereto the following sections :
"The commission shall have all the powers and duties of a deputy head of a department for the purpose of the Civil Service Act."
And	.
"The salaries and other remuneration of the officers, clerks and employees of the commission. and all the expenses of the commission incidental to the carrying out of this act shall be paid out of moneys to be provided by parliament."
This would make it similar to the method in which the railway board gets its money. The railway board is a deputy head, and is independent. I say that the moneys of this commission should be paid by parliament and the commission should be in the position of a deputy head of a department.
One result of the proposed amendment that will be seen at once with relation to medical researches, history reporting, and consideration of questions affecting pensions, will be that these matters will be handled, not necessarily as they have been heretofore under the pension commissioners, but may be done by some official of the department. Under this section,

Pension Act-Mr. King (Kootenay)
the sole remaining duty of the pension commissioners may be simply adjudicating upon evidence which will be handed to them by a department of the government, which department is not likely to be any freer from political suggestion than any other department of the government.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Will the hon. member allow me to ask a question? Of what department would you make this commission a deputy head?


George Reginald Geary: That does not matter. The deputy head of a department is a person through whom the Civil Service Commission function or collaborate regarding appointments. The Board of Railway Commissioners is a deputy head of a department, but it is not a deputy head of the Department of Railways and Canals.


Mr. SPEAKER:: 
George Reginald Geary: Not all of them.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: All but this small section in Ottawa. All the doctors, and outside investigators, except the small staff in Ottawa, were brought within the control of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment. I stated the other day that I thought a mistake or an error in judgment had been made at that time, in that the medical service and the investigators carrying on investigations into pension matters should be under the control of the pension board. That is what we are doing in the department to-day.
Following the Scott report, an agreement was entered into with the pension commissioners whereby they would have their medical representatives, one or two or three, whatever they considered necessary, in each of the units. If at times it was found that they required extra assistance in any unit, they merely asked the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-estaiblisfhment for that assistance, and representatives were detailed from that department to do their work. Those representatives then reported directly to the commission on the matter which they had under consideration.
We do not propose to interfere with the stenographic and clerical staff, but we do think that it is advantageous, and it will be in the interests of economy, that that staff should be paid through our central auditing and [accounting board. We are making large savings in reorganizing in this way, and there cannot be any reasonable ground for contending that there should be another staff, with all that goes with a comparatively large staff, to take care of pay and accounting in the same building and under the same conditions.
Personally, I do not see any reas'on why this section should be amended. The section is broad enough, and it covers the activities of the department in the case of the relationship that exists between the pension board and the department, and puts in the form of a statute conditions that have existed by regulations heretofore.


Mr. IRVINE:: Would the amendment as moved by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) interfere with the operation of the act; that is', if this amendment were passed would it hamper in any way the carrying into effect of any important section of the bill before the house?


John Warwick King: I do not know that it would interfere, but it has been the practice, irespective of what my hon. friend has said regarding the railway commission. When this matter was under consideration last week, I was surprised to learn that the railway commission did not act as a deputy head. They are under the Department of Railways, and they act as a judicial body, just as this body will act independently of the department in judicial matters which they have to consider.
The pension commissioners will be working under very much better .conditions. The medical officers, upon whom they will depend for the knowledge obtained regarding pensioners, will be under their, own control. They will be in a much more independent and better position than they have been heretofore. I see no reason why we should amend the section, as my hon. friend wished to do. At this time I compliment the chairman and the members of the special committee upon their diligence and the thoroughness of their work in amending the present act and I believe these amendments will result in better conditions in regard to those who are interested in pension matters.
3112	COMMONS
Pension Act-Mr. King (Kootenay)


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 
John Warwick King: I cannot see
any advantage in it. We have amalgamated two departments of government and we have now one deputy head. The pension commission is attached to that department. It has always been attached to one department and it must so be attached. The commissioners will make their requests to the deputy head and those requests will come to the minister in the ordinary way. I cannot see any advantage in lumbering up the bill by including that section. Sections 4 to 8 have been redrafted under the new section and anyone reading those sections carefully and reading the new section will find this a much better draftsmanship. The matter is more clearly expressed than in the wandering sections we had before.


George Black: I quite agree with
the minister as to the redrafting of those sections. In the bill now before the house the matter is expressed more dearly and in much better language. In effect it puts in a better way what is really the law except as to the omission of subsections 1 and 2 of section 5. By the omission of those subsections the effect of the law is changed. Power is taken away from the pension commissioners. If it is desirable to lessen their powers, well and good, but it does not seem to me well to do so. The minister must have changed his mind somewhat on this subject since the 14th of this month. Then both the Minister of Health and the Minister of National Defence were quite of opinion that those subsections should be left in. If the minister will pardon me for quoting him I will quote from Hansard of May 14, at page 2970, where he is reported as saying:
Or we could insert the old section, which says:
"The commission shall have all the powers and duties of a deputy head of a department for the purposes of the Civil Service Act."
Then follow some remarks by the leader of the opposition to which the minister assented. Following that the leader of the opposition said:
Under those circumstances, I think the minister's suggestion would meet the case.

That is the suggestion of the minister himself that that subsection be left in and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) said:
We can reinsert the old section.
It was understood that would be done. Why has a change been made?


John Warwick King: It was understood in this way. A discussion was going on and I advised the committee that I would' withhold the section and make further inquiries. It appeared to me while I was in my seat that we might reinsert that section, but after inquiry and consideration I advised the committee the next day that we did not think the new section should be amended and the old section reinserted. That is the way the matter stands. I have nothing more to say. The bill has had very careful consideration by the committee and I see no advantage in having the section amended as has been suggested.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil):: I
think the minister's first thought was the correct one, namely, that the section ought to be re-inserted in this legislation. The minister when speaking a few minutes ago said that he thought the provisions of the new section placed the pension commissioners in a more independent and better position than they are in at present. I take an altogether different view of the matter. It seems to me that the new section is drafted for the purpose of putting the pension commission 5n a subordinate position to what they were in before. As far as my experience goes the pension commission has been one of the outstanding commissions that we have had of late years in the Dominion. Its work has been well done. The head of the commission is a man with a splendid war record who understands the needs and feelings of the returned soldiers fully as well as anybody can in this country. Now an effort is being made to rob that commission of a certain amount of their standing and position and to make them simply a branch of the Department of Soldiers' Reestablishment. That is my understanding of this section. The minister said that the pension commission has always been attached to that department.


John Warwick King: Since 1920.


George Halsey Perley: It was attached
to that department in 1920. That is correct, but its independent power still remains with the commission under the sections of the old act which the minister now proposes to strike

Pension Act-Sir George Perley
out. Under subsection 5 of section 5 the head of the commission was given all the powers and duties of a deputy head of the department for the purposes of the Civil Service Act and any moneys provided for the purpose of carrying out the work of the commission are provided by parliament itself and not simply as a branch of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment. The minister has commented with regard to the railway commission and the fact that they are attached to the Department of Railways and Canals. But the railway commission occupies a special place by itself and the railway commissioners have positions peculiar to their own office. There is in this country no other position, saving that of the Prime Minister himself, higher than that of the chairman of the railway commission. The commissioners have most onerous duties to perform; they are the people's court for many questions, and the chairman and members of the railway commission have a special place assigned to them in the social and public life of the Dominion.
This section that the minister proposes to strike out gives the head of the pension commission the rank of a deputy head. Parliament has given a similar rank to many positions outside of the actual deputy ministers themselves. Now the minister wishes to alter the position of the pension commission. He deliberately says so; by this section as I read it-and if I am wrong the minister will correct me-he undertakes to make the pension commission simply a branch of his department subject to instructions from himself and his deputy head as well. That is not, as I understand the matter, what is wanted by the people or the returned soldiers. The pension commission has been an independent, well-managed commission, absolutely apart from anything political. There is no department of government that can at all times be entirely independent of politics. The minister knows that himself; he is subject to all sorts of influences which he cannot always ignore from his friends and supporters. The pension commission has been doing its work faithfully and well.
Mr. KING (Kootenay); Under the Pension Act and it will continue to do so.


George Halsey Perley: Under the Pension Act and the pension commission has had an independent position which is being taken away from it by this legislation. He says:
The commission shall from time to time make such reports to the minister as he may direct.
As he may direct. I submit that the pension commission knows better how to make its own reports than the minister himself can possibly know.


John Warwick King: Read the old
section.


George Halsey Perley: It says:
The commission shall furnish the minister with such reports, statements and information as he may at any time require.


John Warwick King: Now which is the better section?


George Halsey Perley: I am going
through the whole of the changes. I admit that some of the wording is a great deal better in the new sections, but the effect of this change is to take away from the pension board the independent position which it has occupied under the old act, and I do not think the minister can deny that. If that is his purpose, I submit that the first thought that he had the other day when this matter was under discussion was the correct one, and I think this amendment which has been moved by my hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Geary) covers the point admirably. There is no effort made to alter the wording of the proposed new sections whatever, and I agree with the hon. member for South Toronto that the position of the pension board should be maintained intact as it is now; that it should be practically an independent board' to consider all these questions under the law without any political favour or influence being brought to bear on them, and attached to the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, but not under that department, as it is the minister's purpose to make it. As I read it, the deliberate intention of this section is to rob the pension board of its independent position and to make it subordinate to the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. They were always attached to the department, and1 they were under the minister in a sense, and I am sure they always took cognizance of the advice of the minister, but at the same time they were not subject to any political influence whatever, while the minister cannot escape being subject to it. He may at times be strong enough to resist that pressure, but at other times he will find himself unable to do so, and I submit to him that, without changing the wording of this section, he should agree to the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for South
Pension Act-Mr. Power

Toronto, which simply restores one of the clauses of the present act, which says:
The commission shall have all the powers and duties of a deputy head of a department for the purpose of the Civil* Service Act.
That preserves the position and independence of the commission. I do not think it is fair for the minister to undertake in this way to place the pension commission under his authority and that of his deputy minister, and to take away from them the independent position which they have always occupied under the act, in which position they have given such great and valuable service to the people of this country.


Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: I
must confess, Mr. Speaker, that I have not given much thought to the amendment which has just been proposed by my hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Geary), nor can I see that his amendment would change very much what is in the act at present, but being proposed by the hon. gentleman, it must mean something, for I know him well enough to know that he would not waste his time and that of the house by making a suggestion which did not mean anything. I have been trying for the past few moments to understand just what the objection is to the section as brought down by the minister. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Sir George Perley) has made reference to the social position of a deputy head. If that is the only reason why we should keep the old section in, I think we are wasting the time of the house in discussing it.


George Halsey Perley: Not only his
social but his official position.


Charles Gavan Power: What is the meaning of his official position?


George Halsey Perley: The position he
occupies as regards the other officers in the department.


Charles Gavan Power: I am free to confess that
I do not understand what that means either. The position which he occupies as regards other officers in the department? I assume that he is the head of the pensions board, whether he be called a deputy head or not, and that as such he would have under his control the officers of the pension board. What other officers he would have to do with I do not know, but perhaps in the order of precedence at the opening of parliament and at state dinners he would pass in after the deputy minister, but I do not think that

would seriously interfere with the efficiency of the administration of the Pensions Act, or that any of the sixty or seventy odd thousand pensioners would find that they had been seriously affected by any such calamity.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Give him a title.


Charles Gavan Power: My hon. friend from Melfort suggests that we might give him some other title in exchange for that of deputy head.
Coming to the other portion of the amendment with regard to salaries, and so forth, it reads-I am sorry I cannot read my hon. friend's writing, so I will take the section in the old act as printed. It reads:
The salaries or other remuneration of the officers, clerks and employees of the commission, and all the expenses of the commission incidental to the carrying out of this act, shall be paid out of moneys to be provided by parliament.
The bill which we have before us says with reference to salaries:
The salaries of its officers, clerks, and other employees shall be met out of the moneys provided by parliament for the purposes of the department.
With all the goodwill in the world I cannot see what difference it makes to the taxpayer whether the money is voted by parliament to the department or is voted by parliament to the board1 of pension commissioners. The power of appointment of officers is not changed. The power of selection of those who are to fill these positions remains the same as it was before. If my hon. friend would point out what change-


George Reginald Geary: Perhaps if the hon. gentleman would look at the provisions of the Civil Service Act, he would see exactly what being deputy head of a department means. It is scattered all through the act. It is through the deputy head-the Board of Railway Commissioners, for instance-that the Civil Service Act functions in regard' to organization, appointments, salaries and that sort of thing.


Charles Gavan Power: I will come to that in a
moment, but does it make any difference to whom these salaries are voted, whether they are voted to the department, and afterwards paid out by the department to the board, or voted direct to the board? It would seem to me that it is only the difference of who shall sign the cheques, the board of pension commissioners or the departmental accountant, and possibly at the present time the same man signs the cheques anyway.

Pension Act-Mr. Power


George Reginald Geary: In the one case you have
an independent commission with its own budget, so to speak, coming through. It is true that it comes through the estimates of the department, but in the other case the commission has nothing whatever to do with it; they are all officials of the department. That is the only difference.


Charles Gavan Power: If that is so, in one case these estimates come to the minister and are brought down to parliament under the heading: Department of Soldier's Civil Re-establishment, so many thousand dollars for the board of pension commissioners. In the other case-that which my hon. friend proposes- in the estimates we would have, still under the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment; board of pension commissioners, so much-exactly the same amount. But will my hon. friend look at it from this point of view? He knows as well as I do that when an estimate is brought down from the board of pension comimssioners as such, if there has been no change the minister will simply say: This is an estimate of the board of pension commissioners:	they are an independent
body; I have nothing to do with them; you may just take the estimate or leave it, as you please, I have no control whatsoever over it. In many cases I have heard in this house and outside serious criticism of the board of pension commissioners, of its expenditure and its personnel. Up to the present the minister has been able to say: Why, I am not responsible for this; this is an absolutely independent commission. I am inclined to think that if the minister had gone a little further and taken this commission more under his control, perhaps parliament would have been better satisfied. I remember in the closing days' of last session my hon. friends opposite were imploring the minister to do something with the board, to tell the commissioners that they must see to it that their hearts were softened, that they treated the pensioners more generously. One heard from a number of hon. gentlemen accusations against members of the board to the effect that they, being independent of parliament and of the members thereof, would not give proper consideration to cases submitted to them by hon. gentlemen. The general tone of the discussion was such as to lead one to believe that the government should assume greater control in order to be able to give instructions to the board of pension commissioners. Personally I have always opposed that view. I think the board should be an independent body. It was created by the will
of parliament to be independent, so far as any body can be, of the control of politics or of the minister of the department. I think the policy then laid down was a good policy. But last session my hon. friends' opposite did not seem to agree with that view. There were exhortations from them that so and so, members of the board, had not behaved as they should, that their power should be curtailed, that they should be told they must be more sympathetic in their treatment of pensioners and of applicants. I am somewhat surprised to-day to find the same hon. members asking that the s'oeial position of the board should be made higher, if not their powers enlarged.
With regard to the suggestion by my hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Geary) that this has something to do with the Civil Service Act, I am not in a position to discuss in any way, shape or form the workings of that act. I have always been opposed to it as the most iniquitous legislation that was ever enacted, and have always regarded the Civil Service Commission as the stupidest body that has ever inflicted itself on the people of Canada-


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Charles Gavan Power: -and I am not prepared to discuss how they might or might not act or who they should or should not consult. But if they do not carry out their duties better with reference to the board of pension commissioners than they do with respect to other departments, I shall be more and more confirmed in my opinion that they should have been abolished before they were created! Whether or not any advantage will be gained by the pensioner through this body consulting with Colonel Thompson or with Dr. Amyot with regard to appointments or promotions, I am unable to say; but it seems to me that if the Civil Service Commission do consult with reference to anybody in the employ of the board of pension commissioners, they would naturally consult the head of the board. The rating would be given by the senior officers of the board.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does not the Civil Service Act provide otherwise with regard to consultation?


Charles Gavan Power: It might very well provide anything. At the time I quit studying the law, I thought it such an iniquity that I did not want to be led into occasions of sin. The language which I would use with reference to it would be somewhat too expressive.
3116	COMMONS
Pension Act-Mr. Garland (Bow River)


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Might I put my question in another form? In the opinion of the hon. gentleman, is not the commission more independent under the sections proposed to be repealed than it will be under the new enactment?


Charles Gavan Power: I really cannot see how the commission would be more independent under section 5 of the old act than it would be under the present legislation. This bill provides :
The commission shall be attached to the department-
Section 6 of chapter 157 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, provides:
The commission shall be attached to the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment-
So far there is no change. Then this bill continues:
-and the expenses required to be incurred for the discharge of its duties, including the salaries of its officers, clerks, and other employees shall be met out of the moneys provided by parliament for the purposes of the department.
The former act provided:

and all the expenses of the commission incidental to the carrying out of this act shall be paid out of moneys to be provided by parliament.
That is the situation as it existed, and I think it will remain the same after the passage of this bill as it was before. It is suggested to me by a person far more qualified to judge than I would be that the commission possibly will be more independent. I will leave it to the hon. gentleman who makes the suggestion to explain it to the house. I am free to admit that I cannot see it yet. I am willing to acknowledge that the change will not have any effect whatsoever, and for that reason I do not know why the change is included in the sugestions made by the minister.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Might I ask the hon. gentleman: Do not the proposed amendments make the commission subject to the deputy of the department, whereas in the other case under the statute as it stands the commission is subject to the minister? Under the amendments proposed is not the deputy of the department intervening to take control of the commission in a way which he cannot do now?


Charles Gavan Power: The board of pension commissioners is attached to the department in the same way now as before. If the commission is to be under control of the deputy minister now, without having at my disposal the statute creating the Department of Soldiers Civil Re-establishment and defining the powers of the deputy minister, I should be under the impression that the same control would exist

if the deputy minister had no control over the different branches of his department. I presume the same control would exist from the moment the commission was attached to the department as will exist under this present legislation.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I merely am trying to get
my own mind clear. The old section 5 which it is proposed to repeal provides that the commission shall have all the powers and duties of a deputy head of a department for the purpose of the Civil Service Act. Does not that section give a different status to the head of the commission, giving him the right of consultation and direction and control in respect of appointees, which he would not have if that control were placed under the deputy head of the department?


