1928-05-15

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of the select standing com-mitte on railways, canals and telegraph lines. -Mr. Young (Saskatoon).


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 303, respecting a certain patent of Anchor Cap and Closure Corporation of Canada, Limited.-Mr. Clark.
Bill 304, respecting The Cumberland Railway and Coal Company.-Mr. Ilsley.
[Mr. Fraser. 1

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington):: I would like to ask my right hon.
friend the Prime Minister a question in regard to the grants to the provinces for technical education. I was not present in the house on the 4th of May, when a statement was made on the subject by the Prime Minister, but I gather from it that the government intends to continue the grants to those provinces which have not yet received grants for ten years under the act. Does that exclude the other provinces, or does the government intend to continue the grants to the other provinces in the future, that is, to Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and any other provinces that have received the grants for ten years?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I do not know that I
quite understand my hon. friend's question. The act was passed some ten years ago, and the opportunity was given to the different provinces to apply to receive the grant for each year in proportion to what they themselves contributed. Any province that has taken advantage of the act for the period of ten years will not receive any further advances, but the provinces which have not up to the present time availed themselves of the opportunity of receiving grants in aid for the period of ten years may receive additional aid for such period of time as would be necessary to complete the full ten years. The government has not yet decided the latter point, but I think I can assure my hon. friend that it will receive favourable consideration.


Hugh Guthrie: Does the government intend to discontinue the practice of making these grants to the provinces in aid of technical education?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government does not intend to introduce any new legislation.



KINGSVILLE, ONT., DREDGING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works):: (Mr. Speaker, in reply to an inquiry yesterday by my hon. friend from South Essex (Mr. Gott) with regard to dredging at Kingsville, I beg to report that on the third instant the district engineer at London was authorized to accept the offer of the Chatham Dredging Company to remove six thousand cubic yards scow measurement of class B material, involving an expenditure of S4,800, to enable a subsidized boat to operate from Pelee island to Kingsville.

National Revenue Act



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) if order No. 31 under public bills and orders, being a bill to amend the Railway Act to give jurisdiction to the railway board to investigate subsidiaries of telephone and telegraph companies, will receive the favourable attention of the government? There seems little likelihood of the bill being reached during the remainder of the session, and as it is a general amendment to a general act, I should be glad to know if he would consider its adoption as a government measure, and introduce legislation which would have a chance of passing before the end of the session.


Hon. CHARLES DUNNING (Minister of Railways):: Mr. Speaker, I think under public bills and orders there are in the neighbourhood of five bills to amend the Railway Act. Frankly, up to the present time I have not considered adopting any of them as government measures.


George Reginald Geary: Would the minister take
them into consideration with a view to expediting them in some way?


Charles Avery Dunning: I will bring the matter to the attention of the government.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. E. KAISER (Ontario):: On April 30, Mr. Speaker, a question of mine with regard to certain dismissals from the civil service was passed as an order for return. As yet I have received no notice of the return. When may I expect it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What department?


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: The Department of Finance, I imagine.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: I am not aware, Mr. Speaker, of any dismissals in my department, but I will look into the observations of my hon. friend and give him a reply to-morrow.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of National Revenue) moved the second reading of bill No. 291 to amend the Department of National Revenue Act.
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, we are still opposed to the principle of the measure as introduced, and by concurring in the bill being sent to committee we must not be taken as agreeing to the principle. That is all I desire to make clear.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.
Mr. EULER moved that the house go into committee on the bill.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Richard Bedford Bennett: On division.
Motion agreed to and the house went intc committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Minister may nominate certain officers, etc.


Mr. STEVENS:: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, section one comprehends the whole bill.


Mr. EULER:: There is only one section.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This bill is most difficult for the house to consider, for this reason. The minister, with obvious sincerity I think, assures us that he requires the powers contained in the bill in order properly to administer his department. Any minister coming to the house with a claim of that character necessarily commands our sympathy and attention. I believe he has given very earnest thought to this measure; but there are certain features contained in it which we must most carefully consider. My main objection is that in part, if not in its entirety, the bill departs from the principle of appointment through the Civil Service Commission, and what is known as the merit system. I am aware that my statement may be called in question as regards the merit system, because the minister declares-I think sincerely-that he is desirous of making appointments. It is pretty hard, Mr. Chairman, to talk against the whole house. If we cannot have better-attention I shall sit down.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I say the minister might very properly challenge the last statement, claiming that he is proposing this method of appointment in the interests of efficiency. However, I wish to -bring to the attention of the committee some matters in connection with this very drastic and serious change which I believe ought to be considered most carefully before we agree to the bill.
Let me say in a general way that I would not see so much objection to the bill if the
National Revenue Act

process proposed permitted the appointments to be made by the Civil Service Commission in consultation with the minister. But unfortunately the bill does not so provide. It really places the power of appointment practically entirely in the hands of the minister, and the Civil Service Commission are reduced to the rather invidious (position of being invited to acquiesce; if they do not acquiesce, then there is no remedy so far as' they are concerned. If the principle of appointment were changed so that the appointments were made by the Civil Service Commission in consultation with himself or his officers, a large measure of the Objection would be removed.
I think it desirable to bring to the attention of the committee certain evidence, if I may so term it. For instance, I propose to quote briefly from an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press, for it is indicative of what is the opinion of the informed public. Quoting the Winnipeg Free Press, I shall at least be acquitted of any desire to be partisan. The Winnipeg Free Press, on May 2, in a rather lengthy editorial, from which I shall read only one or two excerpts, has this to say:
The country will keep a sharp eye on the move made at Ottawa to remove the appointment of certain officials of the Department of National Revenue, mainly in the Customs department, from the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission.
Then they go on with quite a long argument on the subject, which I shall not read but which is very interesting and, I think, illuminating. They conclude the editorial
with these two paragraphs:
Outside of party heelers, this country is pretty well satisfied with the work and functions of the Civil Service Commission. It offers equal opportunity for all young Canadians to enter the service of their country if they have the necessary qualifications. It is a safe guess that the merit system has brought into the service a better qualified and more energetic type of young man and woman than ever came in under the patronage way of handing out government jobs. Any action at Ottawa that appears to strike a blow at the underpinning of the merit system is likely to be regarded with grave suspicion throughout the country. The present government at Ottawa is reasonably suspected of itching to get its hands on civil service patronage. Its record in this respect is not altogether aboveboard, due largely to the performances of the Postmaster General, which is one reason why the public will be highly suspicious of the present move that would give the cabinet minister the authority to hire anyone to whom he might take a fancy, or who might be forced on him by local party organizations. The government would be well advised to leave civil service appointments to the body set up by parliament to attend to that department of the national service.

Some hon. gentlemen laugh, but these are not my own observations; I am quoting from an editorial in the Free Press for what it may be worth.


