1928-02-10

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 30, to amend the Admiralty Act.
Mr. GARDINER:: Explain.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Under the law the
Exchequer court in Canada is a court of admiralty and as suc'h has within Canada all the jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred by the Admiralty Act of 1890. The Privy Council in recent cases has decided that this should not apply to the changes which have been made giving additional powers to the High Court of Admiralty since 1890. This bill is to give to the Admiralty court all the powers which courts of the same class have in England.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SUPREME COURT ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 31, to amend the Supreme Court Act.
Mr. GUTHRIE:: Explain.


Ernest Lapointe: By this bill the spring
sittings of the court, which, as the law stands at the present time, are fixed for the first Tuesday in May, will be advanced to the

Dominion Elections Act

fourth Tuesday in April. This is done because it will be more convenient for the judges and, I believe, also for the lawyers.
There is another somewhat important amendment by which it is intended to confer upon the court discretionary power in special cases to receive evidence in addition to that which is embodied in the stated case. The Privy Council in England and the High Court of Appeal in England have such powers and it has happened in a Canadian case that the supreme court here had no authority or discretion to allow the filing of a plan while, When the case was before the Privy Council, the Privy Council allowed the filing of that plan. This is for the purpose of giving the supreme court the same discretionary power as the Privy Council has in that matter.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. P. BANCROFT (Selkirk) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 32, to amend the Dominion Elections Act (voting by clergymen, teachers and students).
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. BANCROFT:: This bill seeks to amend paragraph (c) of section 29 of the Dominion Elections Act, which reads as follows:
(c) Who has ordinarily resided in Canada for at least twelve months and in the electoral district wherein such person seeks to vote for at least two months immediately preceding the issue of the writ of election.
As the election writs are usually issued about two months before election day, the present act disfranchises all persons Who change their places of residence dluring four months immediately preceding the date of an election. Clergymen changing pastorates usually do so during July or August, school teachers begin their duties about September 1, and students in the higher institutions about October 1. Every federal election since 1896 has been held during the fall months. All clergymen, teachers and students, who in following their respective duties, change their place of residence within four months preceding the date of an election are disfranchised under the present act.
This amendment exempts clergymen, teachers and students from paragraph (c) of section 29, provided that they can satisfy the registrar that they are othewise qualified to have their names placed on the voters' list. This amendment affects approximately 12,000 clergymen, 63,000 teachers and 75,000 students.
i.Mr. Lapointe.l
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FARMERS BANK-STATEMENT

Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: May I have unanimous consent to place on the table a return?


Mr. SPEAKER:: By unanimous consent.


James Alexander Robb: On the 3rd February the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Anderson) asked for a statement showing the revenues and expenditures of the Farmers Bank. I now place on the table a statement supplied to me by the liquidator.



BURIAL OF INDIGENT SOLDIERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: I
would like to ask the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment whether any payments have 'been made since last session in regard to the burial of indigent soldiers, as was promised by the Prime Minister on the last day of the session?


Hewitt Bostock: This question will serve
as a notice.



PRIVILEGE-MR. QUINN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. P. QUINN (Halifax):: I rise to a
question of privilege. Yesterday I made in this house a statement regarding the purchase of potatoes by the government for the Hudson Bay expedition, and the Minister of Railways stated in the house last night that only forty-five bushels had1 been purchased. I received to-day from a reliable produce firm in Halifax the following telegram.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. On the orders of the day being called it is not permissible to read telegrams or messages.


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition) :: If Your Honour pleases, the point taken was not a question on the orders of the day but a question of privilege of the member himself. Your Honour probably did not hear him.


Hewitt Bostock: No telegrams or documents which are not laid on the table of the house may be read even on a question of privilege.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, he may state the contents of the telegram.


Hewitt Bostock: Certainly.

Privilege-Mr. Quinn


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I understand he proposes to do. He was charged yesterday with having made a false statement, and he is now speaking on a question of privilege with regard to his own reliability with respect to the matter.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I will give reliable information which I obtained by wire from Halifax to-day to the effect that 450 barrels of potatoes were supplied to this Hudson Bay expedition at the price of $12 per barrel, when native potatoes could have been supplied in Halifax for one-third the cost.


Mr. DUNNING:: Surely, Mr. Speaker, I
now have the privilege of replying. I wish to state positively that the Department of Railways and Canals made no such purchase.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do I understand the
Minister of Railways and Canals to say that no department of the government purchased these potatoes? Is he trying to hide behind the Department of Railways and Canals?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yesterday in connection with this matter the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn) referred directly to myself and the Department of Railways and Canals. I made no investigation beyond the limits of my own department and the work on the Hudson Bay of that department. As to what may have happened elsewhere, my hon. friend can address his question to those who are responsible, but with respect to my department I assert positively that the statement which I gave last night was correct in every particular.


Hewitt Bostock: In order to make the
point of order perfectly clear, Bourinot, page 336, as quoted in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, says:
Nor is it in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or other communications, whether printed or written, emanating from persons outside the house, and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member, or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.
That is my authority in objecting to the reading of the telegram.



OLD AGE PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: May I ask if it is the intention of the government to amend the Old Age Pension Act at this session of parliament with a view either to making it a federal responsibility or at least increasing the proportion of the federal responsibility?
56103-22J


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: There is no intention to amend the act this session.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Ministei of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of Bill No. 6, to confirm a certain agreement made between the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Canadian National Railway Company.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 7, to amend the Patent Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-manufacture for reasonable requirements.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What change does this
make in the existing law?


Mr. RINFRET:: As I explained somewhat briefly on the first reading, the purpose of this amendment is to bring the Patent Act into conformity with the terms of the international convention for the protection of industrial property, which was agreed to at The Hague conference in 1925. Canada was represented at that conference by Mr. Frederick Herbert Palmer, Canadian government trade commissioner, and we were a party to the convention, which was signed on our behalf by our representative. The intention now is to incorporate in the Patent Act the changes which were agreed upon at The Hague conference.
Hon. members will notice that the changes that are being made are underlined in the bill before them. It has always been the law that every patentee must satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public with reference to his patent. It was thought by The Hague conference that this provision might be made clearer, and that every country that was a party to the convention should agree not only that [the patented article should meet the requirements of the public, but that it should be manufactured in the country. That is the reason, Mr. Chairman, for the amendments that are proposed to subsections (b) and (c) of section 40 of the act. Subsection (b) as proposed to be amended will read:
Patent Act [DOT]

Any person interested may present a petition to the commissioner alleging that the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to a patented invention have not been satisfied-
Then follows the addition:

or that the patentee has failed to adequately manufacture the patented invention in Canada.
and so forth.


Robert Gardiner: What is the minister's
definition of "reasonable requirements" of the public? How does he arrive at his definition?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I believe that the very
reason why this change is proposed is that there was confusion as to just what was meant by that phrase. It has often been the experience of the department, and I believe of similar departments in other countries, that after an article has been patented, the patent simply lies there in oblivion without any attempt being made, at all to give the public the benefit of the invention. I would interpret the words "reasonable requirements of the public" to mean that the public could reasonably buy the patented article, and that it should be on the market in sufficient numbers to be available to any purchaser. I believe the reason for the change in the section which is now embodied in the bill amending the original act is to make the act clear, not only that the patentee is required to see that the requirements of the public are looked after, but to see that the patented article is manufactured in the country.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Does that mean that he will lose his right if he does not manufacture the article?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: No. There is provision
made in reigard to that. We will come to it in another section. If the requirements of the public are not satisfied, or if the patentee fails to manufacture the article, any citizen may apply for a license to manufacture the article.


Peter McGibbon: That is terrible.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That has been the law for a long while.


Peter McGibbon: It robs a man of his right.


Robert Gardiner: Referring to paragraph (b), it is provided that the patentee be ordered to supply the patented article at a reasonable price. I would ask the minister whether 'he has any organization in his department which can determine whether a patented article is sold at a reasonable price or not.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: It is pretty hard to determine what is a reasonable price. I suppose there is competition. I suppose a reasonable price is arrived at having reference to the prices of similar articles. In the case of a patented article which would be in a class by itself I would interpret this section as being within the discretion of the department to determine, whether the price is reasonable or not, but I may say there is no intention on the part of the department to fix the price of the article. The only discretion is to determine whether the patented article is sold at a reasonable price, and if not the department would have authority to grant a license to someone else, in order to place a similar article at the disposal of the public at -a lower price. I think that is what it would mean.


Mr. GEARY:: Section 40 subsection (c) provides for that very thing-that the commissioner may fix the price.


Hugh Guthrie: I would 'call the attention of the minister to the glaring defect in the drafting of the section which I know as a literary man he will appreciate. The draftsman has employed the practice of splitting the infinitive. At the end of the nineteenth line I find the words:	,
Or that the patentee has failed to adequately manufacture.
If it were made to read "has failed to manufacture adequately," I think it would be more in harmony with literary taste and good English.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If my hon. friend the minister will look at paragraph (c) of section 40 he will observe on the second page of the bill the provision that the order shall not be made less than one year after the thirteenth day of June 1023. All those words are wholly unnecessary in 1928, because he is merely reenacting a section which has been repealed. To speak of 1923 at this time in 1928 would obviously have no application at all and might as well be deleted from the bill.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I would ask my hon.
friend to make that point clear to me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The statute apparently
was passed prior to 1923, and provision is made that no order shall be issued before the expiration of three years from the date of the patent and "not less than one year after the thirteenth day of June one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three". Obviously any order that can be made in 1928 must be at least one year after the 13th day of June, 1923. Those words can have no possible application.

Patent Act


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: It saye "not more tlhan
one year after the passing of the act".


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was originally
intended, but you have substituted the words, "not less than one year after the thirteenth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three". This is five years later.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: What are you reading
from?


Richard Bedford Bennett: From the top of page 2, paragraph (c). I think that is obvious.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: There is a mistake
somewhere, because my copy does not read the same as my hon. friend's. I do not know whether the mistake has been made by the law officers or not. I think we had better let the section stand. I observe that the bills that have been placed at the disposal of the members are different from the one I have. My copy reads:
Provided that such an order shall not be made before the expiration of three years from the date of the patent, and not less than one year after the passing of this act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is perfectly clear.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I never intended anything different from that, so that I would like to amend the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think you had better
let the section stand, so as to have no doubt about it, and make the amendment in the meantime.
Section stands.
On section 2-Revocation of patent time limit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That section has the
same provision at the beginning of subsection 1 and fixes the time at not less than three years after the date of the passing and not less than one year after the thirteenth day of June one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That is a mistake in the
printing of the bill. It was never intended to be drafted that way. If that is the only objection perhaps my hon. friend will agree that we should correct it now.


The CHAIRMAN:: Is it agreed we should
make the change now?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I think it should go back to the department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Make the amendment,
but do not take the bill out of committee.


John Frederick Johnston: We will revert to
section 40, or clause 1 of the bill. In line 8 the words:
-thirteenth day of June one thousand nine hundred and twenty-threewill be stricken out. The clause will then read:
-after the passing of this act.
The same amendment will be made in line 22 of section 41, or clause 2.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister will take
the bill out of committee so the law officers of the crown may see that it is actually in conformity with his intention?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Sections 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.
John Frederick Johnston: Section 3.


George Reginald Geary: That is the same trouble..


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Mr. Chairman, I
have not been able to follow at this end of the chamber what is going on. We are interested in investigating new industrial (processes. In case of a new process being discovered which should be generally adopted, is adequate provision made in this bill to protect the general public by making it possible that the new process may be generally adopted throughout the country?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That would be covered
by the act generally. I consider that our Patent Act gives to the public adequate protection with respect to any process such as my hon. friend refers to. But that would hardly oome within the scope of this bill. Its only object is to incorporate in) our Patent Act the changes which were agreed upon by the countries which met at The Hague two years ago. Of course, a discussion of the Patent Act generally is quite in order while this bill is before the house, but it is not the intention of my department to suggest any other changes than those that were agreed upon at that conference.


Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: Since discussion of the act in general is in order, may I ask the minister:	Would it be possible for
a patentee to lose his patent at the end of three years if he had not by that time commence! to manufacture under it?
Mr, RINFRET:	He does not lose his
patent, but it is then open to any citizen to apply to the department for a license to manufacture the patented article, the patentee having failed to avail himself of the privilege granted to him.
C.N.R.-Branch Lines


Robert King Anderson: Has there not been some objection as to t'he length of time? Many patents are very complicated and possibly expensive to make, and the person holding the patent might not be able to get his finances ready within the three years.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Then the minister, on the advice of the commissioner of patents, has discretion to grant or refuse a license.
Section 3 agreed to.
Progress reported.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I would ask permission of the house to rescind the order to refer Bill No. 6 to the committee on railways and canals, and later I would move to have the bill committed to the committee of the whole.


Hewitt Bostock: By leave of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Hewitt Bostock: Carried, by leave of the house.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways): moved:
That Bill No. 6, to confirm a certain agreement made between the Canadian Pacific Rail-ivay Company and the Canadian National Railways Company be now committed to committee of the whole.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1.-Agreement ratified and confirmed.


Robert Gardiner: Is this the form of agreement that is generally entered into between two railway companies under such circumstances?