Charles Gavan Power: I am sorry, but I do not
[DOT]think that is the case. It may be, but I cannot see it that way. It seems to me that the powers of the chairman of the board of pension commissioners will be just as great after this act is passed as they were before. Really, I do not know why there was any change in the act unless it was to make it read better, perhaps, with reference to the social position of one or other of the heads. There was a certain amount of departmental jealously which existed and which perhaps will be wiped out now that the social standing of the respective officers has been established. I will admit that there has been perhaps a diminution in the social standing of the chairman of the board; that is as far as I am prepared to go.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: I feel somewhat at a loss to follow the facetious remarks of the hon. member (Mr. Power) who has just taken his seat. It is evident that he looks upon the whole discussion as being somewhat irrelevant and humorous. However, he did commit himself to one statement which is worth the consideration of the house, and that is, to the effect that he did not know why this change should be made. But the minister in charge of the matter stated a little while ago that if the change were made nothing would be altered so far as the administration of the board of pension commissioners or of the department was concerned. In the face of both these statements alone there would seem to be very good reason for not making the change. But if we want a further -reason than that I will go back again to the point raised with respect to the powers and rights of deputy ministers, and if the hon. gentleman had taken notice of the act so much despised he would have found, first of all, that all organization of the department, all difficulty with respect to personnel of the staff,

Pension Act-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
everything affecting salary increases or decreases, classifications and revisions, are all dealt with directly by the deputy minister with the Civil Service Commission. In the Civil Service Act I find, under the classification of deputy or deputy minister, a provision to which I direct the attention of the house in view of the statement made by the minister that the railway commissioners were not and had not been regarded as deputy heads. That is what the minister stated. He nods his head; he acquiesces. Now I will quote from the Civil Service Act:
(c) "Deputy" or "deputy head" means and includes the deputy of the minister of the crown presiding over the department, the clerk of the Privy Council, the clerks of the Senate and House of Commons, the librarians of parliament, the comptroller of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Superintendent of Insurance, the Dominion Archivist, the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada and, in all cases in which such meaning is not inconsistent with his powers and duties, under the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, the Auditor General.
Therefore, so far as the Civil Service Act is concerned, a railway commissioner has the right of a deputy head.


John Warwick King: I understood that they had not that power under the act, but they have.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister makes an honourable amende. And now that his attitude with respect to the matter is correct, let me ask him to reconsider the position taken by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) with respect to the suggested deletion of section 5 of the old act, which reads:
5. The commission shall have all the powers and duties of a deputy head of a department for the purpose of the Civil Service Act.
2. The salaries or other remuneration of the officers, clerks and employees of the commission, and all the expenses of the commission incidental to the carrying out of this act, shall he paid out of moneys to be provided by parliament.
That classification is deleted and the board of pension commissioners are now deprived of their rank of deputy. They are deprived of direct access to the minister himself, unless by agreement or courtesy, and deprived of direct access to the Civil Service Commission unless, again, by act of courtesy. The whole thing must now be handed directly through the deputy head of the department and not because of any right vested in the board of pension commissioners itself. You have undoubtedly taken largely from the powers of the old board and rendered it completely subject to a department which is now under patronage, a department which does not come within the Civil Service Act.
To sum up the objections to the change. It may be said that the board of pension commissioners will now be definitely attached to the department itself; it will have lost its power of direct approach to the minister unless by courtesy; it will have lost its power of direct approach to the Civil Service Commission unless, again, by courtesy; the appropriations voted by parliament under the old act will now be transferred to the department, thereby transferring the staff of the board of pension commissioners, at present under the board's control, to the pay-roll of the department. Again, the board will have no staff of its own but will be entirely in the hands of the department as to what staff shall be loaned to the board of pension commissioners for the purposes of carrying out the duties of the board. The board's annual report, which heretofore was an independent document and was presented to parliament as such, will no longer be an independent document unless by agreement with the minister, but will be embodied in the annual report of the department, and will form a part of that department's report. But the principal objection I have to the whole change is, in the first place; that the direct contact of the board of pension commissioners itself, both with the minister and with the Civil Service Commission, is abolished; and in the second place the element of merit which did enter into the personnel of the board of pension commissioners is now eliminated, so that the personnel will be placed directly within and under a department which, according to my information, is not under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. I am opposed to the change, and unless the minister or someone else is in a position to correct the impressions I have formed in this matter, and which I have submitted to the house, I am afraid I shall have to suport the amendment that has been proposed.


Hewitt Bostock: The question is on the
amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Geary) negatived on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 192, respecting interprovincial and international traffic in intoxicating liquors.
3118	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-P.E.I.
He said: I suppose it is in order to give an explanation, and I might tell the house that the only change made by the Senate is in the penalty clause. Under section 5 of the bill the penalty for the first offence was not less than $200 and not more than $1,000, and in default of payment imprisonment for a term of not less than three months and not more than six months. For each subsequent offence the penalty was imprisonment for a term of not less than six months and not more than twelve months. The Senate retained these penalties, but instead of applying them for the first offence and each subsequent offence they have made them apply to the second offence and each subsequent offence. They have also reduced the penalty for the first offence to a fine of not more than $200, and in default of payment imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months. The only change really is that the penalty is reduced for the first offence, and I am willing to accept the amendments.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Public works-harbours and rivers, Prince Edward Island-West Point-wharf repairs, $4,000.
Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):: When these items were being considered the other evening I was directing the attention of the minister to the condition which existed in Kings county, Prince Edward Island, in relation to these estimates, and I was pointing out that with .the exception of the amounts recommended by the Duncan commission for warehouses for potato storage, last year $107,000 was voted for harbours and rivers in Prince Edward Island, of which sum only $1,000 was earmarked for Kings county, which does not seem a fair division considering the fact that there are many works in that county which require attention. For instance, at my home town of Cardigan there is a government wharf the central portion of which to the extent of 200 feet has dropped; no repairs have been made, and the structure is in an unsatisfactory state. This is a disgraceful monument to the present government. In other places there are needs equally great; Bay Fortune needs breakwater repairs; Naufrage harbour requires some expenditures to be made; Little Sands breakwater requires repairs, and there are various other places which might be named.

This year we find almost the same condition with regard to these estimates; we find a total vote of $229,000, and after you deduct $140,000 for wharf improvements and warehouses at Charlottetown you have only $89,000 left for three counties, of which the county of Kings receives only about $13,000. I consider that to be an unfair division of the amounts voted. Then we have the condition which exists at Souris East; $36,500 was voted for the breakwater there in 1925, when the constituency was represented by a Liberal. In 1926, when the county ceased to support the Liberal government and sent a representative to Ottawa who was a member of the opposition, that item of $36,500 was deleted from the estimates and has not been replaced. The need there is very great; the breakwater is in serious danger of 'breaking away and needs strengthening. A contract was let in 1925, but because of the illness of the subcontractor it was not carried out. The other evening I asked the minister for an explanation with regard to this vote for Souris East, and he gave me a suppositious answer of his own which did not meet the case at all. Now I would like the minister to tell the house why this vote was taken from the estimates. Recently we had a discussion with regard to an item for the Mahone Bay post office; that was a somewhat similar case, with the exception that the member who was able to have the Mahone Bay item struck out was lucky enough to secure another seat in the house and was therefore able to explain why the vote was struck out, and to take the responsibility for advising the minister to remove the amount from the estimates. This candidate was not lucky enough to secure another seat, and he is not here to make any admissions of that kind. The minister knows the facts, and I ask for some reasonable explanation. I do not want to leave the impression that discrimination is practised against the county because of the fact that it failed to elect a supporter of the government, but it will take an explanation on the part of the minister to avoid carrying away that idea.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: Mr. Chairman,
as the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Macdonald) has referred to the vote that has been given to the other county, in looking over the estimates I think I have just as much reason to complain this year as he has. I find that we had a wharf that was started last year, but, on account of the lateness of the season, the contract was not completed and there is a revote of $8,000 there. But aside from that revote, there is only $13,500

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-P.E.I.
in the total estimates for the county that I represent, so that Kings county has been just as leniently treated as Prince county.
The argument which he has advanced, that for years other counties received1 more, I do not think is well founded, because the repairs and the work carried on at Summerside last year were also the recommendations of the Duncan commission's report, the same as the work at Georgetown.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I did not
include those votes at all.


John Campbell Elliott: That is where you made
a mistake.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I think the hon. member, in speaking the other night, took the total vote for the other counties.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: No.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: If the recommendations of the royal commission should be eliminated from the total vote, as regards Kings county, then the same reasoning would apply to the other counties.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I eliminated them.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: That clears up
that point. I do not think it is wise on the hon. member's part to stress the complaint that his county has not been fairly dealt with. In looking over the estimates this year I find that Kings county has been very generously dealt with by the government, and, in fact, I feel that perhaps we are being discriminated against in .the total vote.
The harbour improvements that were put through last year for Summerside were greatly appreciated by the people there. I think it is only fair to the Minister of Public Works that I be permitted to read a letter from R. T. Holman Limited. They are a large firm there who handle the business of the port in connection with outward and inward freight. When a little vote is made for some improvements down in the maritime provinces, the cry is raised in different quarters of the Dominion that it has been made for political reasons. They say that it is just a gratuity that is being given to keep us in line, and suggestions of that kind are always brought forward from some section of the house. I think I should be permitted to read this letter to show how the people there appreciate the work that was done last year. This letter is dated May 2, 1928, and is
addressed to myself. In part, it reads as follows:
We thought possibly you might be interested in knowing just how the sheds and storages on railway wharf have turned out, how that we have had a trial with our first fertilizer steamer.
Everyone appears to be delighted with the layout, and there is not the slightest doubt but that cargoes can be discharged at a very much lower rate than heretofore.
I am confident that there is no place on the island that can now compete with us for economy in unloading. They have been running almost steadily at a cost of less than 50 cents per ton-of course, as they come near the end of the cargo it will be more expensive-but at present indications it leads us to suppose that the cost will not be over 60 cents per ton. When we were operating with the old pier it cost us well over 90 cents, so you will see that the expenditure that you were successful in getting for your county last year is actually money saved.
We are very glad to say that, due to these facilities and the cheapness of unloading, we now have a territory to supply extending from Tignish to Hunter River. Heretofore, this territory only extended from Tignish to Emerald. The farmers beyond Emerald are large consumers of fertilizer, hence it is a very fine thing for this port.
We believe the same thing will apply in the loading of potatoes. One of the representatives of the Potato Growers' Association assured us that this would be so. The whole layout is working just as we anticipated. The farmers are getting their supplies from the western warehouses promptly and without any holdup whatever, and they do not interfere in the slightest degree with the unloading of the ship. They have been loading cars at the rate of 40 per day on the railway, and this is an exceptionally good record.
This letter follows along the same lines, and shows the benefit that this construction work has been to the people of that community, and how it is appreciated by them.
I wish again to express the thanks of the people in that vicinity and from that constituency to the Minister of Public Works for the wharf that he gave us last year, and I hope that when the supplementary estimates are brought down this county will not be forgotten.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I asked the minister a question but I have not received an answer. I think we should have some explanation from him in regard to this vote.


John Campbell Elliott: Mr. Chairman, my hon.
friend seems to insist upon having another answer, not merely an answer. I did give him an answer the other evening.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Simply a
supposition.


John Campbell Elliott: I am going to call my
hon. friend's attention to the argument that he has made: I think perhaps that is the best
3120	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-P.E.I.
answer that I can give him. He speaks of $89,000 as the expenditure made in the province this year, apart from the expenditure at Charlottetown. He refers to that as being an expenditure in three ridings. I ask my hon. friend if he thinks there are only three representatives from the province of Prince Edward Island, and if he thinks it is a fair thing to divide the expenditure there by three, in order to ascertain what each member should be entitled to. I mention that just to impress upon the committee the idea of my hon. friend with regard to fair treatment.
I point out the further fact that last year $54,625 was spent on building a warehouse at Georgetown, in the riding of my hon. friend. He says that was recommended by the Duncan commission. It is true that this warehouse' serves other portions of the province but it serves a riding represented by my hon. friend more than it serves any other part of the province.
I just want to call my hon. friend's attention to the discrimination which he suffered last year. In the province of Prince Edward Island the expenditures of this department for all purposes were $156,927.15. This was for the various services, including warehouses. I want the members of the committee to bear that in mind; $156,927.15 for the ridings represented by the four members from Prince Edward Island. A quarter of that amount is $39,231. The expenditure in the riding represented by my hon. friend, who is complaining so bitterly of discrimination for political reasons, was $55,278. That is, he received in his riding over $16,000 more than the average of the total expenditures for the four ridings. That is what he is complaining about. All I have to say to my hon. friend is this, that in view of what I have listened to from him, I do not expect to receive even fair criticism of the expenditure in his riding or in his province and that is not what I am looking for. But in spite of the fact that he indulges in criticism that I think is not justified by the figures, the province of Prince Edward Island, including all the ridings, will receive the best and fairest treatment of which this department is capable and it will get that in spite of the attitude which my hon. friend takes.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: When the
minister starts to read a lecture to members of the house on fair play and fair treatment, I should like to point out that I have endeavoured as well as I can to be fair in this matter, and I thought that dealing with the local works of the county in connection

with these estimates was the only fair way. The warehouse at Georgetown does not serve Kings county only; it is not placed there for Kings county only. The people of Tigniph and the western end of Queens county, as the other hon. members for the province will verify, ship their potatoes through Georgetown warehouse. When in the late fall the harbour of Charlottetown is closed up Georgetown is the only outlet in the province. Prior to the 14th day of January last year we were loading steamers in Georgetown and the potatoes for those steamers were coming from Prince and Queens counties. The warehouse at Georgetown is not a county affair at all; it is a provincial affair. But supposing we take the minister's present attitude, what do1 we find? I am eliminating $140,000 for similar purposes in Charlottetown, Queens county, and at present discussing only the $89,000 voted for the province covering the ordinary votes and not the special vote that was recommended by the royal commission. The minister has no right under these circumstances to charge me, and if he knew what he was talking about he would not charge me, with unfair criticism. I know the other members from Prince Edward Island will bear out what I am saying. As regards dividing the total of these items by four, the other members for the province will agree with me that there is more need for this work in the county of Kings than in all the others, regardless of the fact that Queens county is represented by two members. No one who knows the facts will dispute that, especially in view of the fact that Kings county has open harbours late in the season and has greater needs than the counties which have harbours which are closed in November or the early part of December.
The main point on which I questioned the minister he has not touched at all. I asked him about the Souris breakwater, a work that is in imminent danger of destruction for lack of repair, a work which needs strengthening and supporting and which, if a heavy storm occur, will be carried out and do great damage to Souris harbour. I asked why that vote was deleted two years ago and not reinserted in the estimates. The minister has ignored the question entirely.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the item carry?
Mr. MACDONALD (Kings). I have a right to some answer from the minister. I have asked a plain question about the appropriation for the Souris breakwater.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the item carry?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-P.E.I.


John Campbell Elliott: Carried.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: The item
will not carry. We will not be totally ignored in that way. If the minister is going to treat the committee with contempt, I will promise him that he will not get his estimates through even if I have to speak all day myself. I will ask the minister this:	Will he answer
or will he not?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think the minister would do well at least to give the hon. member an answer to his question regarding the Souris breakwater. It is a matter that is undoubtedly important to the hon. gentleman and those whom he represents. It is one of the first principles of parliament that hon. members shall have the privilege of querying the minister or the government regarding matters of interest to their districts. There is no disposition on this side of the house to treat the minister unfairly. He cannot expect, with this class of business, that everyone is going to be satisfied and heap encomiums upon his head every time a vote is passed favourable to the particular riding represented. On the other hand we are at least entitled to receive fair and frank answers to the questions that are asked.


John Campbell Elliott: I can assure the hon.
member for Vancouver Centre that I am not expecting or waiting for any encomiums or anything of the kind. I thought I had given the explanation which is the only explanation that I can give with regard to the Souris breakwater. A contract was let some time ago. The matter was considered important; it was urged that the breakwater was in danger of being washed out and that it was in need of repair. Tenders were called for and a contract was let but the contractor was unable to carry out the contract; he fell down completely on it. I was under the impression that the tender was above the estimate but I am advised that it was not. The appropriation lapsed and the work was not proceeded with. It was not the fault of the government that the contractor failed to carry out .the contract. When -the next estimates were being prepared, I assumed that this particular riding had other things that seemed more important, especially at Georgetown where it was claimed the greatest need of the riding and that portion of the province was a potato warehouse, and money was expended in other quarters where it was thought more necessary. If the breakwater was in bad condition, it is quite certain that it has not improved since that time. But the gov-56103-198
ernment assumes the full responsibility for seeing that the Duncan report is carried out and if anything happens to that breakwater before it is improved, that will be the responsibility of the government.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: The Duncan commission made no recommendation with regard to the breakwater about which the minister is speaking. The simple question I asked was:	Why was the contract not renewed the next year or an item inserted in the estimates either last year or this year to carry out the work? Any reasonable person will understand that if the engineer's report in 1925 was that the breakwater must be strengthened and if nothing has been done since then, it is going to deteriorate still further every year so that a greater expenditure will be necessary. In fact, I am advised that because the work was not done in 1925 or 1926 or 1927, it will require a very much larger expenditure now to put it in anything like reasonable condition, and as time goes on, if the work is not done, the expenditure will be very much greater. Why the government has refused to provide for this work in the last two years is a question I have been continuously putting to the minister but he sidesteps and evades it entirely.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I happen to know a good deal about this contract and the Souris breakwater, and I wish to bear out everything that has been said both by the minister and by the mon. member for Kings. The contractor for this work lived in my home town. His tender was accepted, and in good faith he entered into a contract with the government to do the work, but owing to circumstances over which he had no control, and which were very unfortunate both for himself and the people of that community, he was not able to go on with the contract. I think perhaps the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) is acquainted with the circumstances. With the contractor there was associated a gentleman from the mainland, by the name of Brown, and a large number of cars of stone were started rolling from the quarries to be transported to Souris. Unfortunately this man Brown lost his health and is now an invalid, and in addition, the barge which was to carry the stone over met with a mishap as it was going off the slips, and after repeated attempts to carry on the work the contractors had finally to abandon the contract, and lose a great deal of money as a result. Just why another contract was not entered into I do not know, but I suppose it is largely because Georgetown was chosen

3122	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-P.EJ.
as the site for the warehouse in place of Souris. I am quite willing to support the request of my hon. friend from Kings for some repairs to Souris breakwater this year. I have been asked to do so by parties from his own county, and the minister will bear me out that I have brought these representations to his attention.


John Campbell Elliott: Hear, hear.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I think every
member from the island is anxious to see that attention be given to this work if it possibly can be done. I have also received representations from that county in regard to other works which I have been asked to bring to the attention of the minister, and which I have done along with the other members from the island. Being fully acquainted with the circumstances under which the contract was let, and knowing the difficulties of the contractor and the money he lost, I thought it only fair that I should make this statement. The contractor had to put up his cheque with the department, and he lost the greater part of it. He attempted to carry out the work in good faith, but through no fault of his, and owing entirely to circumstances over which he had no control, he was not able to carry on the work.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I quite
agree with what the hon. member for Prince has said. I know all the facts with regard to the contract myself, and while his statement is absolutely correct all the way through, it does not answer the question I want answered, and that is, why was the amount not revoted in 1926 or 1927?


John Campbell Elliott: 
John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Apparently
I can get no answer from the minister to the question I have been asking. He will not give me a reason. What he states as a reason is no reason whatever, and he knows it. He knows further that in the main estimates of last year the vote for the Georgetown warehouse was not in at all, and $1,000 was voted for Kings county. Let me vary my question. Does the minister propose to do anything for Souris breakwater this year in the supplementary estimates?