William Daum Euler: I do not like to interrupt,
but I think that editorial was based on the resolution itself, which went a great deal further than the bill. I have heard no adverse comments, nor comments of any kind, since the introduction of the bill itself.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My object in reading the editorial, and in the remarks I am about to make, is to establish the statement I have made, namely, that we must preserve the status of the Civil Service Commission. That is my point; that is the light in which we should consider the bill.
I wish now to quote briefly from the observations of certain individual members of the government. I shall quote now from Hansard, page 2847, May 2, 1921, in which the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), then leader of the opposition, is reported, criticising what was known as the Spinney bill. That bill, as hon. members will recall, removed from the Civil Service Commission certain classifications. Whether that was right or wrong is not the point; what I intend to show is the opinion which the present Prime Minister held at that time. He said:
This bill specifies three classes of appointments which are to be taken out of the hands of the Civil Service Commission and transferred to the government, thereby permitting the government's followers, in all certainty, to make recommendations which the governor in council will act upon. That is a step entirely in the wrong direction.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What government introduced that bill?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let me assure the Prime Minister that I am shielding no one. The bill was introduced in 1921 by the Conservative government, when the right hon. gentleman was leader of the opposition. It was introduced by the Union government, and my right hon. friend was then speaking as leader of the opposition. Now, we have before us to-day a parallel case: the government of the day proposes, to use the Prime Minister's own words, to take certain specified classes of appointments out of the control of the Civil Service Commission. And this he described on that occasion as "a step entirely in the wrong direction". I am merely giving his own words. On the public platform in 1926, the Prime Minister also said, according to the Ottawa Citizen:

National Revenue Act
I stand strongly, and have always stood, for the merit system and promotion on a basis of merit, and will do my utmost to see that that is maintained.
That was what the Prime Minister said at that time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before my
hon. friend leaves me, may I ask him whether there is not this difference in the present case, that what the government is now suggesting is to carry out the findings of a royal commission appointed to improve the customs service? This is one of the suggested improvements; at any rate it is what the commission have recommended.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I shall come to the royal commission in a moment. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister's statement is scarcely correct. I am not desirous of being too narrow in my criticisms, but the right hon. gentleman's observation is not quite accurate. But at the moment I am merely showing what the Prime Minister had to say in the past as regards the principle that should govern, whether it might be the government of that day or any other government. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) on the same occasion made this statement:
I do not believe in political patronage.
I commend that to the colleagues of the hon. gentleman, the present Minister of Justice.
Mr. MfcINTOSH:	What about your own
colleagues?


Henry Herbert Stevens: What has that to do with my argument?


Mr. McINTOSH:: It has a lot to do with it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not a bit. My hon. friend will have the floor shortly, but the interjection was not very apt, to say the least. The present Minister of Justice, as I was saying, made this statement in 1921:
I do not believe in political patronage. It has been tried in many countries in the world, and it has been found wanting everywhere.
The present Minister of National Revenue, on the same occasion, had this remark to make:
So far as I am personally concerned, I am opposed to the system of political patronage as it obtained in the past. . . . The Civil Service Act may have its drawbacks, but even then its advantages, in my opinion, far outweigh its disadvantages.
That statement was made by the minister who is proposing the bill now before us. Now I come to the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Eorke)-and I am glad he is in his seat. I
invite him to listen to his own observations. Mark you, the Minister of Immigration is in accord with this bill and is supporting the change therein proposed. On February 2, 1923-Hansard, page 41-the present Minister of Immigration said there must be no return to patronage:
A return to patronage is unthinkable.
I ask the hon. gentleman to cogitate on that statement while he sits sombrely in his seat. Then the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) this year made the following statement, referring even to labourers on canals:
I would be very happy to have the whole situation left to the Civil Service Commission.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) was chairman of a parliamentary committee which in 1923 reported as follows:
Your committee is of the opinion that the two fundamental principles of the Civil Service Act are the merit system and the system of appointment by competitive examination, and that both these principles must be preserved.
I have read these opinions for the purpose of placing before the government the position which its own members have taken from time to time in regard to this question. Now I wish to turn to a reason advanced by the minister, and which I think had a good deal of influence on members of the house, when the resolution was under consideration the other day. The Minister of National Revenue, discussing the matter on May 8, referred particularly to appraisers. He said to the house:
And remember, these were appointed by the Civil Service Commission.
He was dealing with the report of the parliamentary committee of 1926 investigating the Customs department, and he was speaking of those who were recommended for disciplinary treatment or for discharge, stating that they were appointed by the Civil Service Commission. I have before me the names of those gentlemen who were included in that report.


William Daum Euler: I do not think I made
reference to any particular persons at all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister referred to
the report of the committee and to those persons recommended for discharge. He had particular reference to appraisers when he asked the house to bear in mind that all these gentlemen had been appointed by the Civil Service Commission. At the time I was a little doubtful as to the accuracy of his statement and the soundness of his position. I am not going to read the names of these men because I do not think it desirable to
National Revenue Act

put their names on Hansard; they have been dealt with once and we should let them go, although if it is requested I will read them. I have before me the names of nine men, not one of whom was appointed by the Civil Service Commission, all having been appointed under the old patronage system. When the minister brings forth the argument that there has been dissatisfaction with certain persons, that they were appointed by the Civil Service Commission and that therefore he would change the system, then I suggest that this point be kept in mind. These men were not appointed by the Civil Service Commission.


William Daum Euler: Would the hon. gentleman
permit me to interrupt? I do not pretend for one moment to disclaim any responsibility for anything I may have said the other day, but I say to him now that when I made that statement I did not have in mind any particular persons, and certainly not the persons to whom he refers. I had in mind that the appraisal system was not what it should be, and that the appraisers in general had been appointed by the Civil Service Commission. I was not referring to these particular men at all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As a matter of fact, and I say this because I am trying to be fair with the minister, when he makes a statement such as he undoubtedly made at page 2782 of Hansard to the effect that these men were appointed by the Civil Service Commission, he should be sure of his facts. That is all I desire to establish in that regard.
Now I want to come for a moment to the question of the appointment of appraisers, and whether or not it is desirable that they should be appointed altogether apart from the Civil Service Commission. In the same discussion which took place on May 8, the minister made this statement:
My opinion is that the Dominion appraisers . . . . are best qualified to make selections.
What method would be followed and what process would be adopted by the Civil Service Commission in making these appointments? I am informed that the method is this: A civil service board of examiners would be appointed, and in this instance one member of that board undoubtedly would be a Dominion appraiser. That is, they take an officer of the department affected by the appointment; if it were the preventive service the chief preventive officer would be a member of the board, and for the appraisal service undoubtedly it would be a member of the Dominion appraisers. Included in that board

would be a representative of the private business affected by the appointment; in other words, if a drygoods appraiser were to be selected, undoubtedly a member of the board would be a representative business man in the drygoods trade; then there would be a member of the civil service examining board and a representative of the Canadian Legion, who would have no vote but merely a voice in the committee to protect the interests of the returned men. That is the process adopted, and I submit to the minister that with a board of that kind selecting the appraisers, bearing in mind the fact that a representative of the board of Dominion appraisers would be a member of that board, then the Civil Service commission may well be entrusted with this task. I would be willing to say this: If after such a board decided on a certain person as being suitable for the position, while the minister was firmly convinced and had good reason to believe that such an appointee would not be suitable for the position, then I am prepared to say that the minister might have some remedy by which he could extricate himself from that difficulty. But if these appointments are to be made by the reverse process, if the minister is authorized to say to the Civil Service Commission, "Here is a man whom I want as a drygoods appraiser," and then if the Civil Service Commission refuse to appoint that man after examination, the minister can insist on the appointment, I submit that is merely a method of eliminating the Civil Service Commission and its authority.
Now we come to what the Prime Minister mentioned a moment ago, and in this connection I have before me a report which was tabled' on May 7 last. This is the report of a sub-committee appointed by the then Minister of Customs, when I held the office, for the purpose of examining into the system and organization of the Customs department in Ottawa. This committee was known as an advisory or consultative committee consisting of Mr. Dilworth, of Clarkson, Gordon and Dilworth; the chairman of the Civil Service Commission, the Auditor General of Canada, Mr. Breadner, who is now the commissioner of customs and Mr. Taylor, commissioner of excise. This was the committee appointed by the government at that time to examine into the Customs department and to recommend a method of reorganization, and I want to say that the report they made will well repay study. This report, in so far as it deals with the subject now under discussion, differs from the report of the royal commission which, as the minister correctly stated, frankly said that these selections should be made indepen-