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not think it would be correct to say that this is the general form of agreement. I do not know that any such general form exists; the form depends upon the peculiar circumstances of the case. As my hon. friend knows, both railway companies in 1924 desired to construct'a line through the territory covered by what is now known as the Rosedale-Bullpound branch line, and the railway committee of this house decided that it was in the interests of Canada to have the railway companies get together on a joint section through that district. From 1924 until now the two companies have been endeavouring to agree to the precise terms of a contract between them covering the

construction and operation of that joint section. These terms have now been hammered out to the satisfaction of both companies, and the department has reviewed the matter in so far as it may be said to affect the general interests of the public. The bill now before the committee is the result. It was thought desirable to have parliament ratify the agreement in view of the circumstances attendant upon its inception.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) moved" the second reading of Bill No. S, to amend the Trade Mark and Design Act.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This bill, like many others now
on the order paper, purports to amend a chapter of the revised statutes of Canada. These statutes came into force on the 1st day of February of this year, and virtually before they have become effective legislation is actually prepared to amend them. This is a very great waste of public money; moreover, it is a considerable inconvenience not only to judges and to the legal profession blit also to the community generally. I took up five bills the other day, one after the other, each of which proposes a trifling amendment to a statute that came into force on the 1st day of February of this year. I submit that the government, with a little care, might have provided against that contingency because it is not only, as I say, inconvenient, but expensive to the public that this necessity should arise.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I agree with my hon.
friend; his point is well taken as regards such amendments as we may be tempted to submit to the house as a matter of general practice. However, I plead in favour of this bill that it is in the same predicament as a previous one which I presented to the house for second reading this afternoon. The intention is to bring our statutes into conformity with decisions arrived at by an international congress at which we were represented.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was in 1925, as my hon. friend will remember.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I quite agree that it
would have been desirable to have had these amendments agreed upon last year, but as my hon. friend knows, last session was very

Trade Mark and Design Act
brief and it was not possible to attain all the results which we might have aimed at had parliament sat longer. When we prorogued in April these changes were hardly in form for presentation to the house.


George Halsey Perley: Did not the
minister bring in last year an amendment to the Patent Act?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I think it was dropped.
I	suggest that if we are to have an interchange of views we had better go into committee on the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Minister may refuse to register trade mark in certain cases.
George Halsey Perley: The minister
might give us some explanation of this; we have not had an opportunity to read the bill. Is it in accordance with the views of the international congress that these clauses have been drafted in this way?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Yes. My hon. friend
will get an idea of what is proposed if he will refer to the explanatory notes. Section
II	of the act sets out a number of reasons for which the minister may refuse to register any trade mark, and it is proposed to add to the list two further reasons which are intended to bring our legislation into conformity with a resolution adopted at The Hague, and which appears as "article 6 bis" on the second page of the bill:
Article 6 bis
The contracting countries undertake to refuse or invalidate, either administratively if their legislation so permits, or at the request of an interested party the registration of a trade mark which constitutes a reproduction or imitation liable to create confusion with a trade mark considered by the competent authority of the country of registration to be well-known there as being already a mark of a national of another contracting country and used for products of the same or a similar kind.
Subsections (f) and (g) are intended to carry out that purpose.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On section 6-Filing of application already filed in another country.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I would ask the minister
whether, in view of the provisions of the revised statutes of 1927, the situation is properly described by saying that section 52
of the act, as enacted by section 3 of chapter 28 of the statutes of 1923, is repealed, or whether it is not proper to say that a section of the revised statutes, of which this is now a part, is repealed.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Perhaps we might report
progress. I shall look into that point.
Progress reported.



SAINT JOHN AND QUEBEC RAILWAY

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of Bill No. 9, to authorize an extension of time for the completion of the St. John and Quebec Railway between Centre-ville, in the county of Carleton, and Andover, in the county of Victoria, N.B.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Explain.


Charles Avery Dunning: When the bill was introduced I made an explanation. If we go into committee now I shall be glad to deal with any phase of the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Extension of time.
Charles Avery Dunning: As I stated when the
bill was first introduced, the St. John and Quebec Railway Company is owned by the province of New Brunswick, the government of -which province has requested an extension of time for the completion of this branch. The section now before the house is designed to give the Minister of Railways power to grant that extension.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My sole reason for
directing attention to the bill is that in my opinion the company became dead on the first day of December 1927. The time within which the minister might extend the period for construction expired on December 1 last, and inasmuch as it expired on that day there ceased to be a company. So I suggest that additional sections should be added to the bill to make it clear beyond doubt that the corporation as such still exists, because by virtue of the extension having expired before legislation was introduced, the company is no longer existent.


Charles Avery Dunning: That point naturally
arose in giving consideration to the matter, and I adopted the obvious course for a poor layman; I referred it to the legal department of the government, the Department of Justice, and it is on the advice of the Department of Justice that the bill is presented in its present

St. John and Quebec Railway
form. I am sorry I cannot discuss the legal niceties of the situation with my hon. friend, but apparently the Department of Justice is satisfied that this will effect the purpose desired.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no desire to enter into any legal discussion, but after the first day of December last there was no longer a company.


Charles Avery Dunning: I doubt that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If my hon. friend will
take the trouble to look at the statutes of 1925 he will find that the power of the minister was extended until December 1, 1927, and when that date was passed there was no longer any right to construct a railway, and with the right to construct the railway the corporate powers of the company vanished, partially at least. It is a matter on which the Department of Justice can more readily advise than I can, but we are now giving that power until 1930, although the company as such suffered the legal result following the expiration of the period of time allowed.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my hon. friend say that the company has gone out of existence?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said partially.


Charles Avery Dunning: I would point out that
this company is in existence as the owner of Certain railway lines in the province of New Brunswick which are leased and operated by the Canadian National Railways. Therefore the company must of necessity continue to exist; it could not have become defunct on December 1 of last year. The point with respect to that, as I understand it, was that the power of the minister to extend the time expired on that date. That point was referred to the Department of Justice, who have advised me that if it is dealt with in this manner it will be satisfactory and will effect the purpose desired. However, I will leave the bill in committee for the present.
Progress reported.



EXPERIMENTAL FARMS STATIONS ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 10, to amend the Experimental Farms Stations Act.
_ Mr. BENNETT:	There is a principle
involved in this bill, Mr. Speaker. Parliament created these establishments and provided that parliament itself should determine what areas should thereafter be acquired and* what moneys should be 
expended. This amendment substitutes the governor in council, on the report of the minister, and while one need not have any lack of confidence with respect to the present incumbent of that office I think it desirable, where it is possible, that we should not extend the powers of the governor in council beyond what has heretofore been the case, when parliament may reasonably exercise the power without any inconvenience. That is the situation with respect to this measure, involving as it possibly may very large expenditures of public money.
Mr. MOTHERWTELL:: I would point out that preceding governments have been acquiring other farms for the last thirty or forty years without any authority whatever. The original bill prescribed the acreage limitation of the first five farms, but that has been entirely disregarded ever since. We just discovered that by accident last fall, and I want to remove that limitation and have some authority for enlarging old farms and purchasing new ones.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 11, to amend the Seeds Act.
M*r. G. G. COOTE (Macleod): May I ask the minister if it is proposed to send this bill to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization?
William Richard Motherwell: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. TOLMIE:: Will the minister just give us a word of explanation?


William Richard Motherwell: I did explain it on the first reading, but I will do so again. There are two main amendments proposed, the first having to do with the rearranging of the names. This has been threshed out by the seed growers of the west on several occasions, and the names and grades of the various registered seeds are rearranged as shown on page 2 of the bill. That has been quite a moot question in the west; it was discussed for many years, and I would like it to go to the agricultural committee. In regard to the other amendment, two years ago parliament authorized the minister to license new varieties of seed grain. That matter of licensing has been somewhat abused. The minister has no authority to refuse a license when the variety is not a sound one; for

Royal Military College
instance, a license has to be granted regardless of the quality of the grain. I am asking for authority for the minister, after submitting the matter to an advisory board, to decline to grant a license when it has been proven by test that the variety of grain does not stand up to a minimum quality of seed grain. Those are the two chief amendments in the bill. The rest are minor amendments to iron out the old act so as to make it more workable in practice. No new principle is involved in any of the amendments except the two to which I have referred, namely, the reclassification of names and the right to refuse a license to varieties until they are tested in actual practice.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 12, to amend the Dairy Industry Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence) moved the second reading of Bill No. 13, respecting the Royal Military College of Canada.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the minister explain what he proposes in this bill? I have had correspondence from various people about it.


Mr. RALSTON:: This bill is intended to
bring up to date the provisions of the act respecting the Royal Military College. As a matter of fact, the provisions which were in the revised statutes of 1906 and which have been continued until the present time, have not been in accordance with the practice which has been adopted in the department since 1910 or 1911. I refer particularly to the matter of qualifications for admission, which, under the old act, are passed on by boards in the provinces and which, by'regulation and practice, have been passed upon by a central board, depending upon the_ certificates held by applicants from educational institutions in the provinces. With regard to the number of students the act provides a limitation of 120, which has been exceeded practically every year since 1913 with the exception, I think, of two. The provision
limiting the pay of the staff was exceeded as far back as 1913. This bill is intended, as the explanatory notes show, to remove those limitations and to provide for admission under regulations made by the governor in council which will be published in the Canada Gazette.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The real fact of the
matter is that this is a statute to repeal the existing statute, under which parliament has some control and had made certain provisions, and to substitute for it the discretion of the governor in council. In other words, it becomes purely a political control as distinguished from a parliamentary control. I submit that this is a step in the wrong direction, especially with respect to the Royal Military College, an institution which has rendered great service to this country and which has graduated very distinguished men who have brought great credit to Canada both at home and abroad. Whatever may have been the defects of that system, it is certain, with respect to education, that graduates of that institution have taken a foremost place in almost every part of the world in many branches of human endeavour, not solely confined to military achievements. The number of students that could attend this institution was limited by statute, and1 quotas were provided for the various provinces. The control with respect, not to the quota but to the pay and the sum total of the numbers that could attend, was a parliamentary control. Heretofore the quota has been regulated by considerations that were referable to that military provision, and while the payments, the character of the instruction given and the government and control of the institution were, perhaps, under the control of the governor in council, there were in the statute itself details with respect to those matters.
A number of old graduates are tremendously interested in this institution, and some of them feel-and I hope they are wrong-that this endeavour at this time to take the control of it entirely out of parliament and to substitute for it practically a political control, as all control by governor in council is, cannot but be fraught with disaster to the institution. There is a feeling that it would be much better if an effort were -made to create for the institution a body of government _ that would be entirely removed from political control. To what extent that may or may not be possible, the minister is perhaps better able to speak than I; but it occurs to me, and I think those of us who read the 'bill will see, that the minister has substituted control by governor in
Royal Military College

council for what was once a real and effective parliamentary control, disregarded though it may have 'been. It was the duty of the government not to disregard1 it. The fact that this was done in 1913 does not justify its being done in 1927. The fact is that the provisions of the statute have been disregarded, and if the number of students is to be increased from 120 to 150, this should be done by parliament and1 not through regulations of the governor in council. I submit that that is the effect of this legislation, and when the matter is being further considered in committee I shall have some detailed observations to make which, possibly, will be better made then than now. I desire, however, to protest against this substitution of control by governor in council for parliamentary control, more especially in view of the observations Which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was so prone to make in days long since past and, I presume happily forgotten when he was at the left of the Speaker.
Motion agreed- to, -bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.


Hugh Guthrie: As I understand this bill, the present act which has been on the statute book of Canada since about the year 1876 and the Royal Military College Act, chapter 131 of the revised statutes which came into force on the 13th of February last, will be wholly repealed and this new brief act substituted therefor. I concur entirely in the remarks of the leader of the opposition particularly in regard to the purpose of this amendment. If hon. members will read this short act, they will see that in every instance the control of this worthy institution is taken out of the hands of parliament and placed in the hands of the Minister of National Defence. There may be something to be said in favour of such a method in regard to an educational establishment, but I do not -believe that parliament is ready to yield up all control of this particular institution to the minister as he proposes in this bill. By subsection 2 of section 2 it is provided that:
institution shall be known as The Royal Military College of Canada, and shall be located m some one of the garrison toms of Canada, and shall be under the direction and management of the Minister of National Defence.
In other words, it is to be the creature of the minister, and this whole government institution is to be carried on really by him, though nominally under the authority of the' governor in council, which would1 act, of

course, upon the recommendation of the Minister of National Defence to the cabinet of this government.
All the regulations for the governance of the college are to be made in that way. All appointments are to be made on the recommendation of the Minister of National Defence, and all military appointments will be made exclusively on his recommendation There is a saving clause that civilians shall be appointed under the provisions of the Civil Service Act. Salaries are to be fixed by the governor in council, not by parliament. The number of candidates attending -the college is to be regulated by the minister himself, or by the governor in council. All the supplies for the college are to be purchased under the authority of the minister or of the governor in council. Parliament, if this bill passes, will surrender entire control of this institution to the Minister of National Defence.
Now that was not the original intention when this college was instituted in this country away back about the year 1874. The countiy is proud of this institution. Parliament has always been pretty jealous of the management of this institution, and it has been a matter of pride to -the House of Commons in days gone by that they have been consulted in regard to any change in the management of the Royal Military College. I do not feel that the system which has done so well for over half a century should be altered now. I do not say that under the management of the present Minister of National Defence it would be made a political organization, but that would be possible if this act is passed in its present form. My own view is that we should retain as much as possible the principle of the old act whereby parliament kept control of this institution. I do not say that the old act should be maintained intact. There may be changes which should be made, but this is nothing short of a bold attempt to replace the old act and place all the power in the hands of a member of this government. I do not think that is a sound principle in regard to an institution of this kind.