Mr. CANTLEY:: I would like to point out to the minister what I fancy he no doubt knows, that this is an important work. The government considered it important enough to include $36,000 in the estimates for it two years ago, but the work has not been gone on with. The minister tells parliament that if the work goes to destruction, that is a matter entirely for the government. He -would lead the house to believe that he and his department will be the only losers if the work goes to destruction, that the country is not going to suffer anything, that the only sufferer will be the government or the reputation of the government. I would remind the minister that that is not quite the position of affairs. If $36,000 -were needed for this work two years ago, the situation has not improved in the interval. The work is an important one. Is it to be allowed to go to utter destruction, or are we to wait and then expend $50,000 on it next year because the government is not expending a proper amount on it to-day? That is the situation, and some more satisfactory answer is due than we have yet received from the minister.


John Campbell Elliott: I want to satisfy my hon. friends, and I assure them that I want to do justice to Prince Edward Island.


Thomas Cantley: Restore the vote then.


John Campbell Elliott: But if my hon. friends
think that I can give them a promise now that this work will be provided for in the supplementary estimates, I cannot do it, and I hope my hon. friends are sufficiently interested in that section of the country not to pursue the matter to the extent of making it more difficult for the department to do what is its duty to that riding. I have assured my hon. friends that it is the intention of the

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.B.
department to endeavour as far as it possibly can to hand out justice to the various parts of the province of Prince Edward Island, including the county of Kings. I cannot go any further than that.


Thomas Cantley: The minister is not
giving me very much evidence of that intention just now. There is no doubt that everybody in connection with the Public Works department who has any knowledge of the situation at Souris knows that the breakwater is going to destruction. The government were so convinced of it themselves two years ago that they put an item of $36,000 in the estimates, and awarded a contract for the work. That work was not proceeded with, and the explanation given by the minister does not explain the matter at all. If the contract was awarded I presume the contractors came under certain obligations, and that some persons guaranteed their fulfiment. If the contractor failed' to carry it out, why did not the minister insist on the bondsmen completing the work? If this work was necessary two years ago-and it was-it is certainly more necessary to-day. It will not do for the minister to tell us on this side of the house that he is the man who is taking the loss. He is not. The country is bearing the loss, and he is responsible for that loss.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, in order not to take up the time of the house with this item, I think we may assume from the minister's last statement that he is at least giving the matter full consideration, and will have an amount in the supplementary estimates for the purpose of restoring the wharf and breakwater.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
John Frederick Johnston: Item 136-harbours
and rivers-New Brunswick, $253,800.
Blue Cove-breakwater, $21,600.


Mr. JONES:: In what county is Blue Cove, and what is the condition of the work at the present time?


John Campbell Elliott: Blue Cove is in Gloucester county. To March 31 there was expended $1,337.


Thomas Cantley: By what rule is the minister proceeding with the breakwater at Blue Cove and neglecting the breakwater at Souris?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Surely we are through
with Souris.


Thomas Cantley: Oh no. The total amount for Prince Edward Island is $229,800; for New Brunswick $253,800. Why does he proceed with repairs of the one breakwater and not of the other?


Mr. YENIOT:: It is not repairs, it is a
new work.


Thomas Cantley: I do not care whether it be repairs or a new structure. If an important long established breakwater needs repairs, it is a more urgent matter than the construction of a new breakwater. What is the explanation?


John Campbell Elliott: This is work now under
contract.


Thomas Cantley: The other was under contract as well.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes; but this contract is being carried out. That is the difference between the two.


Thomas Cantley: For the other breakwater the contractor fell down. Why did he not compel the bondsmen to carry out the.-contract?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Burnt Church-wharf repairs, $7,000.
George Burpee Jones: In what county is Burnt
Church?


John Campbell Elliott: Northumberland.


George Burpee Jones: Is this new work or repairs?


John Campbell Elliott: This is to renew the
decayed superstructure of the plank-covered section 941 feet long.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Escuminac-breakwater extensions, $52,000.
George Burpee Jones: How much has been expended?


John Campbell Elliott: $393 under fhe present
contract.


George Burpee Jones: How much was expended before?


John Campbell Elliott: I have not any information except with regard to the expenditures for the work that is at present going on. An order in council was passed on March 2, 1928, accepting the tender of Ashley A. Colter of Fredericton, for the construction of a breakwater extension at Escuminac, at the unit prices quoted therein, entailing an expenditure of about $61,729. That was the lowest of four tenders received after advertisement.


Mr. GARDINER:: What is the extent and. the nature of the traffic?
Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Campbell Elliott: The engineer reports:
The work is required for the protection of the many boats fishing off this exposed coast, and for landing supplies and shipments of fish and farm produce, the locality being 32 miles from the nearest railway station.
Forty to fifty boats fish for salmon with drift nets oil Escuminac, the annual value of their catch being about $90,000, and some /0 boats fish lobsters and herring, of which the catch is valued at about $110,000. Cod and mackerel are abundant, but on account of the lack of shelter and landing facilities, this fishing is not actively engaged in. It is most probable that on completion of the proposed harbour, freezers and factories will be built near the site, and that the increased annual value of the fish products will approximate the total cost of the work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Green Point-breakwater, $44,000.
George Burpee Jones: In what county is Green
Point?


Mr. SPENCE (Parkdale):: Is there any
-point along this shore where there is not a breakwater or a wharf? I should think there is very little of the shore line free of one or other of these works.
' Mr. ELLIOTT:	It is similar in some
respects to the beautiful city of which my hon. friend is a representative. It is not as completely covered with harbour works, but there is an attempt to follow that example.


David Spence: There must be wharves or breakwaters to accommodate every little village and town and almost every individual.


George Burpee Jones: What is the county, and the expenditure?


John Campbell Elliott: Gloucester county; $1,190.


George Burpee Jones: Is the contract let? If so,
who is the contractor?


John Campbell Elliott: The contract is let to the E. F. Powers Construction Company at $39,968. They were the lowest of four tenderers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers generally-repairs and improvements, $45,000.
Mr. BELL (St. John):: What are the items making up this $45,000?


John Campbell Elliott: The only information I
can give is to state what amounts have been expended in previous years. Last year the total was $36,882; 1926, $23,351; 1925, $25,577; 1924, $34,049.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Leonardville-wharf repairs, $7,000.
Clarence Joseph Veniot: What county is that?


Mr. GRIMMER:: As this is the only item under which I can discuss the county of Charlotte I wish to direct the attention of the minister to a few appropriations which, in my opinion, should be made in the interests of people who, in one portion of my county, have been very loyal to this government. May I say that not one dollar appears for an}' new public works in aid of the fishing industry in Charlotte county, which is one of the best fishing areas on the Atlantic coast. There is no question about the need for this amount which is here provided for wharf repairs; it is absolutely necessary. No doubt it is needed to maintain the wharves in proper shape. But I would remind the government that during the seven years they have been in power not one dollar has been appropriated for any new public works in Charlotte county, with a single exception. That was in the year 1924 when the government themselves decided that, in the interests of the fishing industry in that part of the country, there should be a breakwater at Harrington cove. After looking over other propositions in the island they came to the conclusion that it was most important that a breakwater should be constructed at Harrington cove in the island of Grand! Manan. Engineers were sent down for the purpose and plans and specifications were made and submitted to the department. The department approved the plans and an appropriation was included in the estimates for 1925. The people were led to believe that their wants in this regard *would be satisfied at once. But for reasons best known to the government the location of that breakwater was changed overnight to Ingalls Head on the island of Grand Manan. The only reason which the people there could conceive for the change was the fact that a provincial election was about to take place in that year, 1925, and there were some rumours of discord within the ranks of the Liberal party. That was the only fact which they could think of that would influence the government in deciding upon the change. I would remind the government that in 1921, and again in 1925, the county was invaded by workers of the Liberal party, who *went to Grand Manan, Campobello and Deer island, which is a part of the county of Charlotte and which extends over a considerable coastline, and promised on every occasion that the needs of the people of these islands would be considered so far as breakwaters and wharves are concerned. There are few
*

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
breakwaters along that coastline, and these Liberal party workers promised the people there that everything necessary would be done to assist them in the industry in which they were engaged. These workers took occasion at that time to inform the people that they had been neglected from 1911 to 1921, although I wish to say to the government today that there were then in the Dominion of Canada no people more loyal to the Liberal party. They expected nothing, asked nothing and received nothing during the war period. As I say, the workers of the Liberal party went down there in 1921 and told those people that they had been neglected by the Union government which, they declared, was neither more or less than a Conservative government. And they promised the people definitely that if the Liberal party were returned to power certain public works would1 be started on Grand Manan. I repeat, these people were loyal to the Liberal party, as they always have been. I plead therefore in this house on their behalf, and I urge my hon. friends opposite to do something for them; the party are under an obligation to these people to fulfil some of the promises made them during the election of 1921 and again in 1925. I also urge that something be done, on the ground that these people are entitled to necessary works to enable them to carry on their enterprise.
In years gone by the island of Grand Manan and Deer island were prosperous fishing centres; there were thriving fishing villages on the coastline. To-day, however, they are in many cases in a dilapidated condition by reason of the fact that the younger men have left the island and gone to the United States where they can carry on their industry under more favourable conditions. If the government intend to enable these people to carry on their industry, then they are entitled to some consideration. I say, they are entitled to consideration because the industry needs it; but they are also entitled to consideration because of the promises made to the people on behalf of the government. Those promises should be fulfilled, and1 I trust that the minister will pay some attention to these representations. Let him find out for himself what the conditions are in that part of the country.
A breakwater was to be constructed at Harrington's cove but, as I say, the location was changed to Ingalls Head. It was also understood that a breakwater addition was to be made at Woodward cove, and there was to be a breakwater at Castalia, where there was a magnificent foundation for such a structure. Moreover, this is one of the
plaoes where it was definitely promised the people that a breakwater would be constructed. There was also to be an addition to the breakwater at N orth Head. These undertakings are all on file in the Department of Public Works. The engineers were sent down there previous to the elections to which I have referred, and they made certain recommendations. Their findings are on file and these works should be carried out in the interests of the people. I therefore strongly urge the government to give them proper consideration.
While I am on this subject I desire to call the attention of the minister to the fact that White Head, which is a part of the island of Grand Manan, is separated from the island and lies out in the Atlantic. There is a wharf there but the conditions are such that the fishermen can enter the harbour only at high tide. The people of the island desire that a little dredging be done there so that the fishermen may have ample opportunity to moor their boats and, in the event of a storm, to be protected from the winds and weather of the Bay of Fundy and of the Atlantic. I sincerely hope the minister will consider this point. Dredging at that wharf would cost little money and, as I say, it would afford the fishermen an ample opportunity to make a safe mooring. The same remark applies to Deer island, where a day or two of dredging would give splendid accommodation. At present in the event of storms the fishermen are obliged to moor their boats two miles from home, and this makes it very hard for the fishermen. At Stewart Town, at the upper end of Deer island, a wharf or a breakwater was promised years ago, but the people have never been given it. Necessarily, therefore, they are anxious that something shall be done. On behalf of the people of the island, who gave their generous support to the government, I plead that their claims be recognized and that steps be taken to improve the conditions under which the fishing industry is carried on.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Point Sapin-breakwater extension, $11,000.
Mr. JONES; Where is this point-in what county?
John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend is not as
well up in his geography in regard to this item as he is in regard to the last three. He did not have to ask any question at all about them. This is in Kent.
Supply-Harbours and Rivers


George Burpee Jones: The minister says that I am not as well up in my geography in regard to this place as I am so far as the last three are concerned. May I point out that, as regards those three, one was in Charlotte and the other in St. John, Vhose representatives are here. It seems that about the only expenditures are in the Postmaster General's county and in Northumberland. I do not think the Postmaster General has been very generous to the rest of his colleagues in the province; some of them have no expenditures at all. As regards the constituency of Royal, comprising the districts of Kings and Queens, there are more wharves in that constituency than in any other in the province and there are only two small amounts included in the whole estimate for New Brunswick, apart from the expenditure to which I have referred. Those items amount to $3,700. It looks like discrimination to me.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Simon-wharf, $26,000.
George Burpee Jones: In what constituency is St. Simon?


John Campbell Elliott: It is in Gloucester county. Item agreed to.
Traeadie harbour-breastworks and breakwaters, $20,000.


George Burpee Jones: What county is this in? I would like to have some explanation as to these expenditures, as to whether or not this contract has been let and what amount has been expended?


John Campbell Elliott: Traeadie harbour is in Gloucester county and this amount of $20,000 is a revote as my hon. friend will see if he looks at the estimates. It is to complete work already under contract.


George Burpee Jones: How much has been expended?


John Campbell Elliott: Only $124.


George Burpee Jones: Last year?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, last year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Quebec-Beaupre-dredging-Ste. Anne Paper Company to contribute one-third of cost, $122,-
000.
Mr. POULIOT:: In what county is this?


Mr. LUCAS:: This is a rather large vote, and I would ask the minister to explain it.


John Campbell Elliott: It is required to provide for the department's share of the balance necessary to complete the dredging contract
[Mr. Elliott. 1
with the Canadian Dredging Company Limited, which contract has been already let. The contract is for dredging a 14-foot channel 4,060 feet long by ISO feet wide at the upper end and tapering to 200 feet wide at the outer end with a turning basin 14 feet deep at the site of the new wharf of the St. Anne Paper Company.


William Thomas Lucas: What is the total amount of the contract?


John Campbell Elliott: The contract is for $218,420.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Is it the policy of the government to do work of this kind for private companies?


John Campbell Elliott: Where a company is carrying on a business which promises to be extensive, and where they build wharves and make an expenditure of a million dollars it is the policy of the government to do dredging in order to provide access to those wharves.


Mr. SHORT:: It depends a good deal upon which province the expenditure is made in.


John Campbell Elliott: I think that is the policy in all the provinces, as my hon. friend will find if he follows the estimates through.


Mr. EVANS:: Does the expenditure have to be a million dollars or over by the private company before the government will help?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not recall that we have aided any company where the expenditure was under a million dollars, but if it were a concern which promised to create wealth and develop business in that particular community, personally I would feel like looking very carefully into the matter to see what could be done to encourage such development.


John Evans: Is this work done specifically for a private company or is this a public waterway?


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend will understand that this is on the St. Lawrence.


Robert Gardiner: Did the company build the wharves at their own expense?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: Then what would be the position of any other person who desired to use these wharves?


John Campbell Elliott: We have an agreement with the company by which they allow the public to use the wharves.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Robert Gardiner: Will the public be re quired to pay any charges?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cap Chat-wharf extension and repairs, $30,-
000.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister explain this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount of $30,000 is required to complete the contract for the construction of an extension to this wharf 500 feet in length by a width of 25 feet at the top and having an average height of 20 feet, to be built in close faced square timber ballasted with stone, covered with a 3-inch flooring and provided with fenders spaced 8 feet apart; and to carry out minor repairs to the approach.


George Reginald Geary: Was this contract let by tender?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: What will be the total length of the wharf when it is completed?


John Campbell Elliott: This extension is 500 feet in length, and I am advised that the total length will be probably 1,000 feet.


Robert Gardiner: What is the nature of the business carried on there?


John Campbell Elliott: Export pulpwood. I think my hon. friend asked if this contract had been let by tender. It was; this was the lowest of eight tenders received after advertisements had been issued.


George Reginald Geary: With regard to these items of $1,000, $5,000 and so on scattered throughout the estimates, would the minister say whether that work is carried on under contract or whether it is done by day labour?


John Campbell Elliott: The work under the small votes is usually done by day labour.


George Reginald Geary: Under the control of the department?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cap de la Madeleine-wharf extension and repairs, $58,500.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister explain this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required to complete a contract for the construction of a cribwork extension to the downstream end of headblock 200 feet long by 90 feet wide. This is necessary to provide for the constantly increasing traffic. The present wharfage is entirely inadequate for the growing population, which has increased from 2,101 in 1911 to 6,738 under the 1921 census.


Robert Gardiner: Is the business increasing in proportion to the increase in population?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cap Rouge-wharf and dredging-the St. Regis Paper Company of Canada to contribute one-third of cost, $30,000.
William Thomas Lucas: I see this is another paper company. Will the minister explain this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This is a revote; this amount was voted last year. The company had not advanced sufficiently for the department to feel justified in letting the contract, so no contract was let, but it is expected it will be. This wharf and dredging is required in connection with the large pulp and paper mill to be commenced here by the St. Regis Paper Company in 1928, which will employ about 2,000 men, and is expected to increase the population of Cap Rouge from 500 to over 10,000, and contribute a large revenue to the Canadian National Railways.


William Thomas Lucas: What is the estimated cost?


John Campbell Elliott: In the vicinity of $277,000.


Robert Gardiner: Will this amount complete it?


John Campbell Elliott: It is just beginning it.


John Evans: Is this not purely a provincial rather than a national matter? It seems to me that if a paper company in one of the western provinces needed a waterway they would have to provide it, or the province itself would have to do it.


Mr. BANCROFT:: That is not the case in Manitoba. I have in mind a lumber company at Black island in lake Winnipeg which built a wharf of their own. The government has done the dredging to that wharf, and that makes an extra harbour on the lake which is very valuable to the fishermen and to those carrying on shipping there. They have this additional harbour of refuge in case of need, and in that way it is a public service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Crabtree Mills-reconstruction of ice breaker, $2,500.
Thomas Cantley: What does that refer to?


John Campbell Elliott: This is a balance due,
under contract, for the reconstruction of a
Supply-Harbours and Rivers

cribwork and concrete icebreaker in the Quareau river near the village of Crabtree Mills. This icebreaker was damaged in the spring of 1927.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Doucet's landing (Ste. Angele de Laval) - wharf reconstruction, $93,000.
Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Is that where the late member landed with the Margaret?


John Campbell Elliott: This work is under contract, and the amount is needed to complete the reconstruction and enlargement of the headblock of the Canadian National railway wharf. It is under contract with Messrs. Farley & Grant.


George Reginald Geary: Do the Canadian National Railways own that wharf?


John Campbell Elliott: It has been turned over to the government, who now own it. It was formerly a railway wharf.


George Reginald Geary: How many railway wharves has the department taken, over?


John Campbell Elliott: Four have been taken
over, and three are yet under consideration.


George Reginald Geary: Is that a new policy?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


George Reginald Geary: I am just wondering how
that works out. When we consider the railway estimates the Canadian National Railways would normally have this expenditure.


John Campbell Elliott: These were wharves that were owned' by the Intercolonial railway. Negotiations have been pending for some time between the two departments for the taking over of these wharves, and in this and three other cases they have been completed. It was thought it was in the public interest to do this.


Robert Gardiner: Has the department asked that these wharves be taken over?


John Campbell Elliott: Not this department.