National Revenue Act
dent of the 'Civil Service Commission. I submit to the house, without going into an examination of the report of the royal commission for the moment, that the final report did no great credit to that commission; I submit that it has every evidence of having been hastily prepared. There was an interim report dealing with specific cases which is very much more worthy of attention and study than the final report. The report of this advisory and consultative committee has this to say:


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Was that the report made by Clarkson, Gordon and Dilworth?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, this is a report which was tabled on May 7 and which has not been printed. I think hon. members would do well to secure it and read it carefully, because it is perhaps the best of the series of reports which have been made on this subject. Under the heading "Selection and Appointment of Preventive Staff" a paragraph is included which is very interesting, on one or two points of which I will lay some particular stress:
As the men on this work have to work often on their own judgment and initiative and to act at times with the greatest promptness and without first reporting to their superior officers, their selection should be most carefully made and have regard to their intelligence, integrity, capacity and general suitability to the work and to no other consideration. For this reason we most strongly recommend that the selection be made by the Civil Service Commission and the chief of the preventive service.
Then they refer to the report of the special committee which made recommendations in a similar vein.
-and that the chief of the preventive service should have full power to remove for cause any officer or other employee while temporarily employed.
That is the recommendation of the special committee, composed of the gentlemen to whom I have referred, and who gave this subject careful study. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that that is the course that should be followed. Let the preventive officers and the appraisers be selected by the Civil Service Commission, the former in consultation with the chief of the preventive staff and the latter in consultation with the Dominion appraisal board. Let the investigators also be selected by the Civil Service Commission, in consultation with the head of the advisory staff. In all these cases the minister is certainly to be consulted; that is, he is ex officio in all these conferences.
Now, I wish to deal with another feature of this matter. The other day the minister declared that there was no desire to interfere with the principle of appointments by the Civil Service Commission. I am not desirous of attacking the minister's good faith, because I appreciate that he is labouring under most difficult circumstances. We credit him with an earnest desire to make the best appointments possible, but the house must remember that when enacting a statute of this kind we are laying down a system that will be followed by other ministers than the present incumbent of office. At the present moment, under the stress of the last couple of years of scrutiny and investigation of the department, it is quite likely that the minister will bestir himself to keep within the bounds of-what shall I say, decency?-but when things have quieted down and we get a little farther away from the cause of revision of this section of the civil service system, it follows, I think, as a matter of course that we simply go back to the patronage system, in all its simplicity and with all its evils. Undoubtedly the patronage system had more evil attached to it than merit. Appointments under the patronage system are made for the purpose-I think I can put it simply and plainly-of giving jobs to those who are in favour with the ministry of the day, whatever ministry it is. It may be argued that under that system good appointments have been and will be made. I am not disputing that, but the point is that the principle-or lack of principle-is in that it is for service to a given party, whatever party happens to be in power at the time.
Years ago we departed from or abandoned the patronage system. My own opinion is that we went too hurriedly, and in our efforts to install or inauguarate a complete system of civil service in Canada we laid on the Civil Service Commission at the commencement too heavy a task, and it has taken years to build up an equitable and reasonable system. I do not suggest for a moment that the civil service system as we now have it is entirely satisfactory. They are human, and undoubtedly they have made mistakes. In connection with the appointments to which I referred as not being made by the Civil Service Commission, the minister might very well say to me, "Hold on, some of those were undoubtedly promoted by the Civil Service Commission of the day." That was disclosed in the inquiry, and it was brought out in a manner that led to the retirement of two of the commissioners. Undoubtedly the Civil Service Commission is not without the possibility of fault. We do not assert that. These two commisisoners were retired, and replaced by two others; and I think it was because
National Revenue Act

they had more or less trafficked in the question of promotions. It showed the resentment of parliament and of the country against such a procedure by a civil service commissioner; it does not challenge the soundness of the system that two gentlemen went somewhat wrong in the discharge of their duty.
And so I say to the minister that so far as I am concerned I am opposed to this bill to the extent that it departs from the principle of appointment by the Civil Service Commission. I say again to him, as I said in my opening remarks, that if this bill were so drafted that the appointments should be made by the Civil Service Commission in consultation with the head of the branch to which the appointee is to be sent, then I have little objection to it. But in its present form, where the Civil Service Commission play no major or primary part in appointments, I am opposed to it.


Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Chairman, I have just a word to say in answer to my hon. friend. I have listened to his remarks with great attention. I know the first officer of the Department of National Revenue very well. I am not acquainted with the commissioner of customs, but I know he is a most remarkable man. When Mr. Good called a meeting of the public accounts committee some years ago, Mr. Breadner was asked some questions. He had apparently no information with him, but he answered them from memory, and I think he answered them very successfully. He is a very straightforward man, and I am pleased to say the same thing about Mr. Taylor, the commissioner of excise, and also of Mr. Walters, the commissioner of income tax. These three gentlemen are very able men; I do not think anyone will question their ability. But they were appointed not by the Civil Service Commission, but by the Minister of National Revenue, and he deserves praise for that. I remember at the time that I read several editorials in Tory as well as Liberal papers, congratulating him on those appointments. I do not believe any member will come back at me when I say that one of those papers was the Ottawa Journal, which is not a Liberal paper. I remember also that the Montreal Gazette published editorials, praising the minister. We must not overlook the fact, that the task of the Minister of National Revenue is a rather ungrateful one. because instead of spending money he has to collect it. He has met with very good success, and the amount of the last surplus collections, $14,000,000, should be considered. The Department of National Revenue is directed by an able minister, assisted by able

men, and those men can be entrusted with the confidence of parliament. No one can reproach them for doing anything they should not do. They are upright men; they do their duty well; they are conscientious, and I am sure they are acting to t'he best of their ability. I am not in the habit of paying compliments to people but I take this opportunity of saying all the good I think of them. In such matters as these every member is entitled to say a word about the competency of the man who applies for any of the positions to which this legislation refers. Anyone who is recommended should merit that recommendation and no one knows better the character and competency of the applicant than the member for the constituency in which such an officer is to be appointed. When a man is recommended by a member as being an able person, the minister knows that recommendation is worthy of consideration and he acts accordingly. I am sure my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) who now is afraid of the bill, who thinks it will not work well, will at t'he next session praise the minister for having brought such a measure before the house.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I have been looking into this bill somewhat further and I agree with the conclusion come to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) ; but it seems to me that what the minister has agreed to entirely covers the case. The royal commission states:
We are of opinion that all appointments to the office of appraiser at the different ports of the Dominion should be made by the minister after examination of the applicants by the board of appraisers.
I do not see any provision made for the appointment of a board of examiners for the appraisers. I gather from the remarks of the Minister of National Revenue that he intends to appoint a board of appraisers as a board of examiners and then the names of applicants who have successfully pased the board of appraisers will be submitted to the Civil Service Commission. If that is the case, that fulfils in all respects the desirability of submitting these applicants to an examination instead of simply having them appointed by the minister.


William Daum Euler: There is already in existence a board of appraisers Which is not complete but which will be completed in due course.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Is there anything in the bill which covers what I have suggested?


William Daum Euler: No. That would be a matter of regulation.

National Revenue Act


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I would suggest that the minister insert in the bill a clause stating that the board of appraisers should be a board of examiners to examine the applicants and that the names of the successful applicants will be submitted to the Civil Service Commission with the approval of the minister. That will exactly cover the case. If the minister intends to appoint a board of appraisers as a board of examiners, that will disarm any criticism we have of the bill.
Mr. .GARDINER:	I am absolutely opposed to the principle of the bill as it stands at present, because in my opinion it leaves the appointment of these officers to all intents and purposes under the patronage system. I believe the minister in years gone by has stood up in the house and upheld the Civil Service Commission and the elimination of patronage. I regret very much to see the minister changing his mind even to the extent he is doing in this bill. There is no doubt this is patronage pure and simple.