James Layton Ralston: I regret very much, Mr. Chairman, that my hon. friends have felt it necessary to suggest that the purpose of this . act was anything such as they have mentioned.
I want to assure this house as earnestly as I possibly can that the purpose of this act is exactly as I have stated, namely, to bring the statute in line with the practice which has been observed in connection with this institu-

Royal Military College
tion for a number of years. It is possible that someone with more discretion than I have and less boldness would have allowed the situation to continue as it has been for the last several years, but I have felt that the statute should conform with what has been the practice, and that I should come to parliament and ask for the act to be amended accordingly, and that is why I am here.
I do not think my hon. friends have read carefully the old act, because I assure them, and I hope to be able to convince this committee in a moment by reference to the old act, that the governor in council was the controlling body under the act as originally passed and as it has been administered for all these years. I am going to refer to some sections of the old act just to show' this committee that that is the situation. Section 5 of the old act provides that all the staff of the college shall be appointed by the governor in council, and shall hold office during pleasure. My hon. friend suggests that what is intended here by giving the governor in council control is to create a political machine.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say a political
machine. I was very careful not to say that;
I would not say it for a moment.


James Layton Ralston: I accept my hon. friend's
statement. I took that inference from it, but I am glad I was wrong. I say that the old act provides that the staff as at present appointed shall be appointed by the governor in council, and this new act does nothing to disturb that practice except that it provides that the civilian staff shall be appointed under the terms of the Civil Service Act, which I think hon. members of this committee will agree is at least not extending the jurisdiction of the governor in council or making it any more likely that this act will be used for that purpose.	.
Subsection 2 of section 6 of the old act says that there shall be a subordinate civilian staff of such strength as the governor in council deems necessary.
Then section 7 provides that the salaries, pay and allowances shall be fixed from time to time by the governor in council.
The next provision is that a board of examiners shall be appointed by the governor in council.
Subsection 2 of section 8 provides that the board shall be authorized to examine candidates for admission to the college as cadets, and to give certificates in such form as is provided to such as are able to qualify according to the regulations in that behalf;
and the regulations, under section 4, are made by the governor in council.
Section 9 provides that the examiners shall transmit to the department a report of the names of all candidates for the information of the governor in council.
Section 11 provides that the candidates shall be selected by the governor in council from the list of names forwarded by the board of examiners.
Section 12 provides that the governor in ' council may, in addition to the number of cadets limited by this act, select other candidates and other students and allow them to attend the institution.
I have perhaps gone into this matter a little more carefully than my hon. friends, and I want to be quite frank with them, as I endeavoured to be w'hen I spoke a moment ago, and to say to them that the changes made by this new act are not changes such as are suggested by them. The governor in council will have no more power under this act than before, except in these two respects: (1) Under the old statute the number of students is limited to one hundred and twenty. That number by this act is struck out because, as I have stated, for years past the number of students has been a great many more than one hundred and twenty; but remember, the report of this department is laid on the table, and the number of students is always given in that report, and I do not think there has ever been any objection on that count.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: Why not
leave to parliament instead of to the governor in council the matter of fixing the number of students?


James Layton Ralston: I am not averse to that
if this committee thinks it is the proper thing to do.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: That is exactly what is the practice, because the minister has to come to parliament with his estimates, and every hon. member then has the opportunity to ask how many students there are, and the minister has to give an explanation with regard to the Royal Military College, for he cannot run it without money.


James Layton Ralston: I was just going to say
that parliament has control of the estimates. The minister is on the floor when his estimates are up, and any member can ask him how many students there are. I think that gives parliament ample control over the number of students because we cannot put students in there unless parliament votes the money. There will be no
Royal Military College

difference in the matter of quota for the provinces from what it has always been. Hon. members will realize that we cannot put students in there without having money to take care of them. That is the reason this measure is presented. I can assure my hon. friend and this house that there will be no difference in the matter of quota from what there has been. An endeavour has been made to divide the number of students fairly among the different provinces, and it was only when some provinces did not take up their quota that other provinces were entitled to put in more than otherwise would have been their share.


John Wesley Edwards: In regard
to the number of students allowed by the act, may I ask if we are to understand that the number has been regulated by the cost -if that is the regulating factor, or if not, what has been the factor determining the number of students who would receive instruction at the institution?


James Layton Ralston: I have only had to do
with it for the last year, but I understand that it is a matter of accommodation more that anything else; that is to say there is only room for a certain number of students.
I think the accommodation at the present time is taxed to its utmost; that is from 190 to 200 students.


John Wesley Edwards: I think
the accommodation there is altogether inadequate and -that it should have been increased long ago.


James Layton Ralston: The other point is that
there is a provision in this act that the salaries paid to the staff shall not exceed $60,000. That, as I say, was exceeded long, long ago-I must confess I do not know how. I do not know how it got by the Auditor General, but apparently these salaries have been paid for a number of years, and I felt when I was submitting a vote to the house on the estimates I did not want to ask for a greater amount with this limitation in the act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is taken out of
the present act.


James Layton Ralston: Yes. The third point
is m regard to the terms of admission. Under the old statute a board of examiners was appointed by the governor in council in each military district. For some years it was felt unnecessary to have a board of examiners in each military district, and what was done was to constitute a board in Ottawa composed of professors from the Royal Military College and other educational authori-

ties and have applicants for admission send to that board their certificates from the various educational institutions in the provinces. The qualifications were not always uniform because the educational systems in the provinces were not uniform, and it was felt that when you were giving an opportunity to the different provinces to send in students you should have regard to the educational opportunities provided in these provinces and arrange the qualifications of students from those provinces accordingly, rather than setting up one arbitrary board under the act which board would determine the qualifications without respect to those conditions. This act provides that the regulations for admission shall be made by the governor in council. I do not think that in principle any different from the provisions of -the old act. which were that a board of examiners should be appointed by the governor in council, and that the government should have the (power of selecting from the names submitted by the board those who were to be accepted. My hon. friend mentions the clause which provides that the minister shall have the administration and management. I want to draw his attention to the fact that the minister is mentioned in two sections of the old act, and it of course has been the practice that the minister should manage the institution. This is just making it definite as under the act it looked as if the commandant of the Royal Military College might be in control. It was felt that it should be definitely under a department of the government and that is why this provision appears.


Peter McGibbon: Could -the minister tell us the minimum qualifications with regard to age and so on?
Mr, RALSTON: I think it is sixteen up to nineteen, and the academic qualifications-


Richard Bedford Bennett: They shall not be under fifteen or over twenty.


James Layton Ralston: I think it is sixteen and nineteen, and -the educational qualifications have to do with the certain standards in the various provinces. I am afraid I cannot give them to -my hon. friend off hand.


John Wesley Edwards: I think
roughly speaking it is equivalent to aids matriculation.


James Layton Ralston: I think so, speaking generally.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Do I understand -that the method of control now proposed is virtually the same as it was under the old act which

Royal Military College
gave certain authority to the governor in council, except that civilians employed are to be under the Civil Service Act whereas they were not under that act before?


James Layton Ralston: I think I can make that general statement-yes.	Under the old act
there was a limitation placed upon the number of students and the amount to be paid to the staff. That has been cut out but the practice is the same as has existed in' the department for a good many years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think, with all deference, that the minister has somewhat confused the position we have taken. With respect to fundamental principles parliament should govern. With respect to the government of the institution, dependent upon changed conditions from day to day, it is dbvious regulations must be made and they are made by the governor in council, but parliament should not be shorn of its authority with respect to essential matters which essential matters, Mr. Mackenzie, when he introduced the bill creating the Royal Military College over fifty years ago, provided for. But in 1876 these matters were thought unimportant from an educational standpoint. There were lknita-tations which he thought important. One was the limitation of the number of students and parliament has maintained that, although it -may be that with the growth of the country the number should be increased.


James Layton Ralston: I think my hon. friend will agree with me that it will be exceedingly bad practice to attempt to include in the consolidation of the statutes amendments such as these, and it would be far better to come to parliament and say what the amendments are.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend knows perfectly well that I would agree with him with respect to that, but I am complaining that a revision should be proclaimed on the first day of February, and that before the revision became effective legislation had been prepared which rendered five or six sections of the revised statutes of no value. This is not a revision; this is the substitution of an old act for a new one. The original act has been on the statute book since the establishment of the institution. Section 15 reads:
A sum not exceeding the rate of three hundred dollars per annum, and such allowances as are, from time to time, authorized by the governor in council, may be paid for each cadet during such period as he remains at the college, to meet the ordinary expenses of living, and the procuring of uniform.
And added to that is section 7:
That the money spent for salaries, pay and allowances, shall not exceed the total sum of $60,000. Details of such salaries shall appear in the annual report laid before parliament by the minister.


James Layton Ralston: What is the section the
hon. member is reading?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am reading from the
revision of 1927. Section 15 was the one I first read, and then section 7. Then follows this, and I regard it as being so important for reasons that I have had occasion to point out to the minister more than once. Section 11 of the old act provides:
The number of cadets in attendance at any one time shall not exceed one hundred and twenty.	.
2.	The term for which they shall be admitted shall not exceed four years.
3.	They shall be selected by the governor in council from the list of names forwarded by the board of examiners in the order of merit in which they pass their preliminary examination.
Whatever else may be said, since 1876 down to 1927 there was no opportunity for what might be called political influence determining the type of men who Should attend that college, because it was provided; they should be selected in the order of merit in which they passed their preliminary examination. I regard that to be essential with respect to this one single institution of an educational character that is maintained by the Dominion. There are those who believe its curriculum should be extended, that it should undertake scientific education in a broader sense than now prevails. I have just sent out to obtain a -copy of the Christmas number of the college magazine in which appear two articles, one by a former graduate who served with distinction during the war, and the other by a professor of the institution in reply. But that single subsection, I say to the minister during many years' observation I have found to be the most powerful influence for the purpose of controlling the type and character of the men who went to the institution to be found in any of our statutes, namely, that those cadets should be selected in the order of merit in which they passed their preliminary examination. Where is that in the bill?


James Layton Ralston: I have said to my hon.
friend that I do not think the practice of having provincial boards has been observed for quite a number of years. I do not know what he means by saying that he has observed it to be very essential and beneficial. As I said before, the central board of examiners have made the selection.
Royal Military College


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think my friend the minister has caught the point. There is a provision for a board of examiners in section 8 of the old act. They shall transmit to the department a report of the names of all candidates who succeed in obtaining certificates, for the information of the governor in council, with a report of each meeting. Then follow the conditions of entry, and it is provided by subsection 3 of section 11 that they shall be selected by the governor in council from the list of names forwarded by the board of examiners in the order of merit in which they pass their preliminary examination. The governor in council may delegate that power to a general board or to the adjutant general but the statutory provision is imperative:
_ They shall be selected in the order of merit in which they pass their preliminary examination.
During the long years in_ which the Liberal government had control of this institution, because of the merit of many young men not of that faith they were able to get into the institution, for they had merit. This bill wipes that out, and I do ask t'he minister to return to the statute that provision which made merit the condition of entry to the institution, not political influence. That is the position I take in respect to it.


James Layton Ralston: That expression is what
I object to. I thought my hon. friend disavowed any idea of there being political influence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I want to prevent it.


James Layton Ralston: If anyone wants to be
diabolical enough to keep a young man out of the Royal Military College because of his politics, it can be quite easily done under the present statute by the selection of such a board of examiners-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh no.


James Layton Ralston: I hope my hon. friend
does not believe that that situation could exist.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I saw it tried once.


James Layton Ralston: Under the present act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it did not succeed because of that statute.


James Layton Ralston: I say to my hon. friend
that if anybody could be black-hearted enough to desire to keep out a young man because of his political faith, he could do so by the selection of a board of examiners of a certain stripe.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the candidates for
admission have papers sent them. My hon. friend does not mean that seriously?


James Layton Ralston: I mean it as seriously
as my hon. friend means that the governor in council would deliberately pass over a young man, certified by the board of examiners as having reached the required standard of merit, and say to him: We cannot take you even though you have that standing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend understands that what we seek is to put it, out of their power to do so.


James Layton Ralston: I say you put it out
of their power just as effectually by reason of the fact that the board of examiners have all the say as to the order in which the candidates shall be placed; they are the ones who say what merit rating the candidate shall have. If they fix a certain order of merit, then the governor in council will automatically select the candidates so certified.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what it
says. I am-


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend will permit me. The provision to which he is referring is that the candidates who have been certified by the board of examiners shall be selected by the governor in council in the order of merit in which they passed their preliminary examination. I say that if anyone was so black-hearted as to Want to shut out a young man from the institution, all he would need to do would be to have the board of examiners report the candidates in the order of merit that he desired.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely my hon. friend
does not mean that. Conditions may be bad, but you cannot get a board of examiners like that.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is implying that we can get a governor in council black-hearted enough to do that sort of thing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, my hon. friend is
overlooking this fact. Parliament, under Alexander Mackenzie, who took very great pride in founding the Royal Military College, thought it was highly desirable to have inserted in the statute a provision that would ensure against the very conditions I have referred to. It may be as my friend says, that it is not necessary to invoke that provision, but when it is there is it not a deterrent, is it not a valuable safeguard?

Royal Military College


John Wesley Edwards: And Alexander Mackenzie did not imply by it any lack of confidence in his own integrity or that of his government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so. I do suggest to my hon. friend that it ie highly desirable to retain that safeguard in the public interest, to prevent any effort being made to secure entrance other than on the standard of merit provided by the statute.


James Layton Ralston: The only way such an effort couLd be made would be for the governor in council deliberately to pass over the young man who is shown to be higher on the list than another young man.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not the governor in council, it is the minister who would act.


James Layton Ralston: I beg my hon. friend's pardon.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend has overlooked the fact that this institution by subsection 2 of section 2 of this bill is to be under the direction and management of the Minister of National Defence. .