Robert Gardiner: Did the Railway department approach your department to take them over?


John Campbell Elliott: On the request of the
Railway department.


Robert Gardiner: I suppose the railway
uses them now.


John Campbell Elliott: Oh, yes, they are public wharves.


George Reginald Geary: They were not getting rid of a very good wharf.


John Campbell Elliott: It is not usually the best wharves that they are most anxious to get rid of.


Thomas Cantley: Mr. Chairman, will the
minister be good enough to tell us the policy of the government in regard to these wharves? I have asked for this information on several occasions. First, I had a denial that they were taking over the wharves; then there was an admission that they were taking over one wharf, and then another one. In the present case we have one in the province of Quebec.


John Campbell Elliott: Where there is a wharf that will serve the public for general purposes, the policy of the department is to take it over.


Thomas Cantley: For fifty and indeed for sixty _ years the policy was that the Intercolonial railway bulilt, maintained, repaired and controlled its own wharves. Will the minister be good enough to tell us the reason for the departure from that procedure?


John Campbell Elliott: The argument was that if we were furnishing wharves for the use of the public generally there was no reason why they should not be maintained by the government, and serve the purpose of the railway as well.


Thomas Cantley: That is hardly answering the question. Railway wharves are railway wharves; they are not public wharves. There are very few railway wharves that could be termed public wharves, in any sense of the term. That point was raised in connection with the wharves at Pictou. They are not public wharves, they are absolutely and entirely railway wharves, always were, and always will be. The real effect of this will be that the Railway department will be relieved of the cost of maintaining and repairing these wharves, and the Public Works department, or the country as a whole, is going to take over a burden that was formerly borne by the railway. I am sorry that the Minister of Railways is not here, his department is to be relieved of that amount, and his accounts will consequently make a better showing than they otherwise would. If this is the correct thing to do in connection with this department, there are other departments that might be relieved as well.


John Campbell Elliott: I think I am correct in saying that all the wharves in this category were formerly wharves of the government railway, and our instructions are that they are now being used for general purposes.


Thomas Cantley: No, no.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Campbell Elliott: And are being taken over for that reason.


Thomas Cantley: That story will not wash at all. I have said already, and I repeat, that the wharves to which I have referred are railway wharves pure and simple, not public wharves. Any statement to the contrary is not correct, and I think the minister should admit that. The question of their being public wharves falls to the ground^ The point is that you are relieving the railway of a certain amount of work and expense formerly borne by the Intercolonial, indeed from the inception of the road fifty-eight or sixty years ago down to the present time. Why has there been a change of policy?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not know that I can say to my hon. friend that there is any change of policy. That I think has been the policy decided upon for some time past.


Thomas Cantley: No, only this year.


John Campbell Elliott: Whether or not they were formerly used entirely by the railway, they will in the future be public wharves and be capable of being used for any purpose for which the public may require to use a wharf. There is no doubt about what my hon. friend says. The railway department is being relieved of a certain liability which it had before, but we are getting the wharf.


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: In view of the fact that the railway is being relieved of the upkeep of its property which is absolutely necessary for conducting its business, has the minister made any arrangement with the Minister of Railway for a reduction in freight rates? If not, I think this is something that should be considered.


John Campbell Elliott: There is no special arrangement in connection with these particular wharves. My hon. friend is aware of certain reductions that have been made in freight rates.


William Anderson Black: That has nothing
to do with this.


John Campbell Elliott: No, but of course it takes revenue from the railway and perhaps is one reason why it is entitled to some consideration.


Robert Gardiner: Is the effect of this
policy not likely to be that the deficit which we have on the eastern section of the Canadian National Railways will be much reduced by what the department has taken over in connection with these particular works, and will it not therefore be possible to reduce the rates?


John Campbell Elliott: This will affect the rates
very slightly, we think.


William Anderson Black: Let us have the
benefit of whatever reduction there may be, whether it be large or small. As I have said before, the upkeep of these wharves is absolutely necessary. If you cut them off, you might as well cut off a freight shed anywhere along the line. If you cut off these freight sheds, the railway cannot carry on its business. If the Public Works department is to relieve the railway of all liabilities in connection with that property, surely we are entitled to a reduction in rates comparable with the cost of the upkeep?


John Campbell Elliott: There is no thought of
taking over the railway wharves at Halifax.


Thomas Cantley: The matter is becoming
more confused all the time. We were told not very long ago that the intention was to take over all the wharves in the Maritime provinces. The minister refers to these wharves being in the future public wharves. The mere taking of them over by his department does not make them public wharves, does not change them in any way so that the public can use them where they have not been using them before. As I have already stated, the two wharves at Pictou are simply railway wharves and they cannot be used for any other purpose. They are just as necessary foi the railway as is the track, as are the railway sidings, as are the approaches to the railway property. They are indeed: approaches to terminals of the railway property. Coastal boats come in and use them to embark freight and passengers which come over the road. These same boats land freight and passengers which in turn go over the road. All freight handled by the railway is and can be handled only over these wharves, on the freight sheds thereon and no other work is or can be done over them. The real fact, I fancy, is that the president of the road, Sir Henry Thornton, has been shrewd enough to conceive the idea of unloading these wharves on to the Public Works department and so escape the cost of upkeep and maintenance. Let the minister be frank about the matter and tell us whether or not that is true.


John Campbell Elliott: What has taken place is
this. Requests were made by the Department of Railways in regard to a number of wharves and a list was furnished. The contention was that they were wharves which should be taken over and maintained at government expense. The main reason that was urged for that course was that they were wharves that could be used as public wharves.


Thomas Cantley: No, absolutely no.
Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Campbell Elliott: There may be exceptions.
My hon. friend states something of his own knowledge and I am not in a position to contradict him. All I can say is that we are only taking over wharves which our engineers, after going over the list, said could properly be taken over as public wharves to be used by the public.


Thomas Cantley: The minister has in the
estimates, and quite properly so, a sum of $25,000 to repair these railway wharves at Pietou. Those wharves should have been repaired years ago by the Railway department. They allowed them to deteriorate until they are and have been for two or three years actually dangerous to shipping and the public who use them. Now the Department of Public Works are taking them over and are relieving the railway of that amount of expense. All I want to ask of the minister is to be frank enough to say that is being done.


John Campbell Elliott: I have no doubt that is
correct.


Thomas Cantley: Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ellis bay harbour improvements, $300,000.
Jean-François Pouliot: In what county is Ellis
Bay? Is it a big place?


John Campbell Elliott: It is in Charlevoix-
Saguenay.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is this for?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount of $300,000
is required towards the completion of the contract with the Canadian Dredging Company, Limited, for dredging a channel 3,950 feet long by 300 feet wide leading to the Anticosti corporation wharves, deepening the berths at the company's commercial wharf and dredging a turning basin, all to a depth of 20 feet below low water. The Anticosti corporation has under way at the present time a scheme for the development of this harbour which involves the expenditure of approximately $2,500,000 exclusive of railroads, dwellings and buildings which it will be necessary to construct on the island. Construction work was commenced by this company on December 1, 1926, and two ship berths were ready on June 1, 1927, new commercial wharf on July 31, and harbour works completely finished by December 1, 1927.


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
John Campbell Elliott: It is a big construction
work, a large development, and the expenditure already has been large.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How much has parliament voted and how much has been expended already? I see there was a vote of $150,000 last year.


John Campbell Elliott: The amount expected to
complete will be $525,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Can the minister give us
a little fuller justification. I think he catches my point.


John Campbell Elliott: I caught my hon. friend's
point, and I must say that it is one that caused me a good deal of concern a year ago.


Mr. BENNETT:: Is this on Anticosti
island?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. When the company [DOT]
started on this work they interviewed the government to see whether or not the government would feel disposed to assist them, by way of dredging, in getting to their wharves. This is not a work which would have been necessary if the wharf were in the main channel of the river, but it is necessary in order that they can get from the main channel to their pulp mill. As a result of this development, 5,000 people are expected to be furnished with employment. It will be a large concern if the expectations of the company are at all fulfilled, and it is thought that in view of the revenue the government will eventually derive, it is a good business proposition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What will the government ever get out of it?


John Campbell Elliott: All the shipping that takes place will enure to the benefit of the government.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: How?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There will be no harbour or wharfage dues.


John Campbell Elliott: No.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Henry Herbert Stevens: What, then, can the government get out of the shipping?


John Campbell Elliott: Everything that enters into a development of this kind increases the business of the country. We get customs revenue, for instance, and excise revenue.


Henry Herbert Stevens: For gin, or what?


Mr. FANSHER (Lambton):: I should
think that the provincial government will benefit most from the sale of timber limits, and so forth, and I would say that the expenditure should be largely undertaken by the provincial government.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not know whether
my hon. friend was in before when this matter was being discussed. It is not a work that the provincial government would be expected to carry on; it is not done by provincial governments, so far as I know, in any province. This is to give encouragement to an industry that is coming to the country, investing a large amount of money and engaging a large amount of labour, and expecting a large output of its products.


Edward Joseph Garland: Who owns
Anticosti Island now?


John Campbell Elliott: It is the Anticosti Corporation.


Edward Joseph Garland: Who are
the directors or the controlling influence in the Anticosti Corporation?


John Campbell Elliott: I could not say.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am informed, perhaps not on reliable authority, but if I am wrong, I should like to be corrected, that this corporation is mostly composed of Americans and that the island of Anticosti belongs altogether to private individuals. Is that true?


John Campbell Elliott: I have no doubt that in
practically all these large companies there is a number of Americans. I think this is an amalgamation of three companies; it is a large concern, but I could not give the personnel.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was a moment ago
drawing attention to the only possible justification for an expenditure of this kind, and unfortunately this does not apparently come within that classification. Where there is a public channel, the channel of a river, stream or bay or harbour, the government is entitled out of the public revenue to put
that channel into shape and maintain it in shape so as to serve a community. But here we have a private corporation owning, as I understand, the whole island of Anticosti- the sole owner of the island, I believerputting in a large industrial plant. We all welcome the establishment of industries; there is no question about that, but in the erection of this plant the company is building wharves, pulp mills and such like, and we are asked to spend $500,000 merely to dredge out from the navigation channel to the private wharves of the company or to the pulp mill, as the case might be. I think that work should be done by the company itself. If there is any part of the construction that is absolutely essential, it is the dredging to the company's own wharves, and certainly they ought to do that work out of their own funds. I understand that there is another item somewhat similar to this in this same vote, where we are asked to vote $100,000 for Manicouagan river. In that case the company is paying one-half of the cost of the work. Is that not so?


John Campbell Elliott: One-third.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, a portion of the
cost, one-third; and I say that this company on Anticosti Island ought to pay its share of this work. Personally, in the absence of some extraordinary circumstance, I think they ought to pay the whole cost, and certainly the minister has not yet given us any justification for an expenditure of $500,000 for the benefit of this one company. As regards possible revenue to the government, the only revenue there will be will come from the fact of people living in the country-that is all, an indirect benefit.


Edward Joseph Garland: Income tax,
perhaps.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let us hope there will
be; we hope the company will be successful. But there will be no such thing as harbour or wharfage dues. There is nothing coming to the public from this improvement to navigation, I assume that nothing can be done to stop the contract; it is already let, and the work is going on. All we can do is to call attention to the matter, and certainly offer our criticism of this method of procedure. There is another point. The original vote was for $150,000. I do not know whether we were informed when that $150,000 was voted, whether the total contract was to exceed $500,000.


John Campbell Elliott: I remember stating that
that was just a beginning.
Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not in a position to criticize even that statement, but the original vote was for $150,000, and now we are asked to vote $300,000, and I suppose there will be another vote next year to complete the contract.


John Campbell Elliott: This completes it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then there must have
been a further vote, because last year's vote and this only makes $450,000, and the total cost is over $500,000.


John Campbell Elliott: The hon. member is right, there will be $75,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Thera will >be another
vote next year. Well, I do not think the minister feels very comfortable about this vote. That native honesty which characterizes him is shining out of his face and he looks mighty uncomfortable in supporting this vote. I give him credit at least for a twisted conscience, if nothing else, and I do not know that we can do anything more than give it a little extra twist so that this will not occur again.


Charles Gavan Power: I join my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) in protesting against votes of this kind. Here are extremely wealthy companies asking the government to do their work for them. Anticosti is in a peculiar situation. I could understand the advisability of giving help at Mani-couagan or Bersimis, or at some other point along the lower St. Lawrence where it might be possible that eventually settlement would be developed. These moneys would help in the development of that region. But Anticosti until a few years ago was in the possession of the Menier family of Paris, France. They were granted powers greater than we would think of granting to-day; they had almost the power of life and death over the people of the island.
Mr. LAPOINTE. But they never got one cent of money for public works.


Charles Gavan Power: I was coming to that. The
Anticosti Corporation took over this island from the Menier family. It is composed of three of the largest pulp and paper groups in the province of Quebec-not favourable to the government, I may say. Sir Herbert Holt, who is a director of the corporation, is on the directorate of 130 or 140 companies. There is no question of the Anticosti Corporation settling the island. They are coming to us in the guise of beggars and tell-

ing us that they want this particular port developed ,but as soon as they have cut all the pulpwood off the island the works will be abandoned, and the country will have spent that much and be out the interest simply to provide facilities for the corporation to clear off the wood. Personally I do not think there will be a settlement there fifteen years hence.
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]
The house resumed from Wednesday, May 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Morin (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville) for the third reading of Bill No. 43, respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Garland (Bow River).
Mr. A. J. ANDERSON (Toronto-High Park) :: In offering a few remarks on this question I do so not in the spirit of obstructing the bill. The Bell Telephone Company, like any other company, has the right to come to parliament and ask for legislation, and the only reason I have for objecting to this measure is the fact that, in my opinion, the Bell Telephone Company have very extensive powers which are invoked to the injury and prejudice of many of the users of telephones throughout the Dominion. That fact was particularly emphasized a year ago in an application made by the company for an increase in rates. I believe they have made applications in previous years for similar increases which have not been granted. They claimed that they were not making sufficient from the existing rates and that they required extra money. Their application was opposed by a number of persons, corporations and provinces in the Dominion. I find on the record that the opponents of the application for the increased rates included the government and the Attorney General of Ontario, the city of Montreal, the city of Toronto, the city of Hamilton, the city of Ottawa, the Union of Canadian Municipalities and the city of Brantford. The application was heard in the latter part of 1926 and an order was made early in 1927. The city of which I represent a portion was largely interested in that application, the re-

Bell Telephone Company
suit of which was very unsatisfactory; and as a representative from that city I feel it my duty to voice what I believe is the prevailing sentiment of the people there.
The company has now a capitalization of $75,000,000, which represents 750,000 shares. Of that amount $63,000,000 has been issued and allotted and there is something in the neighbourhood of $12,000,000 of Stock in the treasury at par value. It has been alleged by the company, in making this application, that their reason for asking for this extension to capitalization is an immediate need of $20,000,000 for the purposes of extension and so forth in connection with the company. The $12,000,000 at par value represents simply $12,000,000-that is, 120,000 shares of stock. The Bell Telephone is probably one of the best securities in Canada; there is no difficulty in getting the public to invest in these stocks and securities. When therefore the company says that it requires $20,000,000 immediately, all it has to do is to place that
120.000	shares on the market from time to time as the money is required. If it does so it will be able to get all the money it requires for immediate needs, and that is not for use immediately nor in the next month or two, but over a considerable period.
It may be of interest to point out that the company has not at any one time put on the market 120,000 shares of stock. In 1894 they placed 9,900 shares with their shareholders; they allotted that much at par. They received into the treasury $990,000. During that year the lowest price quoted on their stock on the market was 172 and the peak price that year was 193. As I say, they placed only 9,900 shares at that time. In 1907 they placed 25,000 shares at par with their stockholders and the prices that year ran from 115 to 145. In 1911 they placed another 25,000 at par, the prices ranging from 140 to 153. I could go down the list, to the year 1925, and show that at no time during that whole period was the stock at less than par except in one year, 1921, when the range was from 99} to 112. In that year they allotted 57,250 shares to their stockholders, and in 1924 they issued -the largest number of shares in any one year'-82,272 shares, allotted to the shareholders at par. At no time have they issued or sold or allotted more stock at par value than in that year. In 1902 they allotted
10.000	at 125; in 1904, 20,000 at 125; in 1905,
10.000	at 125; in 1908, the same amount at 125; and in 1925 they allotted amongst their employees 4,250 shares at 110. The prices have ranged from 99} to 193. There has been
no difficulty whatsoever in the company selling its stock at any time.
From 1886 this company has been earning more than its dividend requirements of 8 per cent, and since 1895 it has paid continuously a dividend of 8 per cent on its capital stock issue. So the company has had no difficulty in paying the 8 per cent dividend, which as a matter of fact is secured by orders of the railway board which, in fixing rates, always has taken into consideration the necessity of meeting that 8 per cent dividend. In its application to the board last year the company stated that the reason they requested an increase in rates was because they needed the money for extensions and so on; they now come forward and ask to increase their capitalization for the very same reason. I say that if they take the 120,000 shares of stock from the treasury and offer them to the public they can get enough money for their extensions without this additional capitalization. This increase will give them a greater opportunity to hand out stock to their shareholders at par value from time to time as they may see fit, thus giving the stockholders what might be called a melon, or the difference between the par value and the market value of the stock. At present rates this would amount to the difference between $100 and about $170 per share, which would be received by the shareholders. The citizens of Toronto are very much dissatisfied with the result of the application which was made to the board last year; they are opposed to this increase in capitalization. They say, and I think they are entitled to believe, that if the Bell Telephone Company used its revenues economically there would be no need to ask for this increase in capital and there would be no justification for offering stock to their shareholders at par value.
From their revenue accounts they have extracted-and I do not use that word in an offensive manner-very large sums of money which have been used for different purposes and which are not taken into consideration in fixing the rates charged telephone users. I would like to bring to the attention of the house some ways in which this is done. A number of years ago this company established a pension fund, which amounted to $911,777 in 1926. This was built up from the revenues of the company, and did not include any contributions from company employees or officers. This fund was established for the purpose of providing insurance for the employees and officers of the Bell Telephone Company, yet they do not contribute to it.
Bell Telephone Company