William Daum Euler: It is not intended as
patronage pure and simple.


Mr. GARDINER:: Unless it is so stated
and provisions are made in the bill there is only one thing we can claim for it and that is that it is patronage pure and simple. If the minister intends to move any amendments to the bill I shall be glad to listen to what he has to say. As the minister is shaking his head I infer this is a bill which he intends to force through the house.


William Daum Euler: Not force through the house.


Robert Gardiner: Subsection 4 reads:
The minister may, after such examination as he may prescribe-
The minister is going to prescribe the examination. There is to be no provision in the bill as to how the examination will take place. If the minister is in a position to prescribe exactly the mode of examination I contend that under those circumstances he has all the elements of patronage. There is nothing to prevent the minister from examining and selecting these men himself and he may nominate whoever he thinks suitable. The bill does not state that the minister shall take any particular line of action to secure a board of examiners and he may do the examining himself.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre has already placed on the record the opinions expressed by different members of the cabinet in years gone by and it is very illuminating to notice the change of front which they take now that they are in office as opposed to the
attitude which they took when in opposition. It appears to me that this is a very retrograde step and I am sorry indeed that the minister is dealing with the matter in this way.
Referring back to the customs inquiry committee I believe it is reasonably understood -and I have heard no criticism to the contrary-that practically all the men who were retired as not giving the proper service that they were expected to give to the country, were to all intents and purposes appointed under the patronage system. Possibly some of them were promoted from the ranks, but primarily they were appointed under the patronage system and not by the Civil Service Commission. There is no doubt the Civil Service Commission is the proper body to make these selections, and when the resolution was under consideration before the house a few days ago I suggested it would be advisable for the minister to allow the commission, with proper representation from the board of supervisors on the examining board, to make the appointments. I trust the minister may still see his way clear to propose some such amendment.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: I cannot let the opportunity go by without saying that I oppose the bill because, notwithstanding the assurance given by the minister, it is nothing more than an attempt to return to the patronage system in regard to the appointment of these particular officers. If this principle is adopted in regard to these officials of the department it may equally be applied to other officials and employees in the same department. More than that, this same principle can be extended on exactly the same reasoning to other departments of the government. The principle involved is whether appointments shall be made by the minister. The minister, of course no matter how fine a man he may be, no matter how intelligent and capable he may be, no matter what qualifications he has for making appointments, is necessarily lacking in information in regard to the fitness of the applicants for the positions, and he must act upon the recommendations which he will receive. This particular service extends all over Canada. It may be that so far as Ottawa is concerned the head officials of the department may be able to advise the minister as to the proper officers to be appointed, but what about the rest of Canada?


Mr EULER:: The board of appraisers
travels all over Canada, visiting the various ports, and becoming acquainted with the officers.
National Revenue Act


William Garland McQuarrie: Does the minister presume to suggest that this board will be in a position to see the applicants?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


William Garland McQuarrie: Does the minister presume to suggest that the board will see all applicants and be in a position to inquire into their qualifications? I think not. I think that what will happen will be just what happened in the past, namely, recommendations will be. made to the minister by those in control of the patronage in the various constituencies. In what way does this bill differ from a bill providing directly for appointments by the minister? I cannot see any difference at all.


William Daum Euler: There is not much difference; we quite admit that.


William Garland McQuarrie: The minister admits
that. Here we have the minister suggesting to the Civil Service Commission the names of the men he wants to appoint. If the Civil Service Commission does not make the appointments accordingly, what happens? The governor in council makes the appointments on the recommendation of the minister. It simply seems to me that this is an attempt on the part of the minister so to arrange the wording of the bill as to deceive the public.


William Daum Euler: No.


William Garland McQuarrie: No other conclusion
can be reached.	.


William Daum Euler: You do not believe that
yourself.


William Garland McQuarrie: I believe it. I do not see that there is anything else to it. Otherwise why should the bill be drawn up in this manner? Why does not the minister come down with a bill providing directly that the appointments shall be made by the minister without reference to the Civil Service Commission at all?


William Daum Euler: Would the hon. member
prefer that?


William Garland McQuarrie: Certainly not; I do
not believe in it; I do not think it is right in principle, and that is why I am opposing this bill. I know the desire that there is on the other side of the house for the abolition of the Civil Service Commission altogether. There are a great many members over there who desire to get back to patronage; there is no doubt about that at all, and they say that they are in a better position to make recommendations for appointments than any
[Mr. Euler. 1
civil service commission can be. That is the principle that is involved here, and if you do this now, you are simply inserting the thin edge of the wedge, and on exactly the same reasoning you can apply this same principle to all other departments of the government, and so get away entirely from the Civil Service Commission.
I know that there is great objection to this bill taken by the civil service organizations.
I have received communications from the organization in my constituency, and they at least look upon this as an attempt to return to the patronage system.
Let us consider for a moment just what the situation is at the present time in regard to appointments. Appointments are made by the Civil Service Commission upon the results of examinations which are held in accordance with the regulations, examinations which have been worked out after a number of years of experience. That does not mean that the department has nothing to say in regard to the appointments. In the first place, if appointments are made which are not acceptable to the department or to the minister, he can refuse to accept the recommendations of the Civil Service Commission. In the next place when the examinations are conducted, the officers of the department usually have something to say in setting those examinations, and in fact, they conduct them to a certain extent. In all the large centres all over Canada the officers of this department and of other departments have a good deal to do with the holding of examinations. More than that, in regard to promotions, which come under the head of appointments, the Civil Service Commission is guided to a large extent by the ratings which are recommended by the officers of the department involved, and appointments are usually made according to those ratings. It does not seem to me that that is objectionable in any way.
T do think that this bill is wrong in principle entirely. It is objectionable not only to the civil servants of this country, but to the public generally. It is a step in the wrong direction. It is nothing more or less than inserting the thin end of the wedge, and the minister is attempting to do that under the guise of the necessities of this particular department, which are no greater than the necessities of a great many other departments of this government.


Mr. MANION:: I wish to say just a few
words, not many at this late stage of the . session, on this bill. My hon. friend who has just taken his seat says that this is the thin edge of the wedge. I am a little afraid that

National Revenue Act
it is the thick edge of the wedge, because for some time now we have been getting a good deal of this in the various departments. The other day I asked some questions on the order paper regarding the appointment of a postmaster in a little village in the western part of Ontario, somewhere near Sarnia; I do not remember the county or the town at the moment, but I do happen to know the facts, and the facts were that a returned soldier was recommended for the position by the Civil Service Commission, and yet in spite of that, the Postmaster General overruled the commission's recommendation and appointed somebody else that suited him. Referring to this matter, I said to the Postmaster General, as reported in Hansard, of May 3:
The reason I asked the question is that I have just received a reply to a question on to-day's order paper showing that the Civil Service Commission recommended a returned soldier for a job, and my hon. friend and his department refused to accept him.
And the Postmaster General replied:
Under the act the Postmaster General has the power to refuse to accept the certificate of the commission, but the act does not give him power to classify the employees.
In other words, at the present time on some occasions at least, if not on many, recommendations of the Civil Service Commission are being ignored by some of the departments. The minister who is conducting this bill came into the house at the same time I did, eleven years ago, and during the many years when he was just an ordinary member of the house and a supporter of the government, he was quite independent in his attitude because I remember him on one or two occasions voting against his party. That takes courage; I tried it myself once or twice, and I know something about it. At any rate, the minister, of whom personally I am very fond, is not showing in this bill, I think, the same independence that used to characterize him in the days before the lus't of office reached him. He is, I think, building up for himself troubles which he may have difficulty in overcoming, because as these positions are thrown open he will find members on his side of the house seeking positions for friends of theirs, and if-


William Daum Euler: They do now sometimes.