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend has overlooked the provision thalt the number of cadets in attendance at the college and the conditions of entry shall be as from time to time authorized by the governor in council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so. But there is no provision such as was in the old statute regarding the meritorious marks of candidates for entry, and it is because of that provision that this institution has for so many years been so free from what might be called the difficulties and the baneful influences of politics. I recall in the days of my youth when going down to New Brunswick at Christmas always seeing upon the train large numbers of young men, cadets from Kingston, on their way home, and although a Liberal government was in power at Ottawa, the application of that section for selection by the governor in council of cadets from the list of names forwarded by the board of examiners, in the order of merit in which they passed their preliminary examination, ensured that the lists from every part of Canada determined the selection. Hence it was that those lists were hung out from year to year, and the person at the top of the list knew he was going to be able to get into the Royal Military College, because a uniform examination, as my hon. friend will recall, was ultimately fixed in every province. It made no difference how luxurious might be the surroundings of the youth or how wealthy might be his home, he was perfectly certain he could
not get into the college if his marking was 50 and there were a dozen men ahead of him with 70. I think the provision that Alexander Mackenzie put in the statute fifty years ago my hon. friend will be well advised to retain in this bill. In addition there is the other point I advanced, that regulations must always be made-he and' I will agree about this-to give effect to a principle that parliament determines, but parliament must not leave it to the governor in council to determine fundamental matters with respect to legislation.


James Layton Ralston: I tried to convey to my hon. friend that I did not see any real deterrent if anyone were really determined to rob a young man of his rightful place according to merit, either under the old act or under the new. We are entirely agreed on the principle, and my suggestion is that if there is any object in having an express provision,
I might undertake to have in the regulations a clause for selection on merit. Would that meet my hon. friend's views?


Hugh Guthrie: Is there any sound objection to putting it in the act?


James Layton Ralston: I do not think so.


Hugh Guthrie: That would settle the
difficulty.


James Layton Ralston: Except that we are providing that all administration shall be a matter of regulation-


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is more than a
question of administration.


Hugh Guthrie: It is fundamental. To
make it statutory would answer many objections that might be raised1. We have confidence in the present minister who is at the head of the defence department; but he may not occupy that position very long. In fact, rumour has it that the minister will hold much higher positions in the service of the country. Suppose, then, he were supplanted and the Postmaster General took his place; we might not have the same confidence in him.


John Wesley Edwards: God forbid.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Is not the principle which is at the moment being advocated the principle that is in force and has been recognized?


James Layton Ralston: Certainly.


Arthur Edward Ross: That is to say,
every student entering the college is selected according to his standing, which is indicated by the Department of Education. The selec-
Royal Military College

tion is made on the basis of matriculation, and the marks are reported1 by the Department of Education and adopted as the standard. I do not see any objection to this principle being adopted, although I hardly think it could be followed 100 per cent. For example, a student might apply for admission to the college and, while having a very high standing in classics, he might be very low in mathematics. In that event he would be a total failure in that institution. I believe the board does select those students who are most suited to the line of work followed in the institution, but they make their selection on the basis of the student's mathematical proficiency. I see no objection to embodying in the statute a provision along this line. I do foresee, however, some friction in the case of a student having, as I say, a high standing in classics and a low standing in mathematics, because the natural inclination would be to select those who had the best standing in the latter branch of studies. The choice of students depends upon merit, and I believe that in the large percentage of cases this principle is followed.
As regards the limitation of the number of students admitted, I think the minister would be well advised to withdraw any provision in this direction. The number of students entering the college depends very largely upon the severity of the examination, and the examinations in institutions of this nature are quite severe; so that between 15 and 20 per cent of the students naturally fail. One year you might have a class exceptionally high in mathematics and allied subjects, while another year the class might be low in this respect. The result is that the percentage of failures varies: more students fall out one year than another. The tendency is to increase the number of applicants coming in each year in the fourth year, which as we understand it is really the first year, and I think the minister is wise in what he proposes in this regard.


John Wesley Edwards: In this matter standards are fixed and always have been fixed by educational institutions such as our universities, and these1 standards have to be met by those who desire to enter. In Ontario and Quebec, and in fact in all the provinces, the standard generally is covered by the word " matriculation ", and those who are capable of passing the matriculation examination have the right to enter these institutions of learning. There is practically no restriction so far as numbers are concerned. When the act was first passed a limitation was set upon the number of students who might 
attend the Royal Military College, and it was because of that limitation that the Hon. Mr. Mackenzie introduced that particular section providing for the manner in which the limited number should be selected. But because the Mackenzie government incorporated in the act the stipulation that the students who passed the examination for entrance to the Royal Military College should be selected in order of their merit, as indicated by their marks, is no reason why one should infer that Mr. Mackenzie lacked confidence in the integrity and honesty of his own government and of himself. He made that provision because he saw that where the number of students was limited, and so long as it was limited, there must be some other standard of selection than the mere passing of an examination. In making the selection of those who might enter the institution, if the allotted number were not exceeded, the order of merit made no difference. But if the number who passed the examination, some with high and others with low marks, exceeded 120 or whatever the prescribed number might be, then the students who were chosen would be selected from the best as indicated by their percentages in the examination. What possible objection could there be to such a rule? What objection could there be to putting it in the act? No better means could be devised of selecting the students, and under that system the college has certainly done remarkably well in the past. It has made a record not only in Canada but throughout the world; it- has become famous. And since my first entry into this house it has always been a matter of satisfaction to me to observe the manner in which estimates in connection with the Royal Military College have been received by members, irrespective of party or of the government in power. The representatives of the people in this house have at all times, at least in the last twenty years, shown by their willingness to vote money for the institution the confidence which they have in its efficiency. That I think is partly due to the sense of fair play: that where, say, 150 pass an examination and only 120 can be selected, the principle shall be followed of making the selection according to the marks obtained in examination. That is a wise safeguard, and it is just and fair. Nor does it in any sense, in my opinion, reflect upon the integrity of the governor in council or of the minister.


James Layton Ralston: I presume that this section was intended to provide that, if the board of examiners for Nova Scotia, let us

Royal Military College
say, submitted a list of names, then the governor in council, so far as the students from that province were concerned, should select from the highest. That is to say, the privilege must be allotted to the various provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: According to the quota.


James Layton Ralston: Yes. As I have said, we do not have separate boards for each province, but the qualifications are based on matriculation examinations for various universities in the provinces, and it is a little difficult to see just how we could work out a provision of that kind having regard to the fact that you might not have them in order of merit so far as passing any standard examination is concerned. I wonder if my hon. friend would accept this suggestion, simply an undertaking on my part,' that I will see to it that a provision is placed in the regulations to the effect that merit shall govern in the selection of candidates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If my hon. friend were to continue to be minister in perpetuity I would be quite satisfied, but unfortunately an order in council passed to-day may be rescinded to-morrow, as we all know, and under these circumstances I submit that the minister would be well advised to ithink the matter over and see if he cannot provide in the statute itself that merit shall be the determining factor. Perhaps before the bill comes out of committee he may be able to think it ought from that angle, not because I have the least suspicion in the world that he would not continue to do it by regulation, but because the frailties and weaknesses of human nature are not unknown to him as well as to all of us who are engaged in political warfare. While I do not think the government would be likely to repeal such a provision, they might find some palpable or apparent excuse or reason for so doing, to cover up some such real reason as I have suggested. I hope the minister will think it over, and perhaps we can discuss the matter further in private.


James Layton Ralston: I can only say with regard to myself that " I fear the lady doth protest too much " with regard to my probity. I thought that suggestion might be acceptable, because after all I know my hon. friend believes I am sincere in the undertaking and that the government would see that that undertaking was carried out. I do not think any government would be well advised to strike out such a provision if put in a regulation in view of the discussion we have just had. I can assure my hon. friend that I 56103-23
believe this is the most workable way of doing it; I think it will appeal to him as a lawyer as the best way to preserve this principle, if he wants it preserved in black and white. The principle is preserved in practice and will be preserved whether it is in the statute, the regulation, or left unwritten.


Arthur Edward Ross: May I ask another question? What does the word "civilian" refer to in section 4? Does it mean the substaff, the employees of the institution, or the higher staff?


James Layton Ralston: As I understand it, that has to do as well with the professional staff, everyone not on the military staff. We are not discussing that section yet, but perhaps since we are going all over the bill we might as well deal with it now.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Do I understand the
minister to say that he is going to insert in the regulations, if not in the statute, a provision that merit shall be the predominant factor for entrance to the college? If so, I think he is well advised.


James Layton Ralston: I will be glad to do that, and I will consult further with my hon. friend about it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Name.
John Wesley Edwards: Why not say that the college shall be located where it is at present?


James Layton Ralston: I would not think of locating it in Halifax, for the present, and that is as far as I can go.


Arthur Edward Ross: I do not suppose
the situation of the college will ever be changed, but at present the section reads "situated in a garrison town" or words to that effect, and of course it is not situated in a garrison town.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under the old act the
words "permanent force" were defined, and the words "garrison town" had a meaning which they have not now.


George Reginald Geary: Why not distinctly say "in
the city of Kingston"?


Arthur Edward Ross: I would be glad
to have that, but it is not in the city of Kingston.


John Wesley Edwards: We have the honour of having the college in the constituency of Frontenac-Addington, which is not exactly a garrison town.

Royal Military College


George Reginald Geary: Well, if it is not in Kingston I do not want it put there.


John Wesley Edwards: We can cover it exactly by saying "near Rarriefield, in the township of Pittsburg, in the county of Frontenac."


Eugène Fiset: I do not think the college is located in accordance with this present act, because I do not believe it is situated in a garrison town.


James Layton Ralston: We have some of the
R.C.H.A. there. I am quite satisfied to say "at or near".


John Wesley Edwards: I think we should amend it by adding the words "or near" after the word "in", to make it read "in or near some one of the garrison towns. . ."


James Layton Ralston: That would cover it.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Staff


George Reginald Geary: The hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) drew attention to the use of the word "civilian". Subsection 1 divides the establishment into military and civil sections; subsection 2 deals with the military side of the establishment while subsection 3 deals with the civilian side. Some of the professors at the Royal Military College are not soldiers, so far as I know; I believe there are civilian professors at that institution. Do they come under subsection 3? They are not officers, and they are on the civil side of the establishment.


James Layton Ralston: As I understand it, they come under subsection 3.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
On section 7-Number of cadets.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This section might stand. I should like to discuss it with some of my friends who are more familiar with this phase [DOT]f the matter than I am.
Section stands.
Section 8 agreed to.
On section 9-Supplies by cadets.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I understand at present
there is a limit as to the cost to each cadet, is there not?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.
[Mi J. W. Edwards.]


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is perhaps one of
the reasons that men of great merit without much money have sometimes been attracted to that institution. This clause as it reads would preclude a continuance of that condition. Is that correct?


James Layton Ralston: Except that section 15
of the old act states: "a sum not exceeding the rate of 8300 per annum," and such allowances as are granted from time to time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But those are allowances. The hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset) is perhaps more familiar with this matter than any other hon. member. The usual cost was $300, plus a monthly sum that ran from $10 to $25. Is that about correct?


Eugène Fiset: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This clause as it now
stands would make it possible to raise the price of education at that institution to the same figure as obtains, for instance, in the university of Toronto or any of the larger universities, and it might run up to $1,000 per annum.


Eugène Fiset: It might under this clause.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it not desirable to
continue the idea that was in the minds of the framers of the act establishing this institution? As clause 1 states, the institution is designed for a special purpose, namely, to train men in a particular class of work, and the idea was to attract to the institution men of known, demonstrated merit, to receive education at a very low cost. I know that at the present moment-and my hon. friend will recall a circumstance of last fall in that connection-a man of limited means, who is of very great ability, is finding in that institution an education which he otherwise could not get.


James Layton Ralston: The matter is, of course, one for the house. It would mean a commitment of the country perhaps greater than the commitment at the time the act was passed, because $300 meant a good deal more then than it does now. The payments which are made are still continued at $300 a year, except for the first year when there is an extra $250 for outfit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under that very section?


James Layton Ralston: No. That has been the
practice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the section states
$300 plus allowance for uniform.

Railway Belt Water Act


James Layton Ralston: Has my hon. friend any
suggestion in that respect? It seems to me that it might not be well to limit the amount to $300.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the matter I
desire the minister to think of. Obviously it is not for a private member to judge what the amount should be. I was thinking the minister might have some idea of what would be an adequate and a proper figure under the circumstances.


James Layton Ralston: I wanted to find out from my hon. friend if he was suggesting the retention of that exact sum?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


James Layton Ralston: Or a definite amount?


Richard Bedford Bennett: A definite amount and
the retention of the spirit of the section.


Peter McGibbon: What is the average
cost per annum?


James Layton Ralston: $1,681. That is exclusive of capital.


Peter McGibbon: Is that the average cost to the pupil or to the country?


James Layton Ralston: To the country.


Peter McGibbon: What is the cost to the pupil?


James Layton Ralston: $1,450 for four years: the first year $550 and the next three years $300 each. The cost to the country is $1,681 per annum.
Section stands.
Section 10 agreed to.