In 1927 that fund amounted1 to about $1,200,000, and in order to get rid of that amount so that it would not appear in the accounts of the company the fund was incorporated and is now known as the Bell Telephone Company Benefit Fund. This money was transferred to that fund and does not appear in the accounts of the company, and each year the fund is augmented by contributions from the revenues of the company. When the company applied to the railway board last year those who were opposed to the in-cz'ease were not permitted to inquire into that fund, as to how the moneys were being used, how they were invested and the income received; that was a closed book. That meant that the users or lessees of telephones throughout Ontario and Quebec were refused information with regard to an amount which is increasing year by year, an amount made up from the revenues of the Bell Telephone Company, which revenues are obtained from the tolls and rates charged.
There is another method by which certain moneys have been taken from the revenue account, as to which the users of telephones have been refused information. About 1895, although I am not sure of the exact date, in order to manufacture articles other than telephone apparatus, supplies and equipment, which they were entitled to do under their original charter, the Bell Telephone Company caused another company to be incorporated, which was known as the Northern Electric and Manufacturing Company. Until that time the Bell Telephone Company manufactured their own supplies and equipment; they had a certain plant for that purpose and they found that the plant was capable of manufacturing other articles but could not do so because the company were not authorized to manufacture anything but telephone equipment. They applied for the incorporation of this company; the application was granted and the company incorporated with a small capitalization. In 1914 certain other amalgamations were effected; up until that year the Bell Telephone Company furnished all the money for the purposes of the Northern Electric and Manufacturing Company, which money came from the revenues of the Bell Telephone Company. In 1914 the assets of the Northern Electric and Manufacturing Company were transferred to another concern known as the Northern Electric Company, which is the present subsidiary of the Bell Telephone Company. The Northern Electric Company is capitalized at $6,000,000; of that amount about $3,000,000 of stock is held by the Bell Telephone Company; 43 per cent 
of the stock, or less than $3,000,000 worth, is held by the Western Electric Company of Chicago, a concern which manufactures material for the American Telephone and Telegraph Company and which practically controls the manufacture of telephone and telegraph apparatus in the United States. The balance of the stock of the Northern Electric Company is held by the directors of the Bell Telephone Company, and just here I might say that the directors of the Bell Telephone Company are practically the same as the directors of the Northern Electric Company. So it will be seen that the Northern Electric Company is really a subsidiaiy of the Bell Telephone Company and is controlled by that concern. The Bell Telephone Company purchases all its apparatus and equipment from the Northern Electric Company, at prices which are fixed by the latter company. When the Bell Telephone Company manufactured its own apparatus, that apparatus was furnished at cost; they followed the practice adopted by Henry Ford, who manufactures everything going into the construction of his automobile, even owning iron and coal mines and operating a railway in order that the cost might be reduced to a minimum. The Bell Telephone Company were in that position; they obtained their supplies at cost in the first instance, but since 1914 they have paid whatever the Northern Electric Company charged them.
This latter company has been very successful; it pays a dividend of 8 per cent together with a bonus of 2 per cent, and that dividend and bonus are paid to the Bell Telephone Company. If it stopped at that I would say nothing about it; I would have no particular criticism to offer, but there is another interlocking which takes away from tihe Bell Telephone Company everything it receives from the Northern Electric Company, and a good deal in addition, namely, the interlocking arrangement between the American Telephone & Telegraph Company and the Bell Telephone Company, to which I will refer a little later on.
A report which was filed in 1926 shows that the Northern Electric Company had a surplus, including buildings and real estate, valued at $5,388,718. Their depreciation reserve -set aside to meet depreciation in the plant amounted to $5,564,249. Besides that, they held undivided money amounting to $2,844,821. Counsel representing the opponents in the application of 1926 endeavoured to get at these figures to discover the prices that the Bell Telephone Company were paying the Northern Electric for their materials

Bell Telephone Company
and the reason why this large amount of depreciation and undivided money was held. This was refused by the Board of Railway Commissioners. I do not know why the Board of Railway Commissioners took this stand, but I believe that they were quite unjustified in this position. When this board was established the intention was that it would be a tribunal different from our courts of law and different from the railway committee of the House of Commons, which formerly had dealt with railway matters. The object was to give to the citizens of this country a tribunal which was composed not of judges but of legal men and laymen throughout the Dominion. The commissioners were at first empowered to adjudicate upon matters which might come under the Railway Act, and afterwards their jurisdiction was extended to the act relating to telephones and telegraphs.
This board claimed that they had not the right to inquire into the financial condition of the Northern Electric Company, and they refused point blank to allow evidence of that character to be produced. The result is that a large part of the capital of the Bell Telephone Company is bound up in this Northern Electric Company, and we have no means of scrutinizing or investigating it.
The American Telephone and Telegraph Company is one of the largest organizations in the United States. It is not incorporated in Canada. It is a peculiar organization; it depends upon a great number of charters for its existence, some forty or fifty, and practically controls all the telephone and telegraph operations in the United States. This American company holds 32 per cent of the stock of the Bell Telephone Company, and practically controls that company. It may be said that 32 per cent is not a majority of the stock, but it is not necessary to have a majority of the stock of a company in order to ensure control; experts have alleged that 20 per cent is sufficient to effect that end. This would not be true if it were a small company where the stock is held by a small number of shareholders, but in a company the size of the Bell Telephone Company, the stock of which is held by many shareholders, 32 per cent in one block is a large amount, and will enable the interests holding it to control the company.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will the hon. member be kind enough to tell us the source of his information and statistics?


Alexander James Anderson: The figures I am giving you were all produced at the application made in 1926, and are there for anyone to see.


Edward Joseph Garland: The evidence given before the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Alexander James Anderson: The evidence and the arguments and statements were all filed.
I have further authority from a publication issued in New York by the Bell Telephone Securities Company, Incorporated, 195 Broadway, New York City. Their publication of April 1, 1925, stated that the American Telephone and Telegraph Company owns 32 per cent of the capital stock of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. They not only control that stock, but they control the patents under which operations are carried on.
The Western Electric Company, to which I have already referred, owns 43 per cent of the stock of the Northern Electric Company. This company is practically owned by the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, which holds 98 per cent of the Western Electric stock. In other words, the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, through their control of the Western Electric Company, holds 43 per cent of the stock of the Northern Electric Company. The patents, as I have said, belong to the American Telephone and Telegraph Company.
The American Telephone and Telegraph Company, under a contract made in 1923, get l\ per cent of the gross revenue of the Bell Telephone Company. They get this percentage for no other reason than the fact that they have a strangle hold on the Bell Telephone Company. Through the Canadian company being obliged to use their patents, they get 1^ per cent of the total revenue, no matter whether they do anything to increase that revenue or not. They get a portion of the long distance revenue, but they earn that. They get their dividends on the 32 per cent of stock. They also have the right to call for 32 per cent of all new stock that may be issued by the Bell Telephone Company. It has been the practice of the Bell Telephone Company to issue their stock at par, excepting the occasions I have mentioned, and this would mean that the American company would get the stock at par. They would get the difference between the par value and the market value of the stock, simply by being stockholders to the extent of 32 per cent. In 1923 the American Telephone and Telegraph Company obtained from the Bell Telephone Company $330,000; in 1924, they obtained 1360,000; in 1925, $390,000, and in 1926, $450,000. In 1926, when the application was heard, it was estimated that if the rates were raised
Bell Telephone Company

according to the schedule filed, the amount the American company would receive for 1927 would be $510.000.
The following interesting dialogue took place at that application between one of the witnesses and one of the commissioners. The question being discussed was the l\ per cent of the gross revenues which the American Telephone and Telegraph Company received. Commissioner Lawrence says:
This is self explanatory, and might be of interest to the telephone users of Ontario and Quebec.
What is vour service contract expense in 1925 ?-$390,000.
And in 1926?-$420,000.
That is under the present rates?-Yes.
Under the rates asked for how much would they be in 1927?-$480,000.		
That is really on the basis of $32,000,000, is it not?
I worked it out, Mr. Geary, I think it must be that. On the basis of $30,000,000 it is $450,000, and on $32,000,000 it would be $480,000.
So that you note an increase to just $816,000 to get an extra $30,000. You make it $510,000. Is that right?-Yes.
That is, your revenue if you get the proposed increase in 1927 would provide the American Telephone & Telegraph Company with an increase automatically of $30,000?-Yes.
It would entitle the American Telephone & Telegraph Company to that amount of money? Yes.	.
And bring your receipts within $816,000 of the amount required to give them still another $30,000?-That is right.	.
The hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) was counsel for the city of Toronto on that occasion. He said:
The point of my question is this: that automatically and without any further growth _ of business at all, an increase of rates would immediately jump your contract expenses up $30,000? .
That is correct. The contract speaks for itself. It says, payment on revenue.
That is without any extra service or anything of that sort?	_
Commissioner Lawrence:	Do I understand'
that that is without any extra service?
Mr. Geary: If the company was able to get the increase asked there would be $30,000 more payable to the American Telephone & Telegraph Company at once, without their having to take on any extra complexity of plant or anything like that.
Commissioner Lawrence: I think there should be an investigation of the transactions between these companies, for a contract that will automatically without any further growth in business or any extra service, immediately jump the contract expenses up $30,000 is unfair to subscribers of the Bell Telephone Company.
One would have thought that would be sufficient for the Board of Railway Commissioners to recommend to parliament or to the government that an amendment be made to the act in order that such an investigation might be carried out, but I do not know that such a recommendation has been made and

so far as I am aware no mention has been made of one. If it has not been made, the Board of Railway Commissioners are to that extent derelict in their duty to the people of Canada. The American Telephone and Telegraph Company is more or less of an octopus. It has a strangle hold not only upon the Bell Telephone Company but apparently upon the people of the United States. I noticed in the columns of a local paper, the Ottawa Journal, of yesterday morning this item:
Directors of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company cut the long expected "melon," to-day by authorizing the issuance of 185,000,000 additional stock at $100 to their 435,000 shareholders.
And in the Journal this morning in the same column I find the following:
American Telephone was in brisk demand throughout the session as a result of the preposed increase of $185,000,000 in capitalization with the issuance of valuable "rights" to shareholders, closing about 12 points higher at 2081 after having established a new high record for all time at 211.
That stock, which has a par value of 100, was selling yesterday at 208d and at one time it reached 211. The difference between 100 and 211 is the melon that is referred to, and the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, on account of their being in the strangle hold of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, is compelled to contribute to that melon. That, I think, is a very important reason why we should know about the doings of that company, which is not a subsidiary but a company which practically owns the Bell Telephone Company.
Another method by which money is taken out of the Bell Telephone Company's revenue has to do with the question of depreciation. A depreciation reserve is quite a proper thing and I have no objection to a depreciation reserve being established. The Bell Telephone Company from 1880 to 1907 did not have any depreciation reserve; they carried on their repairs and renewals out of revenue. But about 1907, when they were about to become regulated in regard to rates by the Board of Railway Commissioners, they established a depreciation reserve, and from 1907 to 1926 they had contributed from the revenues of the company to that reserve the sum of $38,653,562. Of that amount, however, they used for the purpose of renewals and repairs only $13,770,047, leaving in that reserve account $24,883,505 unused. The evidence that was given on the application in 1926 by Mr. Lash, the chief engineer, showed that the plant and equipment of the Bell Telephone Company was 100 per cent efficient. The reason he gave for that was that the depreciation had been made up year by

Bell Telephone Company
year by prompt renewals and repairs, the total of which, as I said before, was $13,770,047. The plant is 100 per cent efficient. Another officer of the Bell Telephone Company on that investigation stated that the best experience for establishing a reserve fund was the past experience of the company. The past experience of the company showed that from 1907 to 1926 renewals and repairs amounted to only $13,770,047, and that was taken out of the depreciation reserve fund leaving the large amount of nearly $25,000,000 unexpended. It might be well for us to say to the Bell Telephone Company: Why not take that and use it for the purpose of making the extensions, renewals and repairs that you want to make at the present time? That will more than cover the $20,000,000 that you require. It is rather strange that on the application the Board of Railway Commissioners did not take into consideration the question of depreciation. It did not take into consideration either the interest of the Northern Electric Company or that of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company in the Bell Telephone Company. That is a reason why an increase of $75,000,000 in capitalization should not be authorized until some conditions or restrictions are placed upon the Bell Telephone Company in the use of its revenue.
I am heartily in accord with the amendment. I think the stock of the Bell Telephone Company should be placed on the market at a restricted price. The amendment proposes that the stock should not be sold except by public subscription. The Bell Telephone Company, as I have s'tated before, at no time except on the occasions in 1902, 1904, 1905, 1906 and 1925 sold or allotted their stock at anything more than par. In 1925 they sold a small block at 110 to their employees and in 1902, 1904, 1905 and 1906 they sold stock at 125 to their shareholders. I say that they should be forced at the present time to go into the market and sell their stock at a fair price. If they were not looking to the people of Canada for their revenue in the way they do in the shape of tolls, I would say that we might be interfering with their financing. But in case of a stringency or deficiency of funds they come back and say that they want their rates raised in order to make up that deficiency. In this case they are asking for an increase in capitalization, and I want to cite two. or three companies that do not allow their stock to be allotted to their shareholders at par, but that insist upon its being sold to them at a premium. The stock of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is a par value of $100 and yet I find in their 56103-199
report for the year ended December 31, 1927, on page 7, this statement under the heading of "Issue of Additional Common Stock":
Pursuant to the authorization given at the last annual meeting, the directors of the company decided to issue 400,000 shares of additional ordinary capital stock, of which 325,000 shares were offered for subscription by shareholders at the price of $150 per share.
In other words, 50 per cent more than the par value of that stock went into the treasury of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and not into the pockets of the shareholders. The report continues:
And 50,000 shares were offered for subscription by the officers and employees of the company at the same price. As the applications for stock by officers and employees exceeded by 6,290 shares the amount offered, your directors decided to increase the number of shares available for this purpose to 56,290 shares.
Had the 325,000 shares been sold at par, they would have realized $32,500,000; actually they realized $48,350,000. The 6,290 shares if sold at par would have'brought in $6,290,000; actually they brought in $9,435,000. There were still left unsold of that issue 18,710 shares, in regard to which the directors say:
The remaining 18.710 shares will be disposed of in the market when conditions warrant such disposal.
And the market for that stock to-day, Mr. Speaker, is in the neighbourhood of $218.
Now why should not this parliament say to the Bell Telephone Company:	You must
not issue this stock at par, but you must sell it at the market price or at some other price which will bring into the treasury of the company a large addition to your capital.


William Irvine: I rise to a point of order, Mr .Speaker. I understand that, under the rules which govern private bills, any private bill which is under discussion when the hour for discussion of private bills expires goes to the bottom of the list. The bill now before the House was under discussion on Wednesday evening last at 11 o'clock, when the special time allotted to private bills that evening had expired. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the same rule which governs private bills on Tuesdays and Fridays should apply also on a special occasion such as Wednesday evening, especially when as in this case the bill now before the house occupied the entire three hours on Wednesday evening.


Hewitt Bostock: That rule applies only on Tuesdays and Fridays. On other days it does not apply. I refer to standing order 15, subsection 4.


Hewitt Bostock: I declare the amendment lost. The hour for private bills being exhausted, the house will now revert to supply. Third reading of this bill cannot now be moved unless it is by unanimous consent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Question.



DEPARTMENT OP TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Trade and Commerce-administration of the Copper Bounties Act, 1923, $2150.
Mr. COOTE:: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) will be good enough to ask one of his colleagues nearer the centre of the chamber to exchange places with him it will be a great deal more convenient for all members to keep in touch with his estimates.


Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I shall be glad to do so.


Robert Gardiner: On how many tons was bounty paid last year?


James Malcolm: On 6,923,476 pounds, at
half a cent, amounting to $51,925.


John Evans: Mr. Chairman, this is an
important item and we should like to hear what is going on. If there was less talking we should be able to follow the various items; otherwise they are inaudible to us down here.


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British and foreign news service, $32,000.
William Thomas Lucas: Will the minister explain this item?


James Malcolm: This is the same amount as has been voted in former years to provide Reuter's News Service. The service has been supplied continuously since August 1923 at the same amount per annum. At the end of September 1927 eight monthly payments of $2,666 had been made. There is an agreement covering it. The agreement with Reuter's is dated June, 1923. The service was for three years, commencing August 1, 1923, and terminating July 31, 1926, the payments to be made at the rate of $2,666 per month, or a total of $32,000 per annum. The contract has been extended twice. 1 The first time it was extended two months to the end of September and later it was extended from October 1, 1926, to the end

Supply-Canada Grain Act
of the fiscal year, both extensions on the same terms as originally. I have a memorandum covering the agreement with Reuters in the matter of publicity. If the committee is anxious to have it I can read it.


William Thomas Lucas: What is nature of the service?


James Malcolm: Probably it might be
easier to read a summary of the service in the past year. That will give the committee a better idea.
During 1927, 4,260 separate news items were sent by cable or mail direct to Great Britain for distribution by Reuters to practically every British publication, as well as for re-transmission, where the news interest justified, to continental and other news agencies. The total number of cabled items was 2,203, of which 624 dealt directly with^matters of trade and industrial development in Canada. These items included also the speeches of H. R. H. the Prince of Wales and Premier Baldwin during their Canadian visit, and which constituted the very best possible advertising for Canada. The total cable wordage was 155.748, or approximately 18.000 words in excess of contract requirements. The mail wordage, covering semi-weeklv budgets of news and trade items to Great Britain and monthly budgets to the overseas dominions of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India, totalled nearly 500,000 words. This mail service was distributed, through Reuters, to every leading newspaper in Great Britain and the overseas dominions. A special weekly cable letter was sent, averaging approximately 600 words, dealing especially with a review of Canadian trade and commercial conditions, and this weekly review went to all Reuter subscribers, and also to all Canadian trade agents abroad and to a large list of complimentary recipients designated by the Canadian High Commissioner's office in London.
All important government bulletins dealing with crop reports, employment conditions, immigration statistics and financial and trade matters were cabled to London in sufficient detail to meet all requirements of official Canadian representatives overseas and thus save the expense which previously obtained of special departmental forwarding by cable of these reports.


Harry Bernard Short: When this vote was up last year, was it not arranged to reduce it? There was some discussion last year on that item.


James Malcolm: That reduction was made but the amount was added in the supplementary estimates, so that the item was left as it was in former years.


[Stage Direction]
Items agreed to.
The Canada Grain Act-administration, $1 -860,555.
Mr. MILLAR:: Is the grain research laboratory included in this vote?


James Malcolm: Yes.


Mr. DONNELLY:: What revenue is obtained from the inspection of grain?


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Perhaps the minister
would give the revenue and expenditure.


James Malcolm: For the past year I have the revenue up to January 31; I have not the figures for the months of February and March. In 1926-27 the receipts were $1,582,807, and the expenditures $1,580,258. There was a surplus of $2,548. For the past year the receipts, as far as I have them-they are not completed yet-were $1,297,000 and the expenditures $1,421,000. This represents a deficit of $124,000. This was due to the reduction in lasl year's estimates in the amount asked by the Board of Grain Commissioners for the admin istration of the act. Subsequently, as hon members will recall, we had to vote an additional sum to make up that deficit.


Milton Neil Campbell: There is some complaint from the millers and bakers in the old country in regard1 to the grade of grain they are receiving. Has the minister the memorandum in that connection?


James Malcolm: I have not the memorandum, but it was forwarded to the agriculture committee and was printed in the proceedings.


George Gibson Coote: It would facilitate the
passing of the item if the minister would give us the details of the main items in it. There is a considerable increase this year and perhaps the minister will be good enough to explain it.