Robert James Manion: I have no doubt; and if he should find perchance that some Conservative was as well qualified for the position as a Liberal applicant-or better qualified, because he would have to be to receive any attention at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: Well, we will say for the sake of argument that some Conservative was better qualified for the position than some Liberal, and the minister tried to appoint him. Then he would find that he had stirred up a hornets' nest. But if the Civil Service Commission were allowed to make the appointment, to some extent on his recommendation, he would be able to shelve that responsibility on to their shoulders. In all seriousness I regret to see him laying up this store of trouble for himself, for undoubtedly that is what he is doing.
Referring again to the patronage system, during all the years I have been in the house, whether one party or the other was in power, this system to a large extent did not exist.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: I say that seriously. The patronage system of appointments has largely not obtained within the last ten or eleven years. The system may now exist; that probably is what my hon. friends are laughing at. I mean that up till recently the patronage system had not been resorted to.


Mr. DONNELLY:: If there was no patronage system in operation, how does my hon. friend account for the fact that all the postmasters appointed in my constituency after 1911 were Tories?


Robert James Manion: Undoubtedly the government of the day picked out the very best men that they could find in the constituency. But I must confess that seeing my hon. friend on that side of the chartfber I wonder how, with so many good Conservatives in that section, he was returned to the house.


James J. Donnelly: I wonder at it myself.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: They are mostly all in the post offices.


Robert James Manion: To members who have entered the house in recent years, I desire to say that patronage is to a large extent simply work cast upon the shoulders of the member.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: Take my own experience. I do not presume, although mine is a very fine constituency, that the people there are higher minded than elsewhere, but they do not bother me for positions. To-day practically all appointments are made by the Civil Service Commission, and this has been the practice since the formation of the commission. I find that with rare exceptions the people are satisfied with this method. I believe a similar condition exists throughout the country to a large extent, and that the
National Revenue Act

people by and large heartily approve of the elimination of the old patronage system, although probably it was abused more than it deserved to be. In this view our people are in harmony with public opinion in England, the United States and other countries. Because of this strong public opinion in favour of the merit system under the Civil Service Commission, I think the iminster should hesitate long before going back to a system which, rightly or wrongly, has become discredited. On the whole I believe the Civil Service Commission have given the country reasonably satisfactory service, and whatever faults they may have-and no doubt no commission is perfect-those faults are few and slight compared with the condition of affairs under the old system. I repeat, by this bill the minister is laying up a store of troubles, and I think later on he will deeply regret not leaving these appointments almost entirely in the hands of the Civil Service Commission.


Jean-François Pouliot: Suppose two men equally qualified applied to my hon. friend for a position, one a partisan, the other a non-partisan, which man would he appoint?


Robert James Manion: I say without any hesitation at all that if I were making the appointment, and the partisan was just as good a man for the position as the non-partisan applicant, I would without question appoint my friend. Please note, I say if I had the making of the appointment. The appointment should foe left to the Civil Service Commission. But let me remind my hon. friend who is such a loyal supporter of the Prime Minister, that on one occasion I heard the right hon. gentleman abuse us on this side as though we were pickpockets because we had the temerity to appoint Conservatives to the Senate. In his view that was one of our greatest crimes. At a meeting a few days later I frankly stated that I wondered if he expected us to appoint Liberals. That was the idealistic attitude taken by my right hon. friend, and in view of his opinions in those days I think he should support me in my stand that the Minister of National Revenue should leave to the Civil Service Commission the appointments dealt with in this bill.


Jean-François Pouliot: There is always sound
sense and good humour in my hon. friend's remarks, even when he speaks seriously.


Robert James Manion: Cood humour is one of the blessings of life.


Mr. EVANS:: Mr. Chairman, I raise my
voice in protest against this bill. Subsection four of section one provides that:
The minister may, after such examination as he may prescribe, select and nominate suitable persons for appointment by the Civil Service Commission.
In my opinion nothing could be better calculated to undermine the work of the Civil Service Commission. Year after year we have seen numbers of civil servants withdrawn from the control of the Civil Service Commission. These withdrawals total several thousand, and sim'ply mean a return to the old patronage plan. I realize that in this we are face to face with one of the most important but intricate functions of government-the control of the civil service. Having at great expense set up the machinery for the filling of all offices in the civil service, we find whichever party happens to foe in power year after year taking away from the control of the Civil Service Commission many civil servants.
I am surprised at the Minister of National Revenue bringing in a measure of this kind, for only lately I read his sentiments regarding this question as expressed by him in 1921. I believe with the member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) that what the minister is seeking will undoubtedly lead him into trouble. The whole country is alarmed at the attitude which the government is taking towards the Civil Service Commission, and I shall be only doing my duty by reading a letter which I have received from the Saskatchewan Customs and Excise Officials' Association. This is dated April 27, and is as follows:
As you are no doubt aware the honourable the Minister of National Revenue introduced a resolution in the house on the 30th ultimo seeking to amend the Department of National Revenue Act granting authority to enable him:
(a)	To appoint and pay certain officers (appraisers, special excise officers, investigators of values and drawbacks, etc.).
(b)	To grant gratuities to officers in lieu of leave of absence, in order to permit replacing such officers so retired immediately.
(e) To arrange such promotions and transfers as are in the public interest.
The adoption of this would be a radical departure from the present system of making appointments through the Civil Service Commission, so far as paragraphs (a) and (c) are concerned; with paragraph (b) we are in accord.
This association views the resolution with deep apprehension, and cannot conceive of it as being in the best interests of civil service reform. We further believe it to be unnecessary, as the method of filling vacancies, promotions, etc., administered under the Civil Service Act at present is adequate and just to all concerned.

National Revenue Act
1 have been asked by this association to lay our views before you on this matter, trusting I am not assuming too great a liberty, and that your view on this may agree with ours.
I am,
Yours very truly,
T. W. McPhail,
President, Sask. C. & E. 0. Assoc.
The government, in my opinion, is taking a retrograde step. For many years, in the west particularly, farmers' associations have had as one of their chief planks the abolition of patronage. I view with apprehension the present proposal and, I repeat, the government is taking a retrograde step. With others who have spoken against the proposal I therefore protest against the bill in its present form.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Why is the minister using the name of the Civil Service Commission in the bill as draughted, leaving them without power? Why did he not bring in a bill simply to give the government power and the minister authority to appoint these men, not mentioning the Civil Service Commission at all?


William Daum Euler: When the resolution was
under discussion the other day, I think I explained the provisions of the bill fairly fully, and I believe I also anticipated to a large extent the objections that have been raised to-day. For that reason I do not propose to review them at any length; but I might perhaps make one or two observations, called forth by some of the remarks we have just heard. Let me deal in the first place with the question raised by my hon. friend (Sir George Perley) which was asked the other day and to which I replied. The hon. gentleman asks why, instead of taking the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission, the minister does not himself make the appointment. That is the question as I understand it. I said the other day, and I say again, that this provision was included at the suggestion of some of my friends in this house who felt that if the minister were obliged to make a recommendation to the Civil Service Commission it would at least act as a check, or a brake, as I described it then, upon him if he desired to make any political appointments. That is the sole purpose of the insertion of this requirement, that the nomination shall go first to the Civil Service Commission. Moreover, it places on them a certain responsibility, and, after that, a responsibility on the minister and the government itself, because the minister himself
does not make the appointment. Even if the Civil Service Commission declines to make the appointment it goes to the governor in council, and that again constitutes a second brake upon the activities of the minister if he is exercising them in a wrongful way.
I really propose to answer only one objection-the main objection. I believe there is only one objection, and that is that this is an attempt to interfere with or to wipe out the principle of the Civil Service Commission. Let me say that this is not such an attempt; it is not intended to interfere with the principle under which the Civil Service Commission operates. And this is not the first occasion on which an exception has been made.