James Layton Ralston: Will the leader of the
opposition consider now, if he can, the effect of subsection 2 of section 3, which is that these regulations, in which I am intending to insert a provision making merit the factor, are published in the Canada Gazette and have the force of law, so that due publicity is given to them? This is not a question of an order in council which may be stuck away on a file somewhere. Possibly my hon. friend will consider that as fulfilling the idea he has in mind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is why I said that if my hon. friend would permit the bill to stand, I thought perhaps a dozen words of conversation with him would make clear what I have in mind rather than that I should say it here. What he suggests may be the basis on which we can arrive at a definite conclusion.
Progress reported.
56103-23J



RAILWAY BELT WATER ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 20, to amend the Railway Belt Water Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: As I
pointed out the other day when this bill was introduced, last year this amendment was passed by the Senate, where it was introduced, and it arrived in this house too late to be considered, chiefly owing to the fact that some interested members from British Columbia were not present when the bill came up for consideration. The purpose of the bill is briefly to suspend section 11 and to repeal section 12 of the act. In British Columbia the federal government control the railway belt and the Peace River block and they have the administration of the natural resources in that territory in British Columbia. The British Columbia legislature passed a water act for the governance of the supplies of water under provincial jurisdiction and the federal government adopted the provincial bill. The water rights in the federal belt were administered by the provincial bill. The water rights in the federal belt were administered by the provincial authorities under the control of a minister of the provincial government. In 1924 they consolidated their act and in 1926 we sought to bring our water rights act into conformity with the British Columbia act. Some difficulties arose when we were bringing our act into conformity with theirs with regard to certain Indian rights under the Indian department, over which I have control, and the question arose as to whether the rights of riparian owners were sufficiently safeguarded. We therefore inserted in our bill, in addition to the sections of the British Columbia bill, sections 11 and 12, which provided that in certain cases specified in section 11, before the actuai confirmation of the license by the provincial authorities could take place there must be consent by the Minister of the Interior. This was very much resented by the department in British Columbia, and for a time there was a complete cessation of the issue of permits, because, they said, the control was wrested from them and retained by the Minister of the Interior. After careful consideration I came to the conclusion that it was not
Railway Belt Water Act

worth while to have this controversy go on because interested parties were suffering in consequence, and I agreed last year to the introduction of a bill, which waS introduced in the Senate, not repealing section 11 in its entirety but suspending its operation until it might be required, when it could be put in force by order in council as set out in the bill.
So far as section 12 is concerned, we have decided that the rights of the riparian owners .are safeguarded by section 4 of the act itself, and that there is no real necessity for its retention.


Mr. FRASER:: I am pleased indeed to
hear the explanation of the minister. When his amendments were introduced in 1926 I made some objection, but at the present time what I am interested in is to know if under the present amendments any rights held by the users of water in the railway belt are affected in any shape or form, and also whether under the amendment made in 1926 any rights have been acquired which could not have been acquired without the consent of British Columbia. Those are the two principal points I would like cleared up. I might point out to the minister, as I did when this matter was up before, that you might as well give a man a piece of land on the top of mount Everest as to give him land in the railway belt without water, for without water the land is of no use in many parts of that belt. I should like to be assured, therefore, that the rights of the users of water in the railway belt of British Columbia will not be interfered with.
I was not aware until now that this legislation was the result of a little family quarrel. Apparently the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Lands in the province of British Columbia have had a little jar between themselves. We quite understand our Minister of Lands out in British Columbia, and I am glad to see that the Minister of the Interior has felt a little touch of Mr. Pattullo's temper in connection with this matter.


Charles A. Stewart: I wish to assure the hon. member that the suggestion of section 11 in the first place was merely on account of what we thought was a somewhat arbitrary action in connection with one particular license. I think that difficulty has been straightened out. So far as the administration is concerned we are in complete conformity with the Water Belt Acts of the province itself, but we are retaining the right

so that if at any future time we need to exercise it for the protection of any individuals who live in the water belt, it may be done. The two acts are now in complete conformity. The administration had really ceased until I agreed that I would introduce these amendments. Then it went on as usual, and is now going on as it had been previously. I had no authority to issue any permit. I simply took the authority, as my hon. friend will notice by section 11, to refuse to acquiesce in case of a formal protest, and by so doing I held up the issue of the permit.


John Anderson Fraser: There have been no changes, then?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I understand from the
speech from the throne that these lands are soon to be transferred to British Columbia. Are not these the lands that the speech refers to?


Charles A. Stewart: Quite true.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: If they are going to be transferred, why change the act, because then the lands will be under provincial jurisdiction?


Charles A. Stewart: In the light of my experience with the Alberta resources, I think it might be well to have this provision. Of course, if the lands were transferred there would be no necessity for the Dominion government to act at all.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Repeal.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Why should section 12 be repealed? It protects only the domestic water.


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon. friend will look at section 4 he will see that the rights of the riparian owners are amply protected. Section 4 says:
No grant made after the sixth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and thirteen, by the crown of lands in the railway belt, or of any interest therein, shall vest in the grantee any exclusive or other right, title or privilege in, to or in respect of any watercourse, or in. to or in respect of the bed or shores of any watercourse, unless and except in so far as any right, title or privilege to the bed or shores of any watercourse is expressly set out and described in such grant, saving the right of every riparian proprietor to the use of water for domestic purposes.
That clause gives him ample protection.


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

Gold and Silver Marking Act

[Stage Direction]
Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill No. 21 to amend the Gold and Silver Marking Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Title of act changed.
Mr. MALCOLM:: There are just three
changes in the act. The first is the inclusion of platinum as a precious metal. That re^ quires a change in the title of the act. The second is to give to the governor in council power to make regulations as to the quality and quantity of precious metal to be used in what shall be termed plated, metal filled, gold-fiilled or silver-filled articles, to get away from some of the cheap, spurious articles that are sold. This measure will permit the governor in council to make regulations covering the thickness and weight of this rolled metal. The third amendment is to provide that the trade mark of the manufacturer shall be stamped on all his goods. That prohibits him from importing contract goods and selling them as the genuine article.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Platinum to be applied only to certain articles.
James Malcolm: Any article marked
platinum shall be 95 per cent platinum and not more than 5 per cent iridium.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why not provide that
the act shall not come into force until a certain date, so that those who have stock on hand may be permitted to dispose of it?


James Malcolm: There will be a discussion shortly with those interested in various trades as to regulations, and when the regulations are satisfactorily adjusted that matter will be attended to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the bill comes into force when it is assented to, and I suggest that it come into force on the first day of July, 1928, or some other suitable date, so that everyone will have notice and will be able to deal with the situation.


James Malcolm: I will amend the bill
on the third reading.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Better leave the bill in
committee, so that we can deal with it in committee.
Progress reported.



PUBLIC PRINTING AND STATIONERY


[Stage Direction]
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Public Printing and Stationery Act in relation to advances authorized to be made to the king's printer for the purchase of materials, to execute orders and requisitions and payment of wages, and to provide that the total amount of such advances shall at no time exceed the sum of seven hundred thousand dollars or such sum as may hereafter be determined, from time to time, by the governor in council.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is it about?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The purpose of this resolution, Mr. Chairman, and of the bill that will follow it, is to provide the king's printer with the working capital necessary to enable him to carry out the responsibility imposed upon him by the statute. As hon. gentlemen are aware, the king's printer has to execute printing of all kinds required by the houses of parliament and by every branch of the service of the government of Canada, and has to provide all stationery and office appliances required by the houses of parliament and the various branches of the service. He has to edit the Canada Gazette, and has to be the distributing agent of the various departments for their respective publications, and to be the exclusive sales agent of all the official publications. He has to audit the accounts for all advertising undertaken on behalf of the departments of the government. Under the terms of the statute the Minister of Finance authorizes advances to the king's printer, and the king's printer remits to the receiver general all moneys received for services rendered by the department. The king's printer necessarily carries an extensive and varied assortment of paper and other printing and binding supplies, estimated to average in value approximately $350,000, and a stock of goods classed generally as stationery and office supplies estimated to average in value approximately $150,000; and that amount increases with the large increase in the work of the different departments.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister wants $700000?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The amount required
for printing and binding is $350,000. Funds must be provided, therefore, first for the maintenance of this permanent stock, the details

Printing and Stationery Act
of which are of course continually changing, and also for meeting contingent expenditure arising between the date of service rendered and receipt of payments due on account of same. Section 38 of the statute as it stands provides that the Minister of Finance may authorize the advance to the king's printer of a sum not to exceed 8200,000, but for many years, as far as my information goes, and for last year, as I know personally, having been in charge of the department, the amount advanced to the king's printer has much* exceeded the amount provided by the statute. Two causes have combined to render this sum insufficient properly to meet the king's printer's present necessities. . The first is a very large increase in all branches of the activities of the department and the second is the change in money values, which necessarily has its influence upon the wages of the different employees of the printing bureau and the general expenditure connected with it. Therefore it is proposed by this resolution and the bill which will follow to increase the amount which is provided by the statute from 8200,000 to 8700,000. As I have explained, this is not an expenditure at all; it is merely a readjustment. In past years the auditor general has brought to our attention the fact that we were exceeding the terms of the statute. There was some confusion as to the meaning of it. The statute said that the advance should not at any time exceed 8200,000; I believe the intention of it was very clearly to say that it should not exceed cumulatively that amount, but it was interpreted for the sake of carrying on as if no one advance should exceed $200,000. We find that we cannot carry on the printing work with that rather small amount, and therefore we propose now tc bring the working of the printing bureau into clearer harmony with the spirit of the statute by providing that the Department of Finance will be authorized to make advances to the amount of $700,000. As I have said, to-day we carry a stock in excess of 8500,000, and it is likely to increase with the years to come. So we want to provide for the future, and thus meet the wishes of the leader of the opposition that parliament should not be called upon to amend statutes all the time.
The other part of the resolution providing that from time to time the sum may be determined by the governor in council is to cover this contingency. In 1926, although the session was very much prolonged the estimates could not be voted, and .the printing bureau found it very hard to carry on, even had it been possible to be advanced the amount now provided for by the resolution.
XMr. Rinfret.]
As I have explained, this legislation will not have the effect of increasing our expenditure in the printing bureau; it will merely put an end to the somewhat confused interpretation of the statute that has obtained in the past, and bring its workings into clearer harmony with the spirit of the statute.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I presume that other
departments are charged for the work done by the printing bureau and the bureau credited accordingly.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Yes.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: How much credit has been given to the printing bureau for such work?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: My hon. friend will observe in the estimates that parliament votes to every department a certain amount of money for stationery and printing. The departments pay that money to the printing bureau, and at once it is turned over to the receiver general.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Then the printing bureau itself is very nearly self-sustaining?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Absolutely so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is only one difficulty about it, and that is the alternative suggestion that the amount may exceed $700,000. This, added to the provision in the statute, might just as well eliminate the limitation of $700,000 entirely, because the resolution reads:
-such advances shall at no time exceed the sum of seven hundred thousand dollars, or such sum as may hereafter be determined from time to time by the governor in council.
So all this resolution does is to give a blanket power to the extent of two or three million dollars any time they want to exercise it, and the $700,000 is what my hon. friend the Minister of Railways would describe as a joke. That is the real effect of the resolution as it reads.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: We expect most confidently that we shall never require the amount, but we want to provide for such a contingency as that which arose in 1926. Personally I do not think that contingency will ever recur, for I believe this government will always have such a strong majority in the years to come that we shall never see a repetition of the session of 1926.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You were beaten that
session,


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Perhaps my hon. friend would consent to the resolution passing, and when the bill is in committee I shall be only too pleased to give consideration to his remarks.

National Battlefields


Richard Bedford Bennett: I desire the minister to understand that I quite appreciate the necessity for the department having working capital, but no resolution should be adopted by this house that with one line imposes a limitation and with the next line removes it. The resolution says that the limitation of the working capital shall be $700,000-that is one line; the next line says " or such sum as the governor in council may authorize"-which may be two million dollars. I am quite content to accept the minister's suggestion, but surely he is not going to frame a bill which in one section imposes a limitation and in another removes it. '


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I do not agree with my hon. friend. We are not imposing a limitation, rather we are increasing the former limitation. There would be less excuse for the government to make use of the last lines of this resolution and increase the limitation placed on the working capital.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But with the last lines there there is no limitation at all.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I will not insist on that last provision.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought not.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: But really I cannot see it the way my hon. friend puts it. The intention of the government is to increase the limitation to $700,000, and it is only in exceptional cases that the government would take the responsibility of exceeding it. There would have to be good reasons for doing so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The resolution should end at " seven hundred thousand dollars," if what my hon. friend says is his intention. However, we can discuss that when the bill comes up, I do not wish to waste the time of the house now.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Rinfret thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 33, to amend the Public Printing and Stationery Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL BATTLEFIELDS COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution: That the Minister of Finance be authorized to pay to the National Battlefields Commission the sum of seventy-five thousand dollars a year
for a period not exceeding ten years from the first day of April, 1928, to be expended by the commission for the purposes of and subject to the provisions of the act respecting the national battlefields at Quebec.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister might give us an explanation of this.


James Alexander Robb: The National Battlefields
Commission was created by act of parliament some years ago and since 1912 they have been receiving various sums annually.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What have they been
getting from 1912 up?


James Alexander Robb: In	1912-13 they received
$116,500; in 1913-14, $145,000; in 1914-15, $143,000; in 1915-16, $118,000. The grant
dropped during the years of the war and last year they- received $75,000. It has been represented to us that they would get along better if they knew every year just what they would receive, so that they might make their plans accordingly. They have made some arrangements regarding the Quebec battlefields. These will be enlarged and some new walks put in. The members of the battlefields commission are:	Sir George
Garneau, LL.D., Quebec; Hon. A. Turgeon, C.V.O., C.M.G., Quebec; Robert Bickerdike, Esq., Montreal; Hon. Senator T. Chapais, Quebec; N. A. Dussault, Esq., M.D., Quebec; Hon. Wm. H. Price, Toronto; Hon. L. A. Taschereau, Quebec, and Dr. A. G. Doughty, Ottawa.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 34, respecting the National Battlefields at Quebec.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LOAN OF $500,000,000 REDEMPTION OF LOANS AND PURCHASE OF UN MATURED SECURITIES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution: Resolved, that the governor in council be authorized to raise by way of loan under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act such sum or sums of money as may be required, not to exceed in the whole the sum of five hundred million dollars, for paying or redeeming the whole or any portion of loans or obligations of Canada and for purchasing and withdrawing from circulation unmatured securities of Canada; the principal and interest to be charged upon and payable out of the consolidated revenue fund.
Loan of $500,000,000
Richard Bedford Bennett: Explanation, please; we
do not want to agree to the principle of it.