James Malcolm: The estimated expenditure for the current year is typical of the expenditure every year. The board are asking this year $1,759,000. They estimate that it will be necessary to have 651 employees, with 308 extra seasonal employees. The estimated expenditure on salaries is $1,584,000-I am not giving the odd dollars- and travelling expenses for the board, $13,300. Rentals amount to $64,843; printing and stationery, $30,000; and general expenses of administration, $67,365. This is about on a par with every other year. There is little change in any item except in regard to the total salary list, which varies according to conditions and the amount of crop handled1.


Harry Bernard Short: The amount asked for here is $355,955 more than last year's vote. I presume there is a reason for this.


James Malcolm: The amount asked last year by the Board of Grain Commissioners was reduced by the treasury board, and when I asked the house for the additional amount in the supplementaries I explained that it was a mistake to reduce the vote inasmuch as the crop required all that was estimated. In addition to that there was a further esti-

Supply-Canada Grain Act
mate by the board for the next year for the reason that they were short of money. Part of that, I believe, is to be used for additional work in the laboratories in Winnipeg. It is rather a difficult matter to go into exact details as to how they arrive at the estimate, but if they do overestimate, the money comes back to the treasury in the form of a surplus.


John Millar: There is a small expenditure I am going to ask the minister to consider. In the select standing committee on agriculture, when we were inquiring into the grading of grain, a very valuable map was presented indicating where strong wheat is grown in the three prairie provinces. It was a map the preparation of which must have taken considerable time and labour, and the committee expressed a wish to have it published. I would ask the minister to see that that is done, because this map would be of great value to the farmers.


Mr. SPENCER:: I would like to ask the
minister if the administration of this act, heavy though it is, is not met year by year on an average by the charges paid by the producers of grain?


James Malcolm: I think I can give my
friend a favourable answer, because there seems to be a misapprehension in the minds of some people that tremendous surpluses do obtain. Actual surpluses do result, but the equipment and premises of the Board of Grain Commissioners and the cost of civil government here in Ottawa are not charged to this vote; no interest or depreciation is charged on the properties used by the Board of Grain Commissioners, but they have figured it out roughly that the surpluses which have resulted during the past ten or fifteen years would just about provide for the cost of civil government, for a depreciation charge and a fair interest rate on the amount invested. During some years there has been a decided deficit; in other years there have have been surpluses, but the statement by the board is that over a period of years the return from inspection fees charged the producer can be said to cover all charges plus a reasonable interest charge on the equipment.


George Gibson Coote: I should like to support the
request made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) that the protein map which has been prepared by Doctor Birchard during the past year should be printed and made available for distribution. In the past too much of the work done by our laboratory has been buried in the files of the Board of Grain Commissioners. The farmer's of western

Canada would appreciate very much some information in regard to the protein content of their wheat. I know of no better way in which they can get that information than by the printing and distribution of this map.
While I am on my feet I would also suggest to the minister that he urge the Board of Grain Commissioners to give careful consideration to the question of grading garnet wheat. Up to the present time the board have ruled that garnet wheat is not eligible to be graded No. 1 northern, but I think the evidence given before the agriculture committee by the Dominion cerealist goes to show that garnet wheat is equal in quality to marquis wheat, so I think it is time it became eligible to be graded No. 1 northern. I think too much propaganda has been carried on in this country to discourage farmers from growing anything but marquis wheat, because there are some districts that are entirely unsuited to that wheat. Because of that fact and because farmers have stuck to marquis wheat in districts to which it was not suited, we have had a great deal of low grade wheat during late years. They should be allowed to grow the wheat best adapted to their particular locality. I think it must be admitted that we cannot expect one variety of wheat to be suitable all over the large area now devoted to the growing of wheat in western Canada. I think garnet wheat is very suitable in many localities, and if it is equal in quality to marquis wheat it is to be regretted that the Board of Grain Commissioners have not allowed it to be graded No. 1 northern,
I would like to bring another matter to the attention of the minister; I refer to the necessity for providing more commodious quarters for the use of the grain inspector at Calgary. I have been in there several times during the busy season when I have found fifteen or twenty men in that one little room, two men actually grading wheat, several assistants helping them and a great many grain men looking after their car samples. The place is altogether too small; this is a very important matter and I think we could afford to provide bettei quarters for the grain inspectors. I would also suggest that we need more than two inspectors at Calgary; after all, the grading of wheat is largely a matter of opinion, and I do not think it wise that two men should have to grade 500 cars of wheat in one day. They cannot give it the time it really requires. The additional expense involved in providing one or two other inspectors at that point would be a mere bagatelle.
I would ask the minister to interest himself in the question of the interchange of inspectors

Supply-Canada Grain Act
between different inspection points. In the past we have had one inspector stationed at Calgary for several years at a time; he was never out of that office during the grading season except for meals and to sleep, and never had another inspector to consult with except possibly the chief inspector, who paid him a visit on an average of once a year. If we are ever to get away from a lot of dissatisfaction which now exists in connection with the grading of grain it must be done by securing uniformity in the grading system, and I do' not think we can do that in any better way than by an interchange of inspectors between Calgary, Winnipeg and Fort William. If the inspectors at Calgary were allowed to have two weeks at Winnipeg and two weeks at Fort William during the busy season, while some men from Fort William or Winnipeg took their places at Calgary, I think it would go a long way in securing uniformity in the grading carried on at these points. I would also suggest that the inspectors at some of the terminal elevators at Fort William be sent to Winnipeg and other prairie points and that inspectors from those points take the vacant places at Fort William for a month or so at a time. If possible we would like to see the wheat which is graded out of the terminals at Fort William equal to the average of the grades at the initial inspection points. We are told that that is impossible, but the board should endeavour to come as near to it as possible, and I think that cannot be done in a better way than by an interchange of these inspectors. This will involve some small expense, but I am sure the benefits which would accrue from such an interchange would more than pay for the expense involved. There have been seasons in the past when a good deal of the wheat shipped by the farmers graded one grade higher at Winnipeg than at some other point, and that is what has caused so much dissatisfaction which I am sure the minister is anxious to overcome.
I only ask him that he impress this upon the Board of Grain Commissioners because they always say that it will cost a good deal, and they would have to secure the consent of the department. I feel sure that if the minister would assure the board that they could have the extra money to pay travelling expenses, the committee would gladly vote the additional sum required. It has been said that the inspectors would object, but I am sure [DOT] they would be glad to have the opportunity of securing this added experience, and I am confident that the members of this committee would vote them the money for travelling expenses and pocket money which would compensate them for being away from home for three or four weeks during the rush season. Personally I think this is a very important matter, and I hope the minister will assure the board that as far as the expense is concerned they need not be deterred from at least making this experiment of exchanging the inspectors.


James Malcolm: I can assure my hon.
friend that my attitude towards this act and the administration expenses involved is that it is of interest only to the producers of grain, because it is paid for by them. Parliament provides the money and the producer pays what parliament provides, in the way of fees.
Regarding the quality of grading on garnet wheat, I should like to point out to my hon. friend that the agriculture committee, now studying a reference to it on grain grading, might very well express the views of that committee on this subject to the house. I shall be very glad to give my advice to the Board of Grain Commissioners, and I am very glad to take advice from men in this house who are interested in the grain business, and who are actual producers. We look on this act as a measure to be administered for the interests of the producers and we are guided at all times by what the producers want.
As to the quarters at Calgary not being adequate, I shall be very glad to bring that to the attention of the board.
The question of the interchange of inspectors involves taking the inspectors away from home and paying their upkeep, because they will have to be quartered in the places they are sent to. Whether or not that is a justifiable expense, I think, after all, remains pretty much with the people who pay the expenses, in the form of fees, that is, the producers. I am very glad to have my hon. friend's opinion, because it has always been represented to me that the advantages in the exchange of inspectors would not be commensurate with the expense involved. I see the point that my hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Coote) is trying to make. An inspector who has probably spent all his life in the inspection of grain at Calgary might not appreciate the grading of grain as it is done at the head of the lakes or at Winnipeg. If he had a broader outlook on the grades from various areas he might be a better inspector when he returned home. On the other hand, that man might become a specialist regarding the particular districts he was in, and he might know exactly what he could get for the grades from that district. He might be a better inspector, by virtue of his length of service in that particular district, than if he came there from some other district where
Supply-Canada Grain Act

different conditions obtained. I shall be glad to take that matter up with the board, and if the house feels that the additional expense involved in exchanging these men from the head of the lakes to the prairie points is to the general advantage of the producers, I shall be glad to recommend it.


Mr. BROWN:: I am not sure that the producers as such have decided that such a move would be advantageous. Uniformity in grading would be undoubtedly a very desirable thing to secure, but I can see where the lack tof uniformity that might result at a given point through the interchange of inspectors would be just as much to be deplored as the lack of uniformity between two given points, say Calgary and Winnipeg. I have no doubt that the hon. member for Macleod has merely been expressing his own personal opinion in regard to that matter. I am not sure that any committee or any organized body has ever pome to the conclusion that such an interchange would be desirable. Any result by -way of benefit that might be secured from such an interchange is highly problematical at the present time. If it were once determined that such a change would be beneficial and advantageous to the producer, and would bring about greater uniformity in grading, the matter of expense would be entirely a secondary consideration. For myself I have not yet been convinced that such an interchange is desirable.


James Malcolm: I might tell the hon.
member for Lisgar that several of the points taken up by the hon. member for Macleod are now under discussion in the agriculture committee. If this point is discussed in the agriculture committee, I should like to have the guidance of those particularly interested in the administration of the act.


John Livingstone Brown: The subcommittee is considering some of the points mentioned by the hon. member for Macleod. He is a member of that committee, and I think the proper way to do would be to allow that committee to come to a conclusion before presenting it in this house.


James J. Donnelly: While I have no objection whatever to the printing and publication of the map referred to by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar), showing the protein content of wheat in the different parts of the west, we must all bear in mind that the protein content of wheat during the past year has been very unusual. It was not a normal year and it will not give a correct idea of the protein content of wheat in a normal year. It

would be well for the minister to bear in mind that we should have a map of that kind printed from year to year for the information of the growers of wheat, and I think a certam amount should be laid aside every year for the production of a map of this kind.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James J. Donnelly: I want to draw the minister's attention to something that was brought out in the agriculture committee regarding the inspection of grain at our transfer houses on the lakes. Both our commissioners and our inspectors hinted that there might be a certain amount of mixing done in these transfer houses, in fact they told us that they thought there was some mixing done. Mixing is legal, and is allowed to be done at Fort William and at our private elevators there, but once the wheat is graded, and it is never graded again, mixing should not be allowed. It would be well for the minister to take the matter up with his commissioners, or with those who are looking after the grading of wheat, with a view to seeing that proper inspectors are put at these lake ports and 'transfer houses in order to prevent mixing.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: I think I would go farther than that. Not only would I put proper inspectors down there, but I would have these people forbidden to do any mixing whatever in those transfer houses. The inspection certificate has already been given when it is graded out from Fort William, and I do not think anyone should be allowed to mix grain in the transfer houses. You will have to have somebody there to watch that it is not mixed, but we certainly should not allow it to be done.


John Millar: Has consideration been given to the question of installing the research laboratory at Winnipeg in a building owned by the government? I understand the building rented for that purpose is being enlarged, or altered in some way, and it will seriously interfere with the work of the research laboratory. This same thing may occur again and again. Would it not be wise to have this 'laboratory installed in a building by itself?


James Malcolm: At present the laboratory is in the Grain Exchange building, which is a convenient location for all those in the grain business. It is very convenient for the inspection and distribution of samples. The question of erecting a building to take care of this work has 'been put before us, but after looking into it we found that the expense involved, as well as the inconvenience of loca-

Supply-Canada Grain Act
tion, did not justify it. Therefore we did not recommend it to the house, but rather recommended the enlarging and the perfecting of the offices in the present quarters.


George Gibson Coote: I have a few points I should like to mention to the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown). He lives in a district where I presume all the grain is shipped to and graded at the same point year after year. In the district in which I live, possibly half o<ur wheat is shipped west and half shipped east. Very often when we ship several cars, knowing it is all the same kind of wheat, the cars going west get a different grade from those going to Winnipeg. It got so bad in one year, I think 1925-I am only speaking from memory-that the farmers held a meeting in one of the towns in my constituency to discuss this very matter, and they passed a resolution stating that they would not ship any wheat west until the grading system at Calgary was remedied. Several farmers there stated that they were willing to take their affidavit that they had taken a sample of wheat, sent one-half of it to Winnipeg and the other half to Calgary, and that in every case the sample sent to Calgary received a grade lower than the sample sent to Winnipeg. Those of us who have had this experience have become firmly convinced that we should have an interchange of inspectors. By the time an inspector has had a month's experience of Winnipeg grading with perhaps fifteen or twenty other inspectors and has had a week's experience at Fort William he will have seen the grade that the great percentage of wheat in western Canada is receiving. He may have been used to grading only Alberta wheat, which is after all of a different type from the bulk of the wheat shipped through Winnipeg. In some of the grades of wheat there is a difference between the average sample at Calgary and at Winnipeg of seven pounds to the bushel, and a man who is grading that heavy wheat all the time is very apt to become more severe in fixing the grade than a man at Winnipeg would be. That is why we are asking for an interchange of inspectors. As long as we are in the position where one-half of our wheat is being graded say at Calgary and the other half at Winnipeg, we see the result of the lack of uniformity, and it is necessary to endeavour to do away with the dissatisfaction which exists in the minds of the farmers in regard to the grading system. We should at least make a trial of an interchange of inspectors to see whether that would bring about more uniformity than we have at the present time.
I do not see how we are going to find out what the effect will be, whether it will do any good or not, unless we try it out. I do not see how it can do any harm. I wish to thank the minister for the very fair way in which he has referred to the matter, and I assure him that the great majority of farmers in Alberta at any rate are very anxious to see this given a trial. We firmly believe that it would help to do away with the discrepancy which often exists between the grading at Calgary and Edmonton and the grading at Winnipeg. In one season, not the one to which I referred before, the grading at one of the western points was so much lower than at Winnipeg and they had so many complaints that I understand the chief inspector went out there and Stayed a week in an endeavour to get the grading of that office cm a par with the grading which was being done at Winnipeg.


John Evans: The efforts in western Canada seems to be to select a rust-proof wheat and many varieties have been propagated with that end in view. Some of these give very good yields but they have not the quality of marquis or red fyfe wheat. I find that Bill No. 188 provides for a number of other grades like these varieties so that each will have its intrinsic value, but I should like to point out that if these softer wheats are mixed with the harder varieties at Fort William or Port Arthur, the price of No. 1 northern, No. 2 northern, will be still lower in the markets of the world, particularly in Great Britain where it is brought into competition with wheats from other parts of the world. I should like to know if some means will be taken to prevent these other varieties from being mixed with No. 1 and No. 2 northern at Fort William or Portt Arthur.
Mr. GARDINER' What progress is being made with the research laboratory? How many employees are there at the present [DOT] time ?


James Malcolm: Is my hon. friend referring to the grain research laboratory at Winnipeg?


Robert Gardiner: Yes.


James Malcolm: I am sorry I cannot
give him the details of that because I do not have them before me. My recollection is that the estimated amount of expenditure for the current year is somewhere between $25,000 and $30,000. It is larger than last year. They are extending the service and they are continuing the very work that the hon. member referred to a moment ago,
Supply-Canada Grain Act

namely, rust research. I might also say that the problem that the national institute of research is going to face is the very problem that was spoken of by the hon. member for Macleod, namely, that of trying to find varieties of wheat that will be suitable to certain soils that exist in Western Canada. Every man who has thought of the matter at all realizes that western Canada no longer means any one small province. The wheat is not all Manitoba wheat. As the map is rolled backward there are conditions existing that did not exist ten years ago and the application of the knowledge acquired by the research department as to what wheat will suit certain areas is of vast importance to the producers and to Canada as a whole. The question of research on rust, like the question of research on any disease, is one that has to be dealt with. I believe the work of the laboratory at Winnipeg will be further supplemented by the work of the national institute here, and everyone in the house and in the country is extremely anxious that further researches shall go on from time to time in connection with this important matter.


John Livingstone Brown: The cereal division of the
Department of Agriculture is making the research referred to by the hon. member from Macleod.


William Thomas Lucas: Has there been any report
by the research laboratory at Winnipeg in regard to the work being done there?


James Malcolm: There has not been any report since the one received last summer, I think that report was submitted to the agriculture committee and is incorporated in its minutes. There is a new report for circulation now in press.


John Evans: Is any provision made in
the estimates this year for the establishment of stopover and inspection points other than Winnipeg, for instance, Moose Jaw or Saskatoon?


James Malcolm: Nothing further has
been provided in the estimates than for the established points.


John Evans: Is there a stopover and inspection point at Moose Jaw?


James Malcolm: Yes.
Mr. EVANS. Is there an appropriation in the estimates to carry that on as an inspection point?


James Malcolm: I think that is included in the general estimate of the board.
	' ,


John Evans: Will the minister say why
an inspection point has been established at Moose Jaw and who asked for it?


James Malcolm: I have not the information in front of me, because it is not a subject that comes up ordinarily, but there was a considerable demand for it and there is a considerable demand now for further inspection in Saskatchewan. The Minister of Agriculture has, I think, the correspondence with reference to the matter and he had the correspondence with reference to the establishment of a point at Moose Jaw. It all came up before I was in charge of the department.


John Gordon Ross: I know something of the history of the establishment of an inspection point at Moose Jaw. For some fifteen years the people of the southern part of Saskatchewan, the southeastern part of Alberta and that part of the country north and west of Moose Jaw have been agitating for an inspection point there. That agitation finally came to the House of Commons; meetings were held by several members from western Canada along with the then Minister of Trade and Commerce, and it was decided to establish a grain inspection point at Moose Jaw, Finally, that grain inspection point was established last year. The results have been very satisfactory to all the people in that part of the country. A good deal of grain has been inspected there during the past year, and practically all the united farmer organizations in the country are asking that that inspection be extended at the present time. The wheat pool of Saskatchewan have had all their grain passing through Moose Jaw inspected at the Moose Jaw point, and they have made the statement on more than one occasion that it has been of great value to them, and that they have been saved a considerable amount of money through having that grading done at the inspection point in Moose Jaw. The inspection there is a. safeguard against the grain being unloaded into the elevators at the lakes before reinspection can be made. With the faster movement of grain in western Canada to-day, we have found that a car may be inspected in Winnipeg, and before the report on that car can be sent back to the shipper, the car can be landed in Fort William and unloaded. It takes a very short time to move a car from Winnipeg to Fort William. But with inspection further west, the grade can be sent back to the producer or to his agent, and a reinspection can be ordered in plenty of time to have it made at Fort William. The pool have found that this has saved them a

Supply-Canada Crain Act
great deal of money this year, and all those who have used the Moose Jaw point are very well satisfied with it, and are now asking that all grain passing through there shall be inspected. I believe that the farmers' organizations in Saskatchewan are asking to have the same facilities provided at Saskatoon. The Alberta pool have had practically all their grain passing through Moose Jaw inspected there, and they have had the officers of the Saskatchewan wheat pool act as their agents at that inspection point, and also act for them in the calling for reinspection.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: I may say to
my hon. friend from Rosetown, on behalf of those whom I have the honour to represent and those in that area, that I have already asked, not only this year but before, that an inspection and order point be established at Saskatoon. I am fortified in that request by the United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan section. I would also like to say that I agree entirely with what the hon. member for Moose Jaw has just said with respect to what the pool has found at Moose Jaw. It is believed that the inspection of grain at these two points will unquestionably be of great interest to the producers in these areas. While I do not think that this is the time when we need discuss it very fully, I rise just to say that the matter has received and is receiving consideration, and I hope it will continue to receive favourable consideration by those who have finally to deal with it.