Mr. KENNEDY:: Does not the minister
think that while it may not be his intention- I do not believe it is his intenuon- -to open the uoor to patronage, it aciually does open the door to any future minister who may wish to take advantage of it?


William Daum Euler: If the hon. gentleman will
permit me to go on I will answer that question. That is not a departure at all. There are exceptions to practically all rules. The mere fact that there is an exception presupposes that there is a rule, and the rule is not abolished because an exception is made to it. Some years ago, after the Civil Service Commission had been established and after the Civil Service Act of 1918 had been passed, I was a member of the house when, in 1921, an effort was made by the then government, the Union government, in what was known as the Spinney bill, to make exceptions which were far wider in their scope than this little bill of mine. In fact, as I remember-and I was a member of the committee that considered that bill-the Spinney bill proposed that the appointment of certain technical officers throughout the whole service, not only in the Customs department, but in the entire service, should be removed from the control of the Civil Service Commission and be vested again in the ministers, under what you may term patronage, if you care to do so.
The statement has been made to-day that the minister has reversed his position-that although I have been always in favour of the Civil Service Commission I have changed my mind. Now, if my experience showed me that I was wrong in anything, I hope I should have the courage to admit that I was wrong and that I should not be afraid to say that I had changed my mind. But in this particular I have not changed my mind. I can quote from the very speech from which the hon.
National Revenue Act

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) and, I believe, the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) quoted, to show what attitude I then took. I quote the following:
I understand-
I said.
-that the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Calder) proposes another amendment to the effect that during the recess the deputy ministers and the Civil Service Commission may get together to decide as to what other employees should properly be exempted from the operations of the commission.
Quite plainly there was an effort then to remove from the control of the Civil Service Commission certain employees. I said:
Now, I quite agree with that suggestion- I made it myself-
I had made it in committee.
-but there is this difference between us: the minister would give the commission power to make these exemptions, in other words, to have an accomplished fact and to report to parliament. My contention was that they in their wisdom should come to a decision so far as was thought advisable in regard to what changes should be made, but that they should not have the final say, but should come with their recommendations to parliament, and that then parliament should deal with those recommendations on their merits.
That is exactly the position I take to-day. The exemptions we make to-day do not go so far as the exemptions then proposed, and my proposal is that parliament, rather than the Civil Service Commission, shall pass upon them. I am to-day just as much in favour of the principle of the Civil Service Commission as I have been at any time, but I hope I do not propose to drive a theory to an absurd conclusion if experience shows me that there may be advantage in a slight modification of it. And the fact that there is some modification of it does not, I contend, destroy the principle.


William Garland McQuarrie: Is it not a fact that this bill will eliminate the preference which is given, under the Civil Service Act, to returned men? Would the minister consider a suggestion that he provide in this bill that this preference shall be retained?


William Daum Euler: I have answered that question before. There is no intention on the part either of the minister or of the department to discriminate against returned men. Other things being equal, they are supposed to get the same preference now as they got before. And the sp,me applies to those already in the service.


William Garland McQuarrie: Will the minister put that in his bill?
[Mr. Euler.I


William Daum Euler: No, I will not. As I have already said, there is only one reason for this bill. Until some months ago the customs department was being severely criticized for inefficiency and other things; it was criticized by parliament, by a parliamentary committee, by the press and more recently by a royal commission which investigated that department. Many changes have been made, I think for the benefit of the service; in accordance with some of the recommendations made by the commission the department sees other ways in which improvements can be made in the service, and I hope hon. members of the committee will believe that is our only purpose in introducing this bill and suggesting these changes, which are very moderate in themselves. With that I think every member of the committee will agree, although I will admit that there may be honest differences of opinion as to the method which should be followed.
As I have already said, the bill is very moderate in its scope; it does not go nearly so far as the recommendations of the royal commission. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre quoted from the report of a committee appointed by himself, which I continued after I came into office; the report of that committee does not agree entirely with the reports of other committees. We have another body known as the Commercial Protective Association, which took an entirely different view, going even further than anything we have embodied in this bill. Better than that, and I think I may say that fairly, a deliberative body was appointed by this government consisting of three judges, who made a most exhaustive investigation extending over about a year; they recommended that the minister be given control over these appointments as well as over appointments to branches of the department other than appraisers and investigators. Although this may be contradicted in a sense, the minister takes no responsibility and no power for making these appointments.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Will the minister repeat
that last statement?


William Daum Euler: The minister takes no power to make appointments himself; he first makes recommendations to the commission. As far as I am concerned, and I think this would be carried out by any other minister, that course will be followed, and I think the house should admit that when men come into positions of responsibility they at least feel that responsibility to the country and are not constantly thinking of ways to exercise politi-

National Revenue Act


William Garland McQuarrie: There is also the preventive service.
cal patronage and so on. If in order to obtain the results we all desire in connection with the reorganization of the department it is necessary to depart in a small degree from the exercise of a general principle such as is contained in the Civil Service Act, I have no apology to make, and I say that quite frankly. To me, the object to be attained is more important than slavish observance of a principle not a moral principle-if it is shown that by such a slight deviation from that principle, in peculiar circumstances, we can obtain better results. Surely we should learn something from experience. I can say that in the short time I have had some responsibility in the matter I think I could make even some further suggestions than those contained in this bill, all of which would be for the benefit of the service. The point I desire to make is this: There is no attempt to drive a horse and wagon through the principle of the Civil Service Act; this bill merely establishes an exception to the general rule, as has been found advisable through experience. I might appropriately quote that old saying: "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." I think that applies equally in this case; I am not criticizing the Civil Service Commission, but it was made for the good of the public service, and the public service was not made for the good of the Civil Service Commission.


George Halsey Perley: I would just ask a question there. Let us suppose that next year one of the minister's colleagues wishes to bring in a similar bill with regard to his own department in order to control appointments. What would the minister say?


William Daum Euler: If he could make a case
as good as I think I am making I believe parliament should grant his request. Now let us see for a few moments what is actually in the bill to which so much objection has been taken. It proposes that out of the 5,500 odd employees of this department some 200 or possibly 250 positions shall be taken from under the control of the Civil Service Commission. There are not more than 250 appraisers and special investigators throughout the service, not only in Ottawa but in the various ports throughout the Dominion. Most of these men will remain where they are; I do not even say that any of them will 'be removed from the place they now occupy, so only a small percentage of those people now occupyipg the position of appraisers will be actually affected by the enactment of this law.


William Daum Euler: Yes, but that is now under
the control of the minister, and the minister proposes to take that away from himself and give it to the governor in council.


William Garland McQuarrie: Why?


William Daum Euler: I will come to that in a moment. He is doing that because he desires to exercise patronage as little as possible, although I am afraid my friends will not believe that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Afraid to be responsible for these appointments?