James Alexander Robb: The government have maturing in 1933 $446,000 000 odd and in 1934 $535,000,000 odd; between, those dates we have other and smaller maturities.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Can you give the
amounts?


James Alexander Robb: We have:
In 1928
1930
1932

65.000.	000
77.000.	000
73.000.	000
I have given the round numbers. The leader of the opposition especially knows that these maturities carry a rather high fate of interest.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some are tax-exempt.


James Alexander Robb: We expect, if the revenues are maintained and we practise reasonable economy, to retire part, through cash, and our hope is all, of the maturities, up to 1933. Money is cheap in the markets of the world to-day, and I am advised by financiers that it will be a good time, .within perhaps the present year or next year, to do some re-financing and get these high rates of interest out of the way as well as the bonds that are exempt from income tax. The committee knows that we cannot do this without authority. I welcome this opportunity of saying-because I do not wish to be bombarded by bond brokers during the session-that it is not the intention of the government immediately to take advantage of the powers which we shall receive from parliament. When we have time to do so we shall work out a plan which we believe will save the country a considerable rate of interest; and it will possibly satisfy many bondholders if we can re-finance by giving them other maturities of a longer term. That is the situation, and that is why we ask this authority from parliament.
_ Mr. BENNETT: We can discuss the matter in committee, because there are certain observations that should be made on the question.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess.
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill	No.	15,	respecting	certain	patent
applications of William H. Millspaugh.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill	No.	16,	respecting	certain	patent
applications owned by The British Steel Piling Company, Limited.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 18, respecting a certain patent owned by Canadian Cinch Anchoring Systems, Limited.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 24, to incorporate the Highwood Western Railway Company,-Mr. Coote.
Bill No. 25, to incorporate Niagara Gorge Bridge Company.-Mr. Hay.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. H. PETTIT (Welland) moved the second reading of Bill No. 14, to incorporate the Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge Company.
Hewitt Bostock: I must inform the house that as yet the committees have not been struck, but we might follow the practice in England, where bills are referred by anticipation to the committees to be struck. Is that the pleasure of the house? Carried.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it would seem to
me that instead of being referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills this bill should go to the committee on railways and canals, because it deals with railways and the Railway Act is applicable to a certain extent.


Mr. PETTIT:: This bill came before the
private bills committee last year, and that would seem to be the proper committee.


Hewitt Bostock: I think under the circumstances the point taken by the leader of the opposition is a good one, and this bill should be referred to the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. T. GOODISON (West Lambton) moved the second reading of Bill No. 23, to incorporate the St. Clair Transit Company.
[Stage Direction]
Electricity and Fluid Exportation
Richard Bedford Bennett: This would seem to be another
bill which should be referred to the committee on railways and canals rather than the committee on miscellaneous private bills.


Hewitt Bostock: That would seem to be
right.


Hon. LUCIEN CANNON (Solicitor General):: A bill similar to this was considered by the committee on miscellaneous private bills last year.


Hewitt Bostock: Perhaps if the objects of
the bill were explained we would know the committee to which it should be referred.


Mr. GOODISON:: The object of the bill
is to incorporate a company to build a bridge across the St. Clair river between the cities of Sarnia, Ontario, and Port Huron, Michigan.


Hewitt Bostock: Under the circumstances
I think it should be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


[Stage Direction]
On the order for the second reading of Bill No. 2, to regulate the exportation of electric power.-Mr. Stewart (Leeds).
Richard Bedford Bennett: May I, on behalf of the hon.
member for Leeds, move the second reading of this bill?


Ernest Lapointe: The sponsor of the bill
should be present to explain it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can explain it. The
bill provides that the power which is now vested in the governor in council with respect to grants of licenses for the exportation of electric energy shall be vested in parliament and not in the governor in council. Shortly that is the whole purport of the bill.


Hewitt Bostock: In the absence of Mr. Stewart (Leeds), Mr. Bennett, seconded by Mr. MacDonald (South Cape Breton) moves that Bill No. 2, to regulate the exportation of electric power, be now read a second time.


Charles A. Stewart: This is rather an important
bill. I am not rising to object particularly to the bill, but it is one that, I think, we
should be given an opportunity to study before we enter into active discussion on it, and I would suggest that my hon. friend let it stand in order to give us that opportunity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The difficulty is that it
might never be reached again. I appreciate the point taken by the Minister of the Interior. The bill could go to the committee of the whole house and there it could be dealt with on the understanding, if need be, that the house was not committing itself to the principle of the bill.


Charles A. Stewart: That is the
difficulty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am moving the second reading now for the hon. member for Leeds, who realizes that, unless this is done now, he may hever have another opportunity this session. That has frequently happened, and I think the subject matter of the bill is well worthy of consideration by this house because it involves questions of first-rate importance, although it is true there are conflicting opinions with regard to the matter. There is, however, a general tendency towards believing that, with respect to the exportation of electric energy, parliament should be consulted because of unfortunate incidents that sometimes arise by reason of such licenses being granted, and then when the power may be required by domestic purposes at home, it is found that there have been created abroad vested interests of such a character that the cancellation of the license is regarded as an unfriendly act. Parliament, therefore, should consider these matters in every detail before a license is granted. I should like if possible, on behalf of the hon. member for Leeds, to advance the bill to that extent on the understanding that the house in committee will deal with the principle of the measure because, after all, if the house in committee kills the measure, that is the end of it.
Hon. JAMES MALCOLM1 (Minister of Trade and Commerce): As the exportation of gas and electricity is handled by my department, I am more or less interested in this bill and I should prefer to have the sponsoi of the bill here to make some explanations as to its importance. It is quite true that, as the leader of the opposition says, the bill takes from the governor in council and hands to parliament the power to control the exportation of electricity, but I do not think any hon. member realizes more than does the leader of the opposition that parliament cannot. always control the exportation of elec-
Civil Service Act



* COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
tricity. From time to time such exceptions arise where the quantity involved is not great and, in fact, we have have had an exception of this kind in the last two months. During the time of the Vermont flood, power was cut off from that state, and it was absolutely essential-in fact at the request of the premier of New Brunswick that a temporary slight increase should be granted in the amount of power exported from New Brunswick to that neighbouring state. I contend that parliament could not have been called to deal with that emergency.
Richard Bedford Bennett: That could be covered by the bill.


James Malcolm: I can hardly sec how
it is covered by the bill or I would have' been willing to let the bill proceed. I had hoped that the sponsor was going to explain how he would handle several emergencies that might arise and make his bill non-effective. I would ask the leader of the opposition to let this bill stand and I will do everything I can to have it come up again, because I realize its importance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is all that can be fairly said by anyone. I fully appreciate my hon. friend's position.
Motion stands.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre) moved the second reading of Bill No. 4, to amend the Civil Service Act.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend in whose name this bill stands would have no objection to its going to the committee on industrial and international relations in order to be reported on by that committee before it is passed by the house, the government would have no objection to the second reading.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the committee on industrial and international relations.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre) moved the second reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the criminal code.
Ernest Lapointe: I would like my hon. friend to give explanations of his purpose in amending this section.


James Shaver Woodsworth: This piece of legislation has come down to us from a very early date. It has rarely been used in England and, so far as we can discover, it has been used only once in Canada, namely, last year, when for the first time most people in this country realized that such a law was on the statute books. It was then used in the case of Ernest V. Sterry, of the city of Toronto, who was charged with blasphemy on the ground of his having written an article entitled " The Jewish God In connection with the trial Judge Coatsworth made the following statements which, I think, will give us some idea of the interpretation which may be placed upon this statute:
The Bible, the holy scriptures, are to us the revelation of God's will concerning us and all His people. We look upon the Bible as the basis of every good law in our country.
In the light of some of the recent controversies we might very well ask: Which Bible? Judge Coatsworth continues:
. When a man begins to express his opinions m a way that hurts others then he should be curbed whether his opinions are right or wrong.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that goes too far if we are to have any liberty in the expression of opinion in this country. Judge Coatsworth's interpretation is:
WTien a man begins to express his opinion in a way that hurts others, then he should be curbed whether his opinions are right or wrong.
I may say that after I introduced this bill last year, I received a number of communications endorsing the measure which I proposed, a great many of them coming from clergymen of various denominations' who felt that it was not at all necessary in order to protect religion that this legislation as it now stands should continue on the statute books. Articles of protest were written at the time, and perhaps one of the best was that by a Toronto Jewish rabbi. As the Jewish people were the people who might be supposed to be most offended by the blasphemy, since it was concerning the Jewish god, possibly I may be permitted to read just two or three paragraphs from this defence of Mr. Sterry. Rabbi Isserman refers to the old Jewish idea of blasphemy. Going back to the early days, he states:
Because of this power of names, the ancient Israelite never pronounced the name of God.
That was the beginning of the idea. The name of God itself was so sacred that it

Criminal Code
could not be pronounced, and hence anybody who in any way said anything concerning the God of that day was regarded as a blasphemer. Further than that, there were at that time certain social implications. As this writer says:
Blaspheming his name, which meant besmirching his character, made the deity very angry, and man therefore hastened to punish the offender in order to mollify the righteous anger of God. For the whole tribe would be held to account for one man's unpunished offence against God.
It was out of that atmosphere that the idea in regard to blasphemy evolved. The writer of this article then goes on to trace the gradual evolution of the idea of God. He says:
The God whom men feel desires the death of the blasphemer has been supplanted and displaced in the history of Israel.
Again:
For this narrow and limited idea of God represents a stage in the evolution of religion. It represents an epoch in man's growing and evolving consciousness of God.
Again:
It is incorrect to speak of the God idea of the Bible-for the Bible reveals many concepts about God.
Again:
Organized religion need not fear the attacks of unbelievers. It has capable spokesmen. It has excellent organization. It has public opinion and the press to aid it. It has funds at its disposal. It has printing presses and authors and thinkers who are ready to break lances in its behalf. It will weather all attacks. It may purge itself when necessary, but it will endure and no pious people need fear any one publication or any one group of heretics.
He concludes with these words, which I commend to the house:
And, truly, I do not believe that words blaspheme the Deity-but rather deeds. Injustice is blasphemy. Prejudice is blasphemy. War is blasphemy. Poverty is blasphemy. Persecution is blasphemy. Evil in life and deed, and not in word, is blasphemy. The God of to-day is pained, not by words, but by acts, and as I look on the history of humanity, the greatest blasphemies that I know of were committed by men dedicated to God, who though walking with psalms on their lips and symbols of God in their hands, kindled the faggots which burnt the heretical blasphemers. That was real blasphemy-men dedicated to love burning in the name of God a fellow human created in His image. And from such blasphemy may all of us be protected and saved,
I think, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the spirit of a Jewish rabbi, who might have been expected to have been the most offended by the article in question may very well be emulated by the public at large in regard to a matter of this kind. One of the difficulties with this
legislation as it now stands is that there is no definition of blasphemy. The beliefs of one religious group are undoubtedly blasphemies in the eyes of other groups. I wonder if I may recall to the minds of some members of the house the thirty-nine articles of the Church of England. In the thirty-first article I read this:
Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that a man ought to be able to hold in this country his opinion with regard to masses without being in danger of being charged before the courts with blasphemy.


George Reginald Geary: So he can; he can hold any opinion he likes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: He cannot hold
these views because he may express them and it may hurt others. That is the point.


George Reginald Geary: The hon. member is reciting from a judgment that has nothing whatever to do with the decision in the case.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am giving the interpretation that may be given, and that has been given. I would say that undoubtedly many of the beliefs held by the Jews are blasphemies in the eyes of a Christian, that many of the beliefs held by Christians are blasphemies in the eyes of the Jews. We have in Alberta the sect of the Mormons, and there was some amendment made to their incorporation by this parliament a year . or so ago. Many of their beliefs are absolutely blasphemous in the eyes of orthodox Christians. The rationalists, of whom Sterry was one, undoubtedly hold beliefs that are considered blasphemies in the eyes of orthodox Christians. The religious beliefs of Catholics are considered blasphemies by those who are responsible for the prayer book.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, no.


James Shaver Woodsworth: While my friend may be an authority upon law, he may not be an equally good authority on ecclesiastical matters. The views held by the modernists are undoubtedly blasphemies in the eyes of the fundamentalists, and the views of the fundamentalists are blasphemies in the opinion of the modernists. I need not recall to this house that in his day Socrates was accused of blasphemy, and even Jesus of Nazareth was accused of blasphemy by his orthodox contemporaries.

Criminal Code
I submit, without going into this matter any more fully-perhaps already I have dealt with it further than is necessary-that it is not desirable for us to retain on the statute books a law of this character. As I said previously it has been invoked only once in the history of Canada. It stands, however, as a menace to the free expression of religious opinion. I know there is a safeguarding clause here which says:
Provided that no one is guilty of a blasphemous libel for expressing in good faith and in decent language, or attempting to establish by arguments used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, any opinion whatever upon any religious subject.
The article in question, which I have read carefully, is no more extreme than many articles which are written, in perhaps less popular language, in the theological journals of a great many bodies that are carrying on religious work here in Canada. This man Sterry may have been infelicitous in his way of expressing himself, but I repeat that it is dangerous to leave on the statute books a law which may 'be invoked against an individual for expressing himself along religious lines.