Edward Joseph Garland: I have no
objection personally to an inspection point, compulsory or otherwise, being established at Moose Jaw, provided it applies to the grain of the Saskatchewan people, but until there has been a request from those who are the growers in Alberta I do not think it would be either wise or proper to compel growers like my hon. friend from- Macleod or my hon. friend from Acadia or myself to have our grain compulsorily inspected passing through Moose Jaw. The principle is wrong, aside altogether from the economics of it, and I submit that the minister will be well advised when taking into consideration, favourably or otherwise, the representations of the hon. member for Moose Jaw, the hon. member for Saskatoon, or anybody else, to remember that there are also other interests besides those in Saskatchewan. I have no objection whatever to the Saskatchewan producers having their grain inspected at Moose Jaw if they so wish, but so far as Alberta is concerned I think that the question must be submitted to the growers there first.


Mr. DUNNING:: I should like to say a
word on this particular point, because it touches the very principle of the operation of the Grain Act. Whalt my hon. friend from Bow River has just said sounds very plausible until it is examined in its relationship to the practical movement and inspection of grain at the present time. If what my hon. friend says were to be the principle applied, it would also involve that those shippers from Saskatchewan who are now shipping to Vancouver would be able to demand Vancouver inspection instead of Calgary inspection. As things exist at the present time, every grain inspection point is a compulsory inspection point for all the grain passing through there, except with regard to Moose Jaw. With regard to Moose Jaw, for reasons which I need not discuss at this stage, but which the minister can and will explain, the arrangement was made to start with that the inspection there would be voluntary, but during all the years of the Calgary inspection, even prior to the years when Edmonton inspection came into use, all grain passing through Calgary was required to be inspected at Calgary. I have rather a vivid memory of its operation because there were in the early days of Calgary inspection many Saskatchewan shippers who, strange as it may seem, preferred Vancouver inspection, inspection at the port, rather than having their grain inspected at Calgary, but there was no help for them.
I submit that the principle advocated by my hon. friend from Bow River, satisfactory as it may sound, cannot work in practice unless it is universally applied, and if it were universally applied, that is, if every shipper had the right to choose the point at which his particular car should be inspected, that would undoubtedly involve very great difficulties in the matter of transportation and undoubtedly increase the cost of handling the cars. In fact, one of the arguments for changing the present system at Moose Jaw to the system which is in vogue elsewhere is that very fact-the transportation economics of the situation. Under the present system of voluntary inspection a trainload of cars comes into Moose Jaw, and half or three-quarters of' those cars are inspected at Moose Jaw. That means that the train must be split, and the remainder of the cars have to be carried on, or else the cars which need not be delayed for inspection at Moose Jaw are in fact delayed there, and delayed again at Winnipeg for the inspection which takes place there. I do not believe it will be practicable from a transportation standpoint
Supply-Canada Grain Act

very long to operate a voluntary system of inspection anywhere. If we have inspection points we must expect, as a matter of practical transportation economies, that the grain passing through those points will be inspected there. I would go this far with my hon. friend, however, that the reinspection privilege would thereby be widened1. The inspection at Moose Jaw of grain coming eastward from Alberta, to the extent that it does come eastward from Alberta, rather increases the chances of the owner of the grain on reinspection. In my own experience in the business I know that very frequently it has happened, with the speeding up of transportation in recent years, that inspections made at Winnipeg in the rush season-the rush, remember, not only in the inspection, but in the offices getting out the slips to the shippers or their agents-would involve your receiving notice that the car on which you are applying for reinspection at Port William had been unloaded before the request for reinspection arrived there, whereas inspection nearer the point of origin gives the shipper of the grain a greater length of time in which to appeal for reinspection. Surely there would be no more reason why noncompulsory inspection should be practised at Moose Jaw than that there should be compulsory inspection at Calgary, Edmonton or Winnipeg. I think the advocacy of hon. members on this side of the house and in the opposite corner of an interchange of grain inspectors is much more to the point with regard to securing uniformity of grading than any question of compulsory or non-compulsory grading at a particular point. As we look to the future we must of necessity contemplate the possibility of more points in western Canada at which inspection will be made. When the Hudson bay route opens up for traffic, there is no question about it, we must arrange some point for the inspection of grain convenient as a funnel to that route, and there is a great deal to be said in favour of inspection points both at Moose Jaw and at Saskatoon. Naturally the minister desires to go slowly in matters of this kind. I am not one of those who believe we will ever need to go outside of the present points, plus Saskatoon and some point in the future which would be the funnel for the Hudson bay line. I think those points would very naturally comply with all the requirements of western producers; I do not think there would be any necessity to ;o any wider than 
that; but I think within the next five years w'e shall reach that point where there will be inspection at Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, Hudson Bay junction, Calgary, Edmonton, and the usual terminal inspection at Winnipeg, Vancouver, Prince Rupert, and Fort William and Port Arthur.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Mr. Chairman, as the
representative of that portion of the country northwest of Moose Jaw, I can assure the minister that the farmers are looking forward with a great deal of satisfaction to Moose Jaw becoming a compulsory inspection point. I think the reason given by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) are sufficient. We have found on many occasions, just as he has stated, that before we can get word through for reinspection the car has gone forward and it is impossible to secure reinspection. The hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) pointed out to the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) the very thing that I was on my feet to tell him. I happen to be situated just on the dividing line, and our wheat goes west or it goes east. If it goes west, we in that part of Saskatchewan have to submit to its being graded at Calgary. When you consider that 50 per cent of the wheat that is grown in the three prairie provinces originates in Saskatchewan, I think it will be conceded that we are at least entitled to some recognition. I am heartily behind the establishment of compulsory points both at Saskatoon and Moose Jaw.


William Russell Fansher: Probably the minister could give us information as to how many cars of wheat have passed through Moose Jaw in a given season, and as to how many of those cars have been inspected, and how many have been reinspected either at Winnipeg or Fort William. Since the load limit of a car has increased during the last few years, it is impossible to inspect some cars of wheat until it is unloaded. If the minister has this information it will be valuable to us in determining whether Moose Jaw has been taken full advantage of as an inspection point.


James Malcolm: I am sorry that I cannot give my hon. friend the number of cars that have passed through Moose Jaw, but about 16,000 cars were inspected there during the last crop season.


Edward Joseph Garland: Returning for the moment, Mr. Chairman, to the Moose Jaw inspection division, the Minister of Rail-

Supply-Canada Grain Act
Ia.
ways drew an unfair illustration. The situation with respect to Moose Jaw and the situation with respect to Calgary are not analogous. For this reason: if you are shipping your grain east, and you have inspection at Winnipeg, then you have a long distance between Winnipeg and Fort William during which you can receive your certificate and check your grading. The same with Calgary; any grain going through there has to be hauled five or six hundred miles before it reaches Vancouver, and the shipper has a chance to check up. But Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton are the only points on each side of the dividing line.
Now as to the minister's other point, leaving aside for the moment the question of transportation difficulties, personally I would have no objection whatever to Calgary being a voluntary point. If a farmer is foolish enough to want his grain inspected at Vancouver, all right. Of course that raises the problem of storage and holding of cars, which is a serious matter from the transportation point of view. So I say with respect to Moose Jaw, it should not be made a compulsory point; let those who want it have their grain inspected there. Again this other question comes to my mind. Inspection points were asked for at Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, Le Pas and everywhere else. Le Pas may be in a different position; it is a final point of inspection before reaching the terminal.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, there will be terminal facilities at Churchill exactly as there are at Vancouver.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister knows what I mean. I speak of Winnipeg or Calgary as being the last points at which inspection is made in order to get a cheek. So Le Pas would stand in the same relation to Churchill as Winnipeg does to Fort William. Inspection at Saskatoon and Moose Jaw is not a good thing until you have more mechanized and made perfect the grading of grain. The more inspection points you have the more you create room for dissatisfaction and discord among the farmers as to whether they are getting fair grades or not. It has been our experience in Alberta that if we ship samples to Calgary, Edmonton and everywhere else we get entirely different grades. The same would hold true with respect to Moose Jaw and Saskatoon, and you would get into a state of hopeless confusion and the whole inspection system would be discredited.


John Vallance: How could that occur? If your car was inspected at Calgary westbound or at Moose Jaw eastbound, that same car would not be inspected at Winnipeg.


Edward Joseph Garland: I was speaking of submitting samples at the various inspection points. Many farmers before shipping a car take the precaution of shipping samples. We get three or four different grades.


An hon. MEMBER:: You get them anyway.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes; but why intensify the problem? Let us first improve our grading system.
Mr. 'VALLANCE: You are assuming that your one car should go through only one point. You are not eliminating the danger.


Edward Joseph Garland: But you are multiplying the possibility of human error in the grading of grain.


John Vallance: Not at all. It goes through one, not two or three.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is quite right; but the hon. member is not as dense as he appears to be by his statement. He knows exactly what I mean.


John Vallance: That is pretty smart.


Edward Joseph Garland: He wants that inspection at Moose Jaw and Saskatoon.


John Vallance: We want it compulsory.


Edward Joseph Garland: All right, I say frankly to the minister if these points are absolutely needed to protect the interests of the growers of grain, I for one will raise no objection; but I do ask him to take the greatest precaution before he brings any more new inspection points into being, especially compulsory points. We have a multiplicity of them, increasing on demand from time to time as the trade grows. There were reasons for this when the trade was growing rapidly, but there has to be a limit. I notice that the hon. member (Mr. Vallance) makes an interjection to the effect that he knows what I mean. I am so glad he got the point before I sat down.


John Vallance: I absolutely resent the
implications of the hon. member for Bow River. He is trying to suggest that by having five or six inspection points instead of three we shall get rid of the evil. But your wheat is inspected if it goes through one point and
Supply-Canada Grain Act

one point, alone. If it were to go through five instead of three, as he would try to make some believe, I could see the logic of his argument. It must go through one-


Edward Joseph Garland: Certainly.


John Vallance: -whether you have five or ten.


William Irvine: Does the minister know
whether or not the Saskatchewan pool has expressed any opinion on the question before the committee?


James Malcolm: The Minister of Agriculture has received a great many representations on behalf of the producers in Saskatchewan urging that, Moose Jaw be created an order point, which is what this means. I personally have not seen the representations, nor have I as minister, up to the present time, recommended that these various orders points be created. There is one thing that I want to say on this subject, and it is this. I believe that familiarity with grading, if the grading is properly done, does create a certain confidence in the minds of the producers; and the chairman of the board, discussing the subject with me some time ago, made the statement that there was one benefit that did accrue from voluntary inspection during the past season, and that was that the farmers themselves in great numbers were enabled to visit the place and see the inspection of their grain. As a result they did feel that they were getting good inspection. They felt a confidence in the inspectors which they did not have when the inspection was done at points further away.
I thoroughly agree with what my hon. friend from Bow River says. Personally as minister I do not want to see too many inspection points, but I do believe with the hon. member for Macleod that, with an exchange of inspectors, it is not likely that you will have a greater variety of grading at five points than at three. You are just as likely to have irregularities in the human judgment of grain in three points as in five. There is no particular reason to assume that the man you have in Moose Jaw will degrade or upgrade grain any more than the man at Winnipeg or Calgary or Vancouver. I do not believe you can possibly expect to have anything but a variety of standards if you multiply the inspection points to too great an extent. But I believe with the hon, member for Macleod that with a proper exchange you can handle all the principal points we need. And I believe with the Minister of Railways that the day will come-whether that day

has arrived or not I am not prepared to say-when we shall probably have to have an inspection point for the outlet of the funnel at Hudson bay and one or two more inspection points in Saskatchewan. Beyond that, however, I do not see any need for more points in Canada.


George Gibson Coote: I think one most important
point has been entirely overlooked in connection with the multiplicity of inspection points. If you establish compulsory inspection points at all these places mentioned you will compel all the grain companies and pools to maintain agencies at those various points in order that they might have their own representatives there to inspect the grain. That means considerable expense; it means an increase in the expense of the inspection department. For these two reasons there is an objection to compulsory grading being established at Moose Jaw. There is ground for compulsory inspection at Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton, and when we begin to use the Hudson bay route there will have to be a compulsory point on that line. These are points outside the producing territory and they will get all the wheat that is being sent either to the head of the lakes, or to Hudson bay or to the Pacific ocean. In my judgment it is necessary to have compulsory inspection at those points, so that before the cars reach the terminal elevators the railway company will know the result in regard to each one of the cars. But on account of the expense involved to the people interested, in Moose Jaw particularly, they should be willing to go slow there in this matter. It will mean a great deal of expense, and we know by experience that all these expenses fall ultimately on the producer, and are taken out of the price of his wheat. That is the real basic objection to the establishment of more compulsory points. We cannot very well object to voluntary inspection at these points, and as a matter of fact, the interior terminal elevators are located at Moose Jaw and Saskatoon and there must be one inspector anyway at each of these places. So that no one can object to voluntary inspection there. But we should go slow about establishing too many compulsory points.


Charles Avery Dunning: I wonder whether my
hon. friend, who has presented his argument fairly, takes into account when considering the question of expense to the grain companies, the fact that that expense goes on whether or not the inspection is compulsory. If the inspection is voluntary, the expense of maintaining the necessary men to check the

Supply-Canada Grain Act
samples is just as great as if the inspection were made compulsory and all cars passing through were inspected. I know something about the cost of maintaining such a checking system and I can assure my hon. friend that the cost of infinitesimal to the grain company to maintain the checking of its grades at any point where grading is done. There is always an additional expense to the inspection department to the extent to which additional inspectors are required. One would think, to hear this discussion, that inspection at Saskatoon and Moose Jaw was a new thing. Millions of bushels have been inspected at both these places in the last number of years, particularly in seasons of off-grade crops, when both terminal elevators have been required to handle the crops and the farmers have desired inspection there. As a matter of -fact, they had to have it for their grain going into storage temporarily in the interior terminal elevators; and if you admit inspection at all, there is very little difference, in the expense to those handling the grain, as between voluntary and compulsory inspection.
My hon. friend from Wetaskiwin asked a question with respect to the pool. The best answer I can give regarding the pool's attitude towards Moose Jaw inspection is the fact that in spite of inspection at Moose Jaw being voluntary, during the last crop season the wheat pool did have all their cars passing through Moose Jaw inspected there. That is the best evidence that they are satisfied of its value to them in actual operation. My hon. friend from Last Mountain asked a question regarding the number of cars inspected there. According to the last record I saw-I do not know whether the minister has it here tonight-there have been, up to three or four months ago, some 16,000 cars inspected at that point, if memory serves me correctly. It was very widely used.


William Russell Fansher: How
many oars have passed through there?


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot say; but my
hon. friend will bear in mind the fact that the wheat pool of Saskatchewan controls over SO per cent of the crop and all their cars were inspected there. All the cars going in that direction were inspected there. At least 50 per cent of the grain grown northwest of, southwest of and west of Moose Jaw must have been inspected there last year-because the pool controls that much-and, in addition, some at any rate of that controlled by ordinary companies in the grain trade. Not all of the ordinary grain companies but most of them
opposed that innovation, as they have opposed every innovation that has ever been made in the handling of grain since the inception of the practice.


James J. Donnelly: With regard to this inspection of wheat at Moose Jaw I have been and am at present a grower of wheat to some considerable extent, and have shipped wheat from western Canada for a good many years. Most of the wheat from the constituency which I have the honour to represent goes through Moose Jaw, and the people of my constituency are anxious to have this made a compulsory grain inspection point. Of late I have received many communications both from the pool directors and others urging that this action be taken. For the life of me I cannot see why the hon. member for Macleod should be so much interested in the financial welfare of the grain trade. He thinks if Moose Jaw were made a compulsory inspection point they would have to have a man there. I have shipped grain from these points and I am not interested in whether or not they have a man there; they never send a man there unless it is to pick out a few good cars of wheat and send them wherever they please. I do not care whether or not they send a man to Moose Jaw to inspect my grain.


George Gibson Coote: The reason I mentioned the
expense was not because I am interested in the grain trade but because I am interested in the Alberta pool. So long as it is voluntary I do not think it will be necessary for the Alberta pool to maintain an office to check the cars, but if you make it compulsory you will compel the Alberta pool to maintain an agency there for that purpose.


Charles Avery Dunning: My information is that
even now, when it is voluntary, the Alberta pool is using Moose Jaw inspection.


George Gibson Coote: Has the minister definite
information on that?


James J. Donnelly: Perhaps I might complete the remarks I want to make, now that this little talk is over. As a grower of wheat I cannot see that these men should object to some compulsion. I ship wheat east and west; every time my wheat goes through Calgary I am compelled to have it inspected there, and every time it goes through Winnipeg I am compelled to have it inspected there. I do not see why these people should object if a little of their wheat happens to dribble through Moose Jaw and they are compelled to have it inspected. That is not
Supply-Canada Grain Act

fair play. We grow over fifty per cent of the wheat produced in. Saskatchewan, and I should not think they would object if we ask to have a little inspection carried on at this point. To me it looks rather like the dog in the manger. I think we are only asking for our share of the business when we ask that the little wheat they grow be inspected at that point in Saskatchewan.


John Gordon Ross: The hon. member for Macleod asked regarding the inspection of Alberta pool wheat. I was informed by the men who were checking the grades for the Saskatchewan wheat pool, which maintains an office in Moose Jaw occupied by two men and some stenographers, that they were handling the grain which came through there for the Alberta pool. The Minister of Railways stated that all pool cars were inspected in Moose Jaw.	All pool cars from pool
elevators are inspected in Moose Jaw, but although this house passed an act last year saying that the farmer had the right to designate where his grain should be inspected, the grain trade for which my hon. from Macleod wishes to save money-


George Gibson Coote: I protest against that statement. I have already said that I am not interested in the grain trade, and I think the hon. member is not fair.


John Gordon Ross: Very well; I
hope the hon. member is not interested in the grain trade.


George Gibson Coote: Would my hon. friend correct that statement?