William Daum Euler: As I have said, for these positions, which-outside the preventive service, which is already under the control of the minister-total some 200 or 250 officers, the minister may make a selection, nominate a man, and recommend him to the Civil Service Commission, which shall make the appointment within a stated period. If the commission refuse to make the appointment, the minister makes it himself, not as recommended by the various commissions but through the governor in council. I will freely admit that the bill in effect places the power of selection and appointment of this small class of officers in the hands of the department or of the minister, if you like it that way, because if the minister has the confidence of his colleagues I should think and expect that when he makes a recommendation to his colleagues in council, in the great majority of cases they would accept that recommendation. If council did not do so I think it would be an intimation to the minister that he did not enjoy the confidence of his colleagues.
That is the one vital thing in the bill; that small class of officers in the service, the appraisers and the investigators, in effect shall be appointed by the minister, upon advice of the board of appraisers, if you like to put it that way, through the governor in council. Now the question arises as to why we should make a change in the method of appointing these appraisers. This is done primarily because of the absolutely vital importance of an efficient appraisal staff. If that staff is not what it should be, if the men are not experts skilled in the work which they have to do, the result will foe a great loss to the revenues. The tariff is based directly on valuations of goods; if these valuations are too low it is not necessary to point out that the revenues must suffer very seriously. Unless the appraisal system is excellent, and better than it is to-day, we are not going to

National Revenue Act

receive the revenues we should receive, and my protectionist friends would be justified in saying that the manufacturers of this country did not receive the protection to which they were entitled. Let us see for a moment what the different commissions and1 others think of the necessity for a proper appraisal system, although I do not desire to delay the committee at any great length because I think most hon. members are already seized of the importance of this matter. First let us consider the Contoiercial Protective Association, whose representations received very great attention from the parliamentary committee. Speaking of the board of appraisers, they say:
That the board be given power to retain such appraisers as they deem competent and qualified and to appoint, with the minister's approval, and notwithstanding the provisions of the Civil Service Act, such further appraisers as may be required from time to time-
Then a little later:
In dealing with important merchandise and in ensuring that the full duties provided for in the law are collected, it is above all things essential that there should be an efficient system of appraisal by competent appraisers.
The appraisal system is the very heart of the whole system of the collection of customs revenue, and if the appraisal system is not sound there is bound to be inefficiency and failure to detect frauds.
The Canadian appraisal system is lamentably weak. At many ports there are not a sufficient number of capable and efficient appraisers to give that prompt service which is so essential to the conduct of business. At the smaller ports men are acting as appraisers in addition to performing other duties-men who have not had the training to fit them for their duties as appraisers, and at all ports the rate of pay is so inadequate that trained experts cannot be prevailed upon to enter the service.
The parliamentary committee reported as follows:
First, the methods of appraisal are exceedingly careless and fail to safeguard the interests of the importer, or the revenues of the country from being defrauded by undervaluation, and, secondly, persons appointed as appraisers are in many instances untrained in the branch to which they are appointed.
And the royal commission reported as follows:
This question touches not only the administration at the department in Ottawa, but extends through all the ports in the Dominion.
It has been recognized and must be admitted that a proper system of appraisal lies at the very base of the customs administration. It is almost axiomatic that the staff of appraisers should possess the necessary expert and technical knowledge to enable them to discharge their duties efficiently. The present system fails to provide a staff of appraisers to meet these requirements.
Our inquiry has shown that the present system of appointing appraisers or other officers requiring expert or technical knowledge is

unsatisfactory, and we are convinced that where expert and technical knowledge is required, the examination of the applicants for positions should be conducted by those who are specially qualified to act in the premises.
We are of opinion that all appointments to the office of appraiser at the different ports of the Dominion should be made by the minister after examination of the applicants by the board of appraisers.
We quite recognize that this method of appointment would conflict with the system now in vogue under the Civil Service Act, but notwithstanding this we are of the opinion that this method should be adopted.
This was also the opinion of the Commercial Protective Association.
The present system has been wrong. It has been possible to do this, and it has been done: A man, we will say, was appointed to the position of customs truckman, an important and respectable position. Then he might be promoted to be a computing clerk, in which position he would learn about the various rates in the tariff, but he would not learn one thing about the values of goods, or the worth of commodities. And yet, that man might be, and has been, appointed to the office of appraiser in an important port. You cannot expect this man to detect undervaluation.


George Halsey Perley: But he could not be appointed without the approval of the minister.


William Daum Euler: I think you will find that only in a very few instances do the ministers desire to reject appointments that are made by the Civil Service Commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was a very good illustration of that the other day right in this city.


William Daum Euler: You have not found very many in the Department of National Revenue. To appraise properly, a man requires to have expert knowledge of commodities, which only a skilled and qualified man possesses. I am not here to criticize the Civil Service Commission. I think they are doing a good work, but I do say this: they are not as well qualified to pass upon the merits and qualifications of appraisers as the officers of our own department. The matter of personality enters into it also to some extent. Our board of appraisers are personally acquainted with men expert in the valuation of commodities throughout the whole country. They become personally acquainted with the men that are already on the staff. I may say, to quiet the fears, perhaps, of some of our own officials, that we have no intention of calling in men from the outside if we have men in our own

National Revenue Act
service who ought to be promoted and who have full knowledge of the work we want them to do. But I will also say that if we find we have a peculiar position, a position that requires a peculiarly intimate knowledge of some particular commodity, and we cannot find the man in the service, or cannot find him among the returned men, we will have no hesitation, and I think we would be justified, in going outside to find a man that can do the work properly, and thus protect the revenues of the country.
Mr. Chairman, that is practically the whole story. The royal commission says, the Commercial Protective Association says, the executive officers of the department say, and the minister believes that competent appraisers can be selected most successfully by the experienced officers of the department. They know those within and outside of the department who are best qualified.
I just want to repeat, in conclusion, that after all the minister has delegated some of the powers that he now has, or that might have been assigned to him by the recommendations of the royal commission. This power has been delegated, in part, to the Civil Service Commission, and finally to the governor in council. The commission recommended that the auditors under the Special War Revenue Act, commonly known as the Sales Tax Act, should be appointed by the minister. The minister has not chosen to follow that recommendation, but preferred to leave it with the Civil Service Commission. I believe that the matter of the appointment of auditors will be worked out properly by the commisison. I do not desire to interfere with the function of that commission any more than seems advisable.
With regard to the preventive service. As it stands now, the special preventive service, consisting of a force of some 300 men, is appointed by the minister himself. In the future, if this bill passes, the appointments to the preventive service will be made in the same way as it is proposed to appoint appraisers and special investigators. Again, to that extent, the minister has divested himself of the powers which he has had.
I have stated before that the provisions of the bill are very moderate indeed, and we are going to observe the principle of merit and promotion. I believe in the principle of the Civil Service Commission; I cannot say that too often. I have no desire to interfere with the commission, but I also believe that there are exceptions to every rule. I do not believe in following a theory at all points
merely in order to be consistent; I believe in the exercise of common sense, where practical experience shows that the theory does not always serve the purposes of efficiency.


Mr. CLARK:: Why does the minister so
emphatically refuse to insert a provision similar to that in the Civil Service Act, relating to returned soldiers?


William Daum Euler: I do not think that any bill should be burdened with too many provisions. If the minister desired not to obey that, there would be absolutely nothing to prevent him from exercising favouritism as against returned soldiers. I do not see where it would have any practical effect.


John Arthur Clark: As it now stands, it gives
the minister every opportunity of exercising discrimination against returned soldiers.
_ Mr. EULER:	Which he would also have
in the other case.


John Arthur Clark: If there was an expressed
statutory requirement that returned soldiers should be given preference, all things being equal, the minister would be bound to give preference to returned soldiers.


William Daum Euler: Who would be the judge
as to whether all other things were equal?
Mr. CLARK. That is just the point. The minister is admitting now that he is not a fit and proper judge.


William Daum Euler: I am admitting nothing of
the sort.


John Arthur Clark: I cannot take it to be otherwise.
Mr: EULER:	If the minister desired to
use his position in a wrongful way, to discriminate against the returned men, he could do it just as well when the provision was inserted in the bill. It would still be entirely within the judgment of the minister himself as to whether the returned men were fit for the positions. If he did not want to appoint them, he would say that he would not recommend them as fit for the positions.


John Arthur Clark: We may assume, at any
rate, that every minister will exercise an honest judgment, and not one of prejudice. If he does that, and if the statute requires him to give that preference, then his own honesty will dictate that course and he will give the returned soldiers the preference.


William Daum Euler: His own honesty ought to
dictate that course anyway.
National Revenue Act


John Arthur Clark: Certainly it ought to dictate the course in any case, but if there is in the legislation a provision similar to that in the Civil Service Act, it will be a guide which will restrict all ministers to a principle; and I hope we may assume that this minister and all succeeding ministers will be honest in the way in which they carry out the spirit and intention of the act. I believe that in all the findings of the royal commission no returned soldier was involved in the customs scandal, and I think the same preference should be given to them in this regard as in employment generally throughout the civil service.


Mr. TOLMIE:: I am glad to say at the
outset that this is one occasion upon which I find myself in entire accord with the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans). Perhaps we have not agreed very often in the past. What has not been made clear by the minister is whether or not with his selections as proposed in the bill he is going to improve conditions. I do not see why the Civil Service Commission, properly equipped and furnishing itself with proper information necessary to fill each one of these positions, cannot make just as good a selection and perhaps a more independent one than is suggested under the bill. The admission of the minister in response to the inquiry of the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) is a clean-cut indication that this is only the thin edge of the wedge, as has been suggested by some of the previous speakers. The minister replied to the effect that if some other minister next year applied to have a similar change introduced into his department and put up a good enough talk, such as our friend has done, there is no reason why that minister should not be granted the same privilege. This might be carried all the way down the line. One of the strongest recommendations for the use of the Civil Service Commission is the fact that the great body of civil servants of Canada appear to be thoroughly satisfied with the scheme and also satisfied that it is an improvement on the old patronage system.
This bill has created a good deal of speculation, and doubt, as to just how far it is proposed to proceed. It is looked on in some regards with a good deal of suspicion. I rose just in order to make very clear my position as being opposed to the return of the old patronage system. Having occupied the position of a civil servant for many years, I feel that appointments should be made as have been done in recent years, namely, by the Civil Service Commission. Civil servants should be permitted to retain their independence, and I do not know of anything more
{Mr. EulerJ
humiliating to the service than to have to approach some politician hat in hand to ask for a job for which he has every right to apply. I believe in those positions being filled by the Civil Service Commission in a clean-cut, impartial manner. So long as the Civil Service Commission makes the selection, let them select the best man and get efficiency at any cost, and let us not return to the old system of patronage which has been so unsatisfactory in the past.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I must congratulate the minister on his mode of presentation. He can say in a very mild and moderate manner the most dangerous things. That is just the trouble at the present time. He says that this is not a new departure. As a matter of fact that is quite true. Last year or the year before the minister came to parliament in the same way asking that preventive officers should be taken out of the civil service.


William Daum Euler: They were out already.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I can remember
very distinctly-and I think I am correct in saying this-that a new force was to be put on comprised of men who would not come under the civil service, and who would be freer to act than civil service appointees would be.


William Daum Euler: Just to put the matter right, I think my hon. friend should understand that it was merely proposed to add to the number of the special preventive force, the nucleus of which had been appointed the year before by the minister himself. It was merely adding to that; it was not a new creation.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It was a distinct
extension of the scheme and would result in putting a larger number of people outside of the civil service. I can remember some of us opposing it at the time and pointing to the disastrous results in the United States where the preventive service had been taken from under the civil service organizations and had become essentially a patronage organization. I say again, unfortunately this is not a departure, because again and again and again during the last few years there have been attempts on the part of the government still further to extend the number of those groups of government employees who come entirely outside of the civil service. I have under my hand a list of such exemptions. It has been placed on the record repeatedly and I do not think it is necessary to do so again, but it shows clearly that this is by no means a departure but seems to be a part of the policy of the government. The minister said very mildly that he believes the object to be attained is more than slavish maintenance of a

National Revenue Act
principle. If I made such a statement as that I am quite sure that many hon. gentlemen would rise and quite rightly to object to such a dangerous doctrine. Slavish maintenance of a principle! Some of us are inclined to think that we must stand by our principles and that the government ought to stand by its principles, if it has any, in such a case as this. The trouble is that this is throwing the door wide open to expediency of every description; if this can be done in one case it can be done in others, as the minister himself has admitted. He says:	If this particular thing can be better done in this way, by all means let us choose this way. That doctrine could be applied to-day in every department of the government service. We are told with regard to one particular matter: Oh, well, this is a very high appointment; we ought not to trust it to the hands of the Civil Service Commission; it is too technical a service; it is too exalted a position; it must be decided by the government itself. Then the next thing that comes up is the question of digging mud in the banks of the Rideau canal, and we are told that this is an exception; that really no board could determine whether or not men are fitted to dig mud, to dig ditches, and that appointments must be made by the government. So in regard to department after department, the same argument is applied. I mention again this dangerous statement of the minister: "The object to be attained is more important than a slavish maintenance of a principle". That is a very fair statement of the position of the government in this case.
There is one other statement that the minister made, that I should like to repeat. He made this also in such a very moderate way that it sounded very well in the house. I am not quite so sure that it will-I was going to say "sound well" in print, but I had better put it, I am not so sure that it will appear to quite such advantage in print. He said:
It is of vital importance that there should be an efficient appraisal staff.
It seems to me that the minister in making such a statement as that is in reality indicting the Civil Service Commission. If the Civil Service Commission are not in a position to make appointments that are efficient, then I say let us get rid of the present commission, because I quite frankly confess that it is quite possible that the personnel of the Civil Service Commission leaves much to be desired.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is quite possible, and the government has that matter in their own hands. But the way to secure reforms is not to set aside the principle that is behind the establishment of the Civil Service Commission. The way is open to the government to deal with the Civil Service Commission itself. That is what I should like to emphasize. It may be that around the Civil Service Commission there has grown up a certain kind of patronage. We hear that about the corridors, and it may be quite true. It may be that there is favouritism shown by the Civil Service Commission, and there might very well be an investigation held in connection with such matters, because these charges are heard in so many quarters that probably there is some basis for them. I say, let the government investigate the work of the civil service commissioners, their methods and so forth, but let us not set aside the principle underlying the Civil Service Commission.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre ha3 presented the case for the maintenance of the principle of competitive examination and of freedom from patronage in such a clear and able fashion that I do not think it is necessary for any of us to say very much more along that line. As far as my own part of Canada is concerned, we are absolutely opposed to breaking down the idea behind the Civil Service Commission-absolutely opposed. The Free Press has been quoted; the Tribune might also have been quoted. These, I take it, are fair expositions of the general attitude of the people in my own city and throughout the west.
As far as the employees of the Dominion government are concerned, I have had a number of communications from various parts of the country and from different organizations. I shall content myself with reading one, which I think is fairly typical of all. It is one coming from my own city of Winnipeg, and from an organization that is closely affected by the changes proposed in this bill. It is from the Manitoba Customs and Excise Officers' Association, signed by the secretary, and reads::
Reference resolution fifteen March thirtieth now before parliament dealing with certain amendments to the National Revenue Act. Manitoba customs excise officers' association wish to go on record as being opposed to any departure from the present system of appointment and promotion by merit in the civil service. We are of the opinion that the passing of this resolution would be detrimental to the efficiency of the service by removing the incentive of promotion, and because there is no safeguard in the resolution that appointments and promotions would be made to qualified appointees. We are unalterably opposed to anything that, might leave an opening for the return of patronage in the civil service. Kindly take up with all Manitoba members with request for support.
National Revenue Act

I would simply in these few words add my protest against that movement which seems to be growing at the present time to disregard the principle underlying our Civil Service Commission.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: I think that this
marks the minister's retreat from the high standard which he has taken in the past in regard to governmental matters. Some members of the cabinet have openly confessed that they retreated long ago, and that they have adopted the principle of destruction of the civil service commission. But in this case the Minister of National Revenue tries to hide his