Ernest Lapointe: The section which the hon. gentleman wishes to repeal reads as follows:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to one year's imprisonment who publishes any blasphemous libel.
(2) Whether any particular published matter is a blasphemous libel or not is a question of fact: Provided that no one is guilty of a blasphemous libel for expressing in good faith and in decent language, or attempting to establish by arguments used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, any opinion whatever upon any religious subject.
That section is pretty broad. Perhaps my hon. friend does not realize what would be the effect of this bill if it were adopted into law. Our criminal code is in large part a codification of the common law, but it is specially provided that the common law still exists in respect to cases which are not provided for in the code. The repeal of the section to which my hon. friend has reference would not have the effect of repealing the common law, and under the common law those gentlemen whom my hon. friend desires to protect would be prosecuted more severely than under the code. The provisions of the code are rather a modification of the common law by making it less strict and less severe than it would be if this section were repealed. The house must see by the language of the section that any opinion may be freely expressed on any religious subject provided that nothing is said which would really con-

stitute an outrageous reflection upon the religious feeling of the community. After all, this is the law in most countries. It is the law in England; it is the law in the United States of America, and I do not think we should be so anxious to protect people who really want to offend what is the religious feeling of the people of Canada. This is a Christian country, and with all the freedom of speech we have, of which I am myself an advocate, I do not think that this section m either code has worked any injury. I do not know the circumstances of the case my hon. friend mentions, which seems to have been the cause of the present bill, but if the verdict in that case was strict, as does occasionally happen, that does not mean that the law is necessarily wrong. I understand the case was appealed from the decision of the magistrate to the appellate division of the high court of Ontario, and that the verdict and sentence were affirmed. I Should certainly not be disposed to accept this bill and I will vote against the second reading, because I am opposed to the principle.


George Reginald Geary: It
is so seldom that I have been able to associate myself fully with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), that I do it now with a great deal of pleasure. I agree with all he has said. The case arose in Toronto, and it speaks well for the Canadian people that there has been only one occasion where a man has been charged under that particular section of the code. As the Minister of Justice has said, there is no limit to free speech and free discussion of religious belief from any aspect or point of view whatever in this Dominion, so long as it is properly 'done. But when a man goes the length of writing the article which is complained of in the prosecution to which my hon. friend refers, it is well that we have on the statute books of the country a provision which forbids such a thing and punishes the man who attempts to do it. I do not think my hon. friend would be very well pleased to read the article or to associate himself with the statements made in it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have read the
article.


George Reginald Geary: Aloud, I mean.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should be glad to read it.


George Reginald Geary: I should be sorry to hear that the hon. member would be glad to use the language contained in it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, I would not
myself use that language, but I am willing to

Criminal Code
read aloud the article. I think the sentiments expressed are those that were being taught in a great many theological institutions of the country.


George Reginald Geary: Then will my hon. friend
tell me why he objects to the legislation on the statute book? It is only aimed at the way things are said. Things can be said in decent language and discussed properly as decent men discuss these matters, and there is no law on the statute book to prevent it. It is only when it is done in the sort of way it was done in this case that the criminal code punishes the man who does it.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: As the seconder of the
motion for the second reading of the bill I might say a word. The argument of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) would go to show that this section ought to be repealed, because if I heard him correctly he stated that if the section were repealed the penalties under the common law would be much more severe than under t'he code. Then would it not be better to repeal the section and have the common law in force, which would punish a man more severely?


Ernest Lapointe: That was not the purpose of the bill.


Mr. T. W. BIRD (Nelson):: In order to
protect my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) from any unjust reflection, I intend on his behalf to read this article and to make a comment. The article is taken from a publication known as the Christian Inquirer, a publication I do not know anything about.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I rise to a point of order. Having regard to the rules of parliament, should we have read in the house an article which has been held by the court to be a blasphemous libel?
Mr. iSPEAIvER:	How can I decide the
point when I have not heard the article read? I am informed that it has been decided that a certain theory was held to be blasphemous; the case came before the court, and the court sustained the charge. I am also informed that there was an appeal, and I am told the appeal was dismissed. But we are also a tribunal; this is the highest court in the land. Perhaps my hon. friend has reference to something else.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the British parliament the word "damn" has been held under their Tules to be unparliamentary-it was held to be improperly used. When the courts of the country have decided that a matter is blasphemous-and admittedly what is asked to be read is an article that was so held to be blasphemous-I think we come within the rules that exclude that form of language from being placed upon Hansard. I just wish to turn up the rule in respect of words that may be considered objectionable.


Hewitt Bostock: Before the hon. gentleman proceeds, I should like to hear the authorities on this point. Would he mind letting me have the so-called blasphemous libel for perusal?


Thomas William Bird: Mr. Speaker, I am not reading this as an expression of my own opinion;
I am going to read it for the edification of the Commons and-


Some MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: I am asking the hon.
gentleman to facilitate my task. I am informed that this article has been declared by the courts to be a blasphemy, and objection is taken now to its being read to the house by reason of its having been so declared. Now, if the hon. gentleman would let me have the corpus delicti I would be in a position to pronounce upon it. I do not say that I would declare it to be out of order.


Thomas William Bird: Mr. Speaker, I was insisting
on reading the article so that I might relieve you of the responsibility of saying whether it is blasphemous.


Hewitt Bostock: Before the hon. gentleman proceeds, I should like to hear what the hon. leader of the opposition has to say with respect to the objection he took a moment ago. Perhaps he has his authorities now to quote to the house.


Thomas William Bird: Perhaps I might fill up the
time by saying-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, standing
order 41 deals with questions of decorum:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of His . Majesty, nor of any of the royal family; nor of the governor on person administering the government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either house or against any member thereof. No member may reflect upon any vote of the house, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.
That will be found on page 95 of Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, second edition. Then follows a long list of references that had been held objectionable up to 1899. I had not looked up the rule when I made my Observations. On page 101 the character of the language that a member may use is dealt with. I make
Criminal Code

this objection on behalf of what I consider to be the traditions of this house and of parliament. I am only the leader of the opposition, and I leave it to the leader of the house and those who comprise the majority to make any observations they may please with respect to this matter.


Peter McGibbon: Surely, Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister will have something to say.


Charles Avery Dunning: You are in a hole, and want us to get you out of it.


Peter McGibbon: Oh no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have every
confidence in the judgment of Mr. Speaker on a matter of this kind.


Thomas William Bird: I might proceed by saying
that I have perused the article in question, and whether I am allowed to read it or not, I think I cannot be prevented from giving my opinion-


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Thomas William Bird: -as to its blasphemous
character.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Thomas William Bird: Now, I take part in this
discussion in order to protect my friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) from what I consider to be the' unjust objection of my friend from South Toronto (Mr. Geary) in trying to leave the impression that he was defending something that is monstrous.


George Reginald Geary: Mr. Speaker, may I rise to
a point of order? I do not care particularly what my hon. friend thinks of this article, but I wish to say again that I do not think my friend from Winnipeg North Centre would like to read the article aloud, and I do not think it would sound any better if my friend from Nelson (Mr. Bird) undertook to do so.


Thomas William Bird: Well then, my hon. friend is
content to take it either way.


George Reginald Geary: He does not' need to.


Thomas William Bird: It is open to me to give my
opinion whether it is a nice thing to do or not. He is not the sole judge of decorum in this house.


Hewitt Bostock: Before the hon. gentleman proceeds, let me say that I do not think the point of order is well taken. True, in footnote (c) to standing order 41 it is said that:
A member while speaking must not refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending.

The footnote is based on May, page 296. But in the present case a judicial decision is not pending; it has been rendered; and there is no power to prevent parliament passing legislation after a judgment has been rendered to rectify what may be considered an injustice or an infringement of individual liberty by such judgment. I may say that I have read the article, and although to me personally it is highly objectionable, yet this is the temple of freedom of speech. And I hope every hon. member will understand the meaning I attach to the other words that I am about to utter: This is not only the temple of freedom of speech, it is the temple of freedom of thought. I cannot prevent an hon. member from expressing his views even on a matter of this nature if he honestly and decently expresses those views. Under the circumstances I think I should give the broadest freedom possible to any member who brings before the house a subject of the nature of that now in question.


Thomas William Bird: Mr. Speaker, I want it to be
clearly understood that I hold no brief for the language of the article, nor for the views behind that language. I may say also that out of deference to what seems to be the view of a large section of the house I have no intention now of reading the article; but I will refer to it and try to give to the house what I consider to be a fair account of its tenor.


Hewitt Bostock: I had forgotten to say
this in support of my ruling. The house is familiar with the famous Bradlaugh case. From time immemorial in the House of Commons in England no member after having been enrolled could take his seat without subscribing to a certain oath. Mr. Bradlaugh came, not once, not twice, but I think three times to the table of the clerk of the House of Commons and positively refused to take the oath. The same thing occurred in the case of Daniel O'Connell fifty years before. In his case the law was amended. It was also amended in the case of Mr. Bradlaugh. I cite the Bradlaugh case because Mr. Bradlaugh did not believe at all in what constituted the oath. He was an atheist. To-day in England free-thinkers as well as believers can take their seat and declare what they believe in. I think the law was also amended to meet the conscientious objections of Quaker members of the British Commons. I simply state these cases to show that the greatest freedom of speech and freedom of thought exists under British institutions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I desire to point out to you-

Criminal Code


Thomas William Bird: Mr. Speaker, I-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am speaking to the
question of order. Mr. Bradlaugh was acquitted on a charge of blasphemous libel.


Thomas William Bird: I had the floor before, Mr. Speaker.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In Mr. Bradlaugh's case the rules of the house required that the oath should be taken. He declined to take that oath; there was nothing analogous to this case in that, but he was subsequently brought before the courts and Lord Coleridge summed up the whole situation. I merely refresh your honour's memory with respect to the Brad-laugh case; there is nothing analogous to this at all. Standing at the bar of the house he declined to take the oath because he said he was an atheist and was not bound by any oath. The rules of the house required that he take an oath and he declined to do so.


Hewitt Bostock: The rules were amended accordingly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, there was a statute enacted.


Thomas William Bird: If I may be allowed to do so I will now finish what I started to say. This article is a burlesque on the story of creation; true, it is expressed in rather vulgar language, but the house can take it from me that this article expresses the story in a manner not more disrespectful than the language you might hear at any society tea table throughout this country. It is becoming customary to speak of that story with more or less disrespect. This gentleman, whoever he is, has followed the example of his betters; he has undertaken to criticize that story in a manner which, as I have said, makes his article something of a burlesque, but not one bit worse than the discussions of men who are supposed to be more respectable than he is. I could go to almost any theological college in Canada and find professors of Old Testament history who give, during their lectures, an account of the story of creation not one whit more respectable than this article. They might use more polite language, more scholarly and erudite expressions, but it would be no different in meaning. This unfortunate man happily does not belong to the elite; he is apparently some rough-mannered, long-haired individual who jumps on a soap box somewhere in the holy city of Toronto, which stands four-square against the waves of
heterodoxy sweeping over the country, a city hallowed by its staunch support of all that is orthodox and traditional both in fiscal theory and in biblical belief.
A great deal of fuss has been made about nothing; this theory of creation given in this article is commonly held from one end of Canada to the other. It is taught in our . Sunday schools and in our day schools in language which is perhaps a little more correct, yet my hon. friend thinks it terrible, and warns the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and myself not to read it. I can tell him that I have read it with great gusto. I was also pleasantly surprised to find how sensitive the hon. leader of the opposition is for the traditions and faith of the house; he even interrupted me in the little time I had at my disposal to deal with this matter.


Mr. W. G. ERNST (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make just one observation. The hon. member who brought this bill before the house quoted in support of it articles of certain faiths. I sent out for the standard work on criminal law in Canada, Crankshaw's Criminal Code, and turned up the section in question. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has already read it, but I would like to read just one or two comments which appear under that section. The first of these will be found on page 203
of the 1924 edition:
A blasphemous libel consists in the publication of any profane words vilifying or ridiculing God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, the Old or New Testament or Christianity in general, with intent to shock and insult believers, or to pervert or mislead the ignorant and unwary; and it a publication be "full of scurrilous and opprobrious language, if sacred subjects are ti eateu with levity, if indiscriminate abuse is employed instead of argument, then a design to wound the religious feelings of others may be readily inferred. But where the work is free from all offensive levity, abuse and sophistry, and, in fact, the honest and temperate expression of religious opinions conscientiously held and avowed, it is not a blasphemous libel.
I pass on merely to read one quotation from a judgment of Lord Coleridge, who was Lord Chief Justice of England, in the case of the King against Ramsay and Foote, in which he said:
If the decencies of controversy are observed, even the fundamentals of religion may be attacked, without a person being guilty of blasphemous libel.
That is the law which this amendment is designed to change.
Motion (Mr. Woodsworth) negatived.
Loan of $500,000,000



LOAN OF $500,000,000 REDEMPTION OF LOANS AND PURCHASE OF UNMATURED SECURITIES

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of the following proposed resolution, Mr. Johnston in the chair:
Resolved, that the Governor in Council be authorized to raise by way of loan under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act such sum or sums of money as may be required, not to exceed in the whole the sum of five hundred million dollars, for paying or redeeming the whole or any portion of loans or obligations of Canada and for purchasing and withdrawing from circulation unmatured securities of Canada; the principal and interest to be charged upon and payable out of the consolidated revenue fund.
Hugh Guthrie: May we have some explanation?


James Alexander Robb: I gave the explanation before six o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a very great
deal to be said with respect to this matter, because it is involved in the application of a principle which has been applied on several occasions in Great Britain, but I shall not endeavour to' discuss the matter to-night. I will reserve my criticism and suggestions for the second reading of the bill, without in any sense concurring in the resolution now before the house.