John Gordon Ross: I will withdraw
the statement, if that is what my hon. friend wants. Although this act was passed last year, the grain trade have not been following the act because when a pool farmer has to ship his grain through a line elevator, the line elevator man takes the stand that once the grain is handed over to him he has the right to say where it shall be inspected. He takes charge of the grain until it is handed over to the pool again at Fort William.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Is the hon. member
correct in stating that the amendment to the act gave the farmer the right to designate the point of inspection? Did it not rather give him the right to designate the terminal to which the grain should be shipped? That is a different matter.


John Gordon Ross: That is a different matter. I did not intend to say it gave him the right to say where the grain should be inspected; I intended to say that the

act gave the farmer the right to designate to what terminal elevator it should go; it gave him the right to send his grain anywhere, but the grain trade are not following that act. Once the grain is taken into a line elevator, even though it belongs to the pool, the line elevator man claims the right to handle that grain as he sees fit until he returns it to the pool at the other end. The result is that all pool grain handled through the line elevators is inspected where the elevator man wishes it to be inspected, and though the pools may wish to have it inspected at Moose Jaw, they cannot force its inspection there.
I want to say a word with regard to the multiplicity of inspection points. I think that is an advantage at times, during the heavy run of grain. In regard to inspection anywhere, the farmer has the right to government inspection of grain, and government inspection in one place is the same as government inspection at another place; at least it should be the same, and as a general rule I believe it is the same or at least very similar at all inspection points. The amount of money it will cost the grain trade to check samples at any of these points does not amount to very much and should not be taken into consideration in view of the fact that the people producing the grain want this service in their part of the country. They have been absolutely satisfied with what they have received so far and they want compulsory inspection so that they will be able to go in and see how their grain is inspected. They want to be able to send samples into this point and have them inspected before they ship their grain, and I do not see why they should not be allowed to have that service if they desire it.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Bow River and the hon. member for Macleod offer such objections to further grain inspection points. I did not expect that this discussion would be precipitated on this item, but I have letters from the United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan section, and also a letter from the pool to that same organization, saying that in their judgment the matter of inspection points in Saskatchewan is of great interest to the producers of this country.


Henry Elvins Spencer: That is the Saskatchewan pool?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Yes, and I
assume that if it is of interest to the Saskatchewan pool it is of equal interest to the

Supply-Canada Grain Act
farmers who belong to the Alberta pool and who ship their grain eastward. When we consider the question of expense, which has been suggested, that expense is so small that I do not think any hon. member of this house should consider it for one moment, especially if, by having these points at such a distance from the terminal point, it will insure a reinspection. Surely that is a very .small thing for the producer of grain to ask-that he have that inspection as near the point of production as possible, so as to give him as much time as he may desire to have the grain reinspected. So I want to say to-night that as far as I am concerned I will support, on behalf of those men who produce the grain the establishment of compulsory inspection joints at Saskatoon and at Moose Jaw.


John Evans: Notwithstanding all that has been said, I have yet to be convinced that a compulsory inspection point is needed at Moose Jaw. Moose Jaw is one of the most unlikely points that any business man would select as an inspection point for Saskatchewan grain.


Mr. McPHEE:: Will my hon. friend say the same thing aJbout Saskatoon?


John Evans: The Minister of Railways has said that the proper point of inspection is where there is a funnel through which all the grain passes. Moose Jaw is very nearly the dividing line between east and west, and consequently there cannot be any funnel there. It would mean shunting the grain back west from where it is grown. It is the most unlikely and unbusinesslike suggestion of anything I have known in the grain trade. Notwithstanding all that has been said, I challenge this statement regarding the United Farmers of Saskatchewan, and the pool. For the truth in this matter I think we had better let this question stand for another day in order to get these people's opinion.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I made the
statement that I had a letter from the United Farmers of Saskatchewan, and I want the hon. member to understand that when I said I had it I did have it. I am going to ask him to be good enough to take that statement back.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The letter must be produced.


James Malcolm: I should like to appeal to the committee that this discussion is entirely out of order. It is like the young lady who was nervous about where she was going to get the money to buy her trousseau. Somebody asked her if she was engaged to be
married, and she answered, no, but she was afraid she might 'be. The question of providing money for Moose Jaw or Saskatoon inspection is not in this vote, and the whole discussion is entirely out of order.


John Evans: Mr. Chairman, I submit that you have allowed discussion from one side, and I surely have the right to answer some of these statements. When this matter came up two years ago I wired the board of trade at Saskatoon inquiring if there was any demand for an inspection point there, and there was no one interested. They did not become interested until the manager of the Quaker Oats Company spoke to them, indicating that he was very much in favour of an inspection point. I can see why the millers would like an inspection point possibly right in the middle of the wheat field1. It would enable them to skim the crop a little easier than they are doing at present. They are skimming the wheat in Saskatchewan to-day, and the poorest type of each grade is going on the markets of the world, and that is how our price is based. They are getting the cream of the price that is paid for the lowest type of each grade. I may say that I spoke also to the general manager of the Saskatchewan Co-operative Elevator Company, which post the Minister of Railways has filled, and he could see no possible reason for an inspection point at Moose Jaw.


Mr. McMILLAN:: Would you take the same stand with regard to Saskatoon?


John Evans: I certainly would. For years I have taken the stand in this house that these points have no business to be established. It is only an expense on the grain trade. I objected to the elevators at Prince Rupert, Victoria and Halifax as being drags on the grain trade. This is another source of expense. I spoke also to the Board of Grain Commissioners, and they assured me that before a compulsory point could be established at Moose Jaw a quarter of a million dollars would have to be expended there for that purpose. I say that an expenditure of a quarter of a million dollars for this purpose is not needed, because the natural inspection point for western grain coming east is at Winnipeg. More than that, I want to tell the minister and some of these Saskatchewan .'armers that nearly fifty per cent of the grain oaded last year was loaded in cars which were too full to grade.


John Vallance: That is a lot.


John Evans: It is just enough to knock out altogether an inspection point at Moose Jaw.
Supply-Canada Grain Act


John Vallance: Were the 17,000 ears inspected at Moose Jaw empty?


John Evans: They may have been bricks, for all they knew.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: This is a wire addressed to myself at Ottawa:
A. MaoG. Young, M.P.,
Ottawa, Ont.
Establishment of inspection and order point at Moose Jaw has given such general satisfaction to growers of grain shipping through that point we would urge in the strongest possible manner that an inspection and order point be established in Saskatoon, in order that the same satisfactory service may be provided for growers of grain shipping through Saskatoon.
United Farmers of Canada. Saskatchewan Section, per W. M. Thrasher, Secretary.
I also have a letter which is subsequent to that. It is addressed to myself, dated May 11, 1928, and reads as follows:
Dr. A. MacG. Young, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Dear Doctor Young:
As per request contained in your letter of the 4th instant, I wired you giving our stand on the establishment of a grain inspection and order point at Saskatoon. I sincerely trust your efforts in this connection will be successful, as we are advised that the inspection point at Moose Jaw has given satisfaction, particularly to wheat pool members. The wheat pool established an office of their own at that point for the purpose of checking up on inspections, and all pool wheat passing through Moose Jaw was inspected.
I am quite certain that anything you can do toward gaining the same beneficial result for shipping wheat through Saskatoon will be appreciated. not only by our organization, but by the wheat pool as well.


John Evans: Who signed that letter?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: The United
Farmers of Canada, Saskatechewan Section, Limited; W. M. Thrasher, Secretary-Treasurer.


John Evans: I have no knowledge of a resolution passing the convention of the United Farmers of Saskatchewan, or that it has ever passed the board. If W. M. Thrasher has signed that letter, he did so on his own responsibility.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: The hon. member for Rosetown has said something about the board of trade at Saskatoon. If he is-interested in the matter, I have a letter here from them dated November 25th, 1927, where they are asking that this thing be done.


John Evans: That must have been after the manager of the Quaker Oats Company had been there speaking to that body.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I rather expected that the hon. member for Rosetown would oppose this, as he has opposed most everything of interest to that part of the country.


Mr. KELLNER:: The Minister of Railways pointed out that the railway companies had a lot of trouble in unscrambling cars. Whether you make it a compulsory point or not, it seems to me that the same situation is going to arise when you get to Winnipeg, because east of Moose Jaw the train would naturally be picking up cars.


Charles Avery Dunning: The transportation practice is to have a full train movement right through.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: The minister's contention is that nothing but a full train would leave Saskatoon or Moose Jaw?


Charles Avery Dunning: The general practice is a full train load, with the exception of the necessary reduction or increase in the number of cars in the various divisions where the engine capacity is greater on account of lower grades, or smaller on account of steeper grades. As far as full train loads leaving Moose Jaw are concerned, that is and has been the transportation practice for years.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I think the minister will quite readily agree that there are bound to be times when the train is not loaded to capacity at Moose Jaw and will naturally pick up other cars along the way.


Charles Avery Dunning: Very rarely.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Then you have a different situation there from anywhere else on the prairies. When you get to Winnipeg you have the difference that some of the cars are graded and some are not.


James Malcolm: My hon. friend will
surely understand that when the inspection is made at Moose Jaw a solid train will go through to Port Arthur or Fort William. When the inspection is made east of Moose Jaw the cars from various points will be made into a local train. The trains at Moose Jaw will be solid trains if Moose Jaw is made an order point. I have just received some information with regard to the inspection which has already taken place at Moose Jaw and it covers the question of the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) as to the number of cars that were overloaded. From August 1, 1927, to February 28, 1928, the total number of cars inspected at Moose Jaw were 19,934. Two thousand cars were unloaded at Moose Jaw, I presume for their own elevator,

Supply-Trade and Commerce
and the balance was forwarded to Fort William or Port Arthur. There were also included in the total care reported as inspected, 7,416 cars of grain which were loaded too full to sample properly. Thus 33.7 per cent of the total inspection at Moose Jaw was only provisional.


George Gibson Coote: Could the minister give the committee the number of cars that were inspected at Saskatoon last year?


James Malcolm: I do not have that.


Charles Avery Dunning: That would be only local inspection.


Alfred Speakman: In tihe first place, may I say how glad I was to hear the minister speak so favourably of the suggestion that there should be an interchange of inspectors at the different points? I am convinced, as are, I think, almost all farmers who have considered the question at all, that uniformity of inspection is one of the most vital necessities in the grain business and we believe that that can best 'be brought about by the different inspectors having an opportunity of familiarizing themselves with the standards and methods at the different grading points.
I should like to say a word in regard to the laboratory of research. I think the people of our part of Canada are thoroughly sold now as to the value of that laboratory and the research work done therein. There are two things which they would like to impress upon the members of the house, the minister and the country. The first is that they would very much like to see adequate salaries paid to the proper men there. They think, and it is a feeling that prevails generally, that there is a danger of our losing some of our best men through the inadequacy of the remuneration paid to them. They are doing valuable work, work that must be done by men of scientific attainment and expert knowledge, and there is such a thing as being penny wise and pound foolish in dealing with matters of that nature. Any movement towards placing their remuneration on a satisfactory basis would meet with the approbation of all the people who are interested.
More and more the farmers, the producers, who, now that the pools are in operation, are taking a greater and more intelligent interest in commercial problems, are asking that they shall be in a position to acquire the knowledge that is derived through that research; in other words, that when problems have been studied and reports have been made, those reports, the result of that research, the knowledge 56103-200
acquired by those men, shall be at the disposal of those interested. I venture to say that it has not been the general practice in the past to place that information at the disposal of the men who are chiefly interested. I know that in speaking of these two points, I am speaking for the large majority of the more intelligent farmers-and they are becoming more and more intelligent-not only in my own province, 'but I believe in all the prairie provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Management, operation and maintenance of elevators, $577,500.
Mr. CARMICHAEL:: Might I ask the
minister if the cost of the inspection point at Moose Jaw comes under this item? He informed us that it did not come under the other.


James Malcolm: It is not provided for at all in the estimates. It was not considered.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Perhaps I can get
the information under this appropriation. I was wondering what has been the cost of Moose Jaw as an optional inspection point.


James Malcolm: Moose Jaw as it now
exists as an inspection point is included in the existing appropriation. Moose Jaw as an order point, as someone suggested, would entail an additional cost and that is not provided for in this appropriation.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Does the minister
know what the extra cost entailed upon his department would be if Moose Jaw were used as an order point?


James Malcolm: I have not the details.


Archibald M. Carmichael: The minister could not tell us what the extra cost would be if it were made a compulsory order point?


James Malcolm: Of course not, because I have noit considered the matter.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: What elevators does this appropriation cover?


James Malcolm: Does my hon. friend
want the list?


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: What I am particularly interested in is whether it covers the Vancouver one.


James Malcolm: Winnipeg, Moose Jaw,
Saskatoon, Calgary, Edmonton, Halifax. '


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: It does not cover the
Vancouver one?

Supply-Trade and Commerce


James Malcolm: Yes, it covers the Vancouver house too. It is leased.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Is the old Woodward
elevator at Vancouver under this item?


James Malcolm: No.


George Gibson Coote: Perhaps the minister would tell us whether the elevators are carrying themselves through their earnings?


James Malcolm: These elevators are more than carrying themselves. The last statement for 1927 is only up to December 31 and is, as a result of that, probably too favourable, but the revenue up to that time amounted to $752,000 and the expenditure only $350,000.


George Gibson Coote: Is any use being made of the Halifax elevator?


James Malcolm: Yes, there has been some use made of it. It will probably be taken over by the Halifax harbour commission on transfer or on a lease similar to that made of the Prince Rupert elevator to the commission there.


George Gibson Coote: It has not been paying its way so far?


James Malcolm: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Commercial intelligence service, including miscellaneous expenditure in connection with the development and extension of Canada's trade, $500,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: What is the reason for the increase?


James Malcolm: Just a general enlargement of the service, and the opening of new offices. There is a new office being opened at Lima, Peru, and there are more assistants being sent into the field1.


Robert James Manion: Would the minister give us a few words explaining what has been done in connection with this work?


James Malcolm: It is a subject on which I should like to have made a speech. The success that has attended the work of our men in the field in the last few years, and the number of voluntary compliments coming to them from business houses all over Canada, would make a very interesting story for the House of Commons. I think that the Canadian foreign trade service which was established a good many years ago by a former Minister of Trade and Commerce, Sir George Foster, and which was the model from which the United States established its service, has done probably as much for Canada in the foreign field as any bit of expenditure we
	'
have ever made in this country. It is not always easy to make public bits of news that come to the commercial intelligence branch, for the simple reason that they pertain to the success of one particular firm. If we were inclined to make public all the work that our men in the field do, some resentment would naturally spring up in the minds of other firms less aggressive than their competitors who are securing the foreign business. They might feel that our men were partial in their endeavours, though as a matter of fact our men in the field are I think justified in being partial to business firms which show some aggression and a desire to co-operate with them in an endeavour to get business. It is I feel sure well within the truth to say that a further expansion of our trade commissioner service will be of very great benefit to Canada. I am asking this year for only a small increase in this vote because of the fact that we have not the trained men available to send out. If we had, I would ask the house for a larger amount. The Civil Service Commission has just conducted an examination, and some men, I believe, have been accepted, and they will go into training at once. We have also some men going out into the field at the present time. We intend further to provide assistants in some of the offices that are now overworked. I think the house will agree with me that this is not a large increase to ask for this year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister might tell
the committee something of the general scheme under which the various trade commissioners operate. There is just one complaint I have heard and1 that is that there has been indicated in one or two cases a tendency on the part of some of our agents to show much more consideration for some firms than for others engaged in the same trade. I think the minister knows exactly what I refer to. What can be done to meet that situation?


James Malcolm: I am informed by my
deputy that we have not a single complaint of that kind on the files of the department, or it would be investigated. But as I said a moment ago, I think it is only the logical thing to suppose that if an aggressive firm sends its representative out into a certain field and he asks our man there to assist him in giving him introductions to possible buyers of some Canadian product, our man in the field, being human, will try to support that firm which is aggressive enough to send its representative out in an effort to develop business. I do not believe that there is any genuine complaint that our men in the field

Public Works Estimates-Quebec
have shown any partiality, but naturally they have shown a great willingness to help those who have gone to the foreign field. We have at the present time so many unsolicited favourable comments on the work that has been done by our commissioners that any criticism I might have to offer as minister of the department would seem infinitesimal in comparison with the compliments I would wish to pay to our men in the field.


Robert James Manion: Would the minister give
roughly the salaries that are paid to these trade commissioners?


James Malcolm: The salaries range from
15,760, with a living allowance of $2,000, which is paid to one of our senior men, Mr. Ross, in Melbourne, down to salaries of $2,040, with a living allowance of $1,500.


Robert James Manion: The highest is $7,760.


James Malcolm: Yes, that is received by our commissioners in Melbourne, London and Calcutta-salary, $5,760, living allowance, $2,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the minister
would not regard it as too much trouble to place on Hansard a statement showing where they are located?


James Malcolm: They are located as
follows:
Canadian Trade Commissioners
Argentine Republic: E. L. McColl, Buenos Aires.
Australia: D. H. Ross, Melbourne.
Belgium: Jean J. Guay, Brussels.
Brazil: A. S. Bleakney, Rio de Janeiro.
British West Indies: R. T. Young, Port of Spain, Trinidad; J. H. English, Kingston, Jamaica.
Cuba: James Cormack, Havana.
China: L. M. Cosgrave, Shanghai.
France: Hercule Barre, Paris.
Germany, L. D. Wilgress, Hamburg.
Holland: J. C. Macgillivray, Rotterdam.
India and Ceylon: R. H. Pousette, Calcutta.
Irish Free State: F. W. Fraser, Dublin.
Italy: A. B. Muddiman, Milan.
Japan: J. A. Langley, Kobe.
Mexico: C. Noel Wilde, Mexico City.
Netherlands East Indies:	R. S. O'Meara,
Batavia, Java.
New Zealand: C. M. Croft, Auckland.
South Africa, G. R. Stevens, Cape Town.
United Kingdom: Harrison Watson, London; J. Forsyth Smith, Liverpool; Harry A. Scott, Liverpool: Douglas S. Cole, Bristol; Gordon B. Johnson, Glasgow.
United States: Frederick Hudd, New York City.
I might explain that Mr. Lamontagne, our former trade commissioner at Brussels has been loaned by the Canadian government to the Egyptian government to hdip in the framing of their new tariff.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are no trade commissioners in the United States?


James Malcolm: Just the New York
office.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Has the minister considered placing more trade commissioners in the United States? I understand that the United States have eighty odd commissioners in Canada.


Mr. FRASER:: On page ZZ-20 of the
Auditor General's report, under the vote for the commercial intelligence service, I find an item of $4,298.63 for advertising in various newspapers and periodicals. What is the explanation of that?


James Malcolm: I am informed by my
deputy that this covers the small advertisements that may be inserted in local newspapers from time to time giving notification of the location of our offices. There are twenty-four offices included in that amount of $4,000 odd. It is not a publicity vote at all.	.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Saturday, May 19, 1928