William Irvine: Just as a matter of information I wish the Minister of Finance would inform the committee how he proposes to borrow money, say next year, at a rate of interest which may range from one per cent to four per cent, to retire bonds paying five and one-half per cent in 1932 or 1933, as the case may be, without losing money? I do not see how it can be done.


James Alexander Robb: That is quite a reasonable
question, Mr. Chairman, and if we find that at the rates of interest Which are suggested we cannot convert these outstanding bonds, we will not do it. I think the record of the government goes to show that any re-financing has always been done at a low rate of interest, and that will be the policy followed in this case. We are simply asking parliament to give us the authority so that if we find it possible' to convert these outstanding loans at a rate of interest sufficiently low to save the country something on the interest, we will do so. V e are told by financial men from time to time that there are frequent transactions going through their books involving these outstanding bonds, and we are advised that by a refunding arrangement, enabling 
people who hold these outstanding bonds now at a high rate of interest to refund them, we will save money. Let me say now that we will try to provide in future that in loans of this magnitude it will be possible for the Minister of Finance to call in these bonds, if he finds the market so working that it will be to the advantage of the country to do so, and refund them again at a low rate of interest.


Robert Gardiner: Before six o'clock the
minister gave us various items which were to be refunded in the next few yearn. I believe the first large item was about $446,000,000, due in 1933, and in 1934 we have another large sum of about $511,000,000. The other figures given by the minister ranged from $53,000,000 to $73,000,000, in different issues, and he also made the statement that he expected to pay the smaller bond issues in cash up to 1932. In view of the fact that the real refunding will be in connection with the larger loans, is it within the power of the minister to call in those issues before they mature, and pay them off or refund them? I suppose that would be a question of bargaining, but I would like the minister to explain the situation.


James Alexander Robb: We have no authority to say to my hon. friend or to any other person holding these bonds, " Bring in your bonds and we will give you cash for them." We believe, however, that we can put a price on them which will be attractive and which will permit us to refund them at a rate of interest which will result in a saving to the country.


William Irvine: Could the minister give us any idea as to where these bonds are held?


James Alexander Robb: No, I have no idea where these particular bonds are held, but I can give the house information as to the bonds payable outside of Canada. Between 1929 and 1952 there are payable in New York bonds to the value of about $225,874,000, while there are bonds maturing in London between 1934 and 1960, inclusive, amounting to $311,668,138.39. The debt of the country is largely held in Canada.


William Irvine: May I ask if any portion of the bonds which the minister contemplates retiring by this loan are tax free bonds?


James Alexander Robb: That information is not on
record; I have just sent out for it, but there is a considerable proportion of these bonds which are tax free.


Mr. MATTHEWS:: The 1933 bonds are
tax free, while the 1934 bonds are taxable.

Dominion Notes Act


Robert Gardiner: Has the .minister any
information as to where these different issues were floated, whether in Canada or abroad?


James Alexander Robb: Most of them are payable in
Canada; some are payable in New York while some are payable in both Canada and New York. In New York we have $60,000,000 due in 1929; in 1931 we have $25,000,000 due; in 1935 we have $874,000 due in Canada and New Y'ork; in 1936 we have $40,000,000 due, and in 1952 we have an issue amounting to $100,000,000. The rest are all payable in Canada, with the exception of a loan of $45,000,000 maturing in 1930, which is payable in New York and Canada. Let me repeat that we hope to be able to retire out of revenue, without going into the market, the maturities of 1928, amounting to $53,000,000; the maturities of 1930 amounting to $65,000,000. the maturities of 1931 amounting to $52,000,000 and those of 1932 amounting to $73,000,000, but it is too much to expect the Canadian people to take care of the larger maturities of 1933, although they may take care of them in part.


Robert Charles Matthews: I believe I can answer the question which was asked by my hon. friend. The 1933 issue is payable in Canada only; it is non-taxable and is apparently the issue which this $500,000,000 is intended to retire. That issue is not payable anywhere except in Canada.


William Irvine: Mr. Chairman, at the risk
of making myself appear ridiculous to hon. members of this house who may claim to be high financiers, I desire to offer just one suggestion which I have made to the minister on previous occasions, but which I regret to say he has not as yet seen fit to accept. I do not believe we will have a better opportunity than the present to take over our own bonds. When all is said and done, the bonds which will be issued for this loan of $500 000,000 will be issued against the credit of Canada. I care not if the minister has to go to New York to get the loan, he will have to take Canada in his pocket; he will have to deposit Canada in Wall street and go to the front door to borrow back a portion of Canada at 4 per cent or 5 per cent as the case may be. I am still at a loss to know why that credit, which is good enough for Wall street, is not good enough for Canada, and I still wait for the minister to answer the question.


James Alexander Robb: I do not want to be
discourteous to my friend, but I repeat that
the debt of Canada is largely held by Canadians, and in this refunding operation we propose to give Canadians the preference. But I say to the bond men and to the bankers of Canada that they will have to meet the rates of the world to get the business, or we will go elsewhere.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 35, to authorize the raising, by ivay of loan, of certain sums of money for the public service.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DOMINION NOTES ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committer, to consider the following proposed resolution:
That the Dominion Notes Act be amended to provide that the governor in council may establish branch offices of the Department of Finance for the redemption of Dominion notes (in addition to those already authorized), at such other place or places in Canada as the governor in Council, on the recommendation of the treasury board, many authorize.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Explain.


James Alexander Robb: The statute as it stands at present limits the power to open offices at places designated in the statute. The object of this resolution is to authorize the governor in council to establish additional assistant receiver general's offices as the increased business of the country may require.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the real necessity for this? For years the work has been done in this way with offices at Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, St. John, Winnipeg, Victoria, Calgary.


James Alexander Robb: Charlottetown, Regina.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, one in each province, and Dominion of Canada notes and coupons are all payable at those points. Now the government proposes to create other ones at additional expense for buildings and office staffs; further difficulties will arise in connection with claims for the redemption of our standard securities which are payable at any offices of the receiver general, and added charges will be made by the banks for services

Dominion Notes Act

thus rendered.. Is there a demand for this, and from whom does it come? The committee has a right to know.


James Alexander Robb: There is some demand from
business interests in different parts of the country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Where?


James Alexander Robb: I might as well be frank with my hon. friend. In British Columbia they say it is not convenient for large business firms to go over to Victoria, to transact this business.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I agree with my hon.
friend. When the Bank Act was revised on the last occasion, I was in the house and a discussion took place as between Victoria and Vancouver. I think it was stated at that time that, inasmuch as not very much difficulty was involved and there was a branch office at Victoria, there was no necessity for establishing one at Vancouver. All that is involved is whether they will carry these things round in their hands to an office which will cost a great deal of money or transmit them by a form they have to Victoria. In the United States they have no such numbers of branch offices as we have. The redemptions are made at the federal reserve branch banks and some states do not have them at all, as my hon. friend knows.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend seems to understand the matter quite well, but does he not realize that we have some obligations towards the business men of the country?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely.


James Alexander Robb: The business men of the
country from time to time represent that this would be more convenient and they are particularly pressing out in British Columbia. My hon. friend must remember that this country is growing very rapidly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The United States is somewhat larger.


James Alexander Robb: I think he can trust us not
unduly to enlarge the expenditures of this department, which, in fact, has this year shown a reduction in the cost of administration.


Hugh Guthrie: Is this for the convenience of the business men as such, or the banks?


James Alexander Robb: Largely the banks.


Robert Gardiner: This resolution states
that it is necessary to create further offices for the redemption of Dominion notes. Would the minister tell us how this work is carried on, how these Dominion notes are redeemed, with what, and so forth?


James Alexander Robb: The offices of the assistant
receivers general do exactly the same work as the head office in the capital of the country. The functions of these offices are to distribute to the banks Dominion notes and specie, to make advances to them under the provisions of the Finance Act and to act as registrars of notices of intention to give security under section 88 of the Bank Act. They also act as transfer agents in connection with the registration and de-registration of Dominion bonds. Principal and interest of government bonds and certain guaranteed issues of the Canadian National Railways are also payable at these offices.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was asserted, rightly
or wrongly, that to have more than one office in a province complicated the situation very greatly with respect to registration and deregistration of the very bonds that were mentioned and that, therefore, there should be only one in each province. In the province of Quebec, where very large business is transacted, it was suggested that there should be a transfer office at the city of Quebec as well as at the city of Montreal, and I recall all these discussions that took place. The banks, of course, would like to have one at every second door, but that is no reason why they should have one for their convenience and why this Dominion should go to the expense of establishing a second receiver general's office in any one province. If my hon. friend will pardon me I will take him through a transaction of this kind. The banks have a certain amount of legal tender which they carry and there are certain provisions with respect to the redemption of notes, but very few redemptions take place in outlying sections. All the banks do is to go to the receivers general's office when they require legal tender and they get it in bills of $500, $1,000, $10,000, $1 or $2; but, generally speaking, the banks carry them in their own treasury. Desirous as I am of assisting business, I cannot see how we are going to do that by going to the expense of establishing another receiver general's office. I think I know exactly why this is being done. It is for the purpose of giving a little

Electricity Inspection Act
more convenience for some people who are affected and not for the business community at all. As surely as you put it on the statute books, the next week you will be called upon to implement your promise and then you will have to have another building, a deputy of the receiver general and another staff; you will have to put your silver and gold in that office and you will then have two offices that will serve no greater purpose than one. If the minister will go down to the receiver general's office in the city of Montreal he will see exactly what I mean. I have no doubt he has followed these transactions himself from day to day. They are very simple.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: It is no serious trouble to
do business in the city of Victoria. The whole province of British Columbia does business there; it is the capital of the province. If we listened to all these demands, probably we should have to establish four or five more capitals throughout the country. There is an excellent steamboat service with the island, with two lines of boats running every day, boats as fine as any afloat. The people are accustomed to do their business there, and it is no more trouble to carry on this business in Victoria than if you had branches established elsewhere. In addition, I am quite sure that the moment you create this precedent in British Columbia you will have numerous demands of the same kind from olher provinces.


Hugh Guthrie: While this office is called a branch office of the Department of Finance for the redemption of Dominion notes, is it not an office also for the issue of Dominion notes to the banks? Can the banks go to the receiver general's office and obtain Dominion currency?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, under the Finance Act,
if they require money quickly they can get it there.


Hugh Guthrie: They can get it from the receiver general's office?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: And when they obtain
it, it is in the form of Dominion notes?


James Alexander Robb: Legals. We have made such
progress to-day, Mr. Chairman, that I do not want to delay the business of the house at all. I am simply bringing this measure forward at the request of the business men of British Columbia.
56103-24J


Richard Bedford Bennett: The business men, or
the banks?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, representing the business
men of that province; and they say to me that Vancouver now has become one of the largest shipping ports in the world open all the year round. But if the representatives of British Columbia in this house do not want this additional service I will let the matter stand. I will not say that I will wipe it off the order paper. I move that the committee rise and report progress.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Edmonton wants an
office too.


Hugh Guthrie: So does Guelph.
Progress reported.



ELECTRICITY INSPECTION ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend and revise the Electricity Inspection Act to bring it into conformity with the existing conditions in electricity, in regard to the commercial unit of supply, the units of electrical measure, inspection standards, the verification of meters, and other related matters, and to provide for the appointment of a director and such assistants as may be deemed necessary.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the minister explain this resolution?


James Malcolm: During the past twenty years, as every member of the house knows, remarkable progress has been made in all electrical equipment, and the terms used in the Electricity Inspection Act of 1907 do not cover all the equipment in use to-day for the measurement of electricity. It is therefore proposed to revise the act. It is algo proposed to amend the sections relating to the officers, to bring them under the terms of the Civil Service Act.- It is proposed also to eliminate a number of sections that are considered to be beyond the power of the Dominion parliament, also to eliminate some sections that are obsolete. When we consider the bill section by section I am sure the house will realize that a good deal of the old bill is obsolete due to the rapid changes that have taken place' in all things electrical.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What about standards?
Canteen Funds


James Malcolm: Electrical standards are provided for in the bill. .


Richard Bedford Bennett: Where are they to be formed?


James Malcolm: We hope it will be here.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I was not quite clear on one point. I note that provision is to be made for the appointment of a director and such assistants as may be deemed necessary. I presume these appointments will be made under the Civil Service Act.


James Malcolm: Yes.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Malcolm thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 36, to amend and revise the Electricity Inspection Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANTEEN FUNDS

[Stage Direction]
of the house if we were to go into committee of supply this evening. I do not know whether hon. gentlemen opposite are agreeable.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to say that we are agreeable, but the gentlemen who had prepared themselves to discuss the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) with my friend the former minister (Mr. Tolmie) are not able to do so to-night. We have done a pretty good day's work, and I think perhaps we had better adjourn.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I agree with
my hon. friend. Wte have done a very good day's work.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 9.30 p.m.
Monday, February 13, 1928
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to provide for the disposition and allotment of the canteen funds which were accumulated during the war by *certain units of the Canadian Expeditionary Force in Canada, the Canadian Siberian forces and by the forces stationed at St. Lucia (British West Indies), resulting from the profits of canteens and other like institutions operated by the several units and formations, and for the administration of the same by the provincial board of trustees appointed under the Canteen Funds Act, chapter 34 of the statutes of 1925.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are many members on this side of the house who are very deeply interested in this matter. I mentioned to my friend the minister (Mr. Ralston) that they were not here this afternoon, and I find since that they have gone to their homes outside of the city, not thinking that this measure would be reached this evening. If it is at all possible for the minister, consistent with his transaction of public business, to let the matter stand in order that they might have the opportunity to be here and discuss it, it would be greatly appreciated. I refer to the men who saw service overseas.


James Layton Ralston: Stand.
Motion stands.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: This being Friday it would require the unanimous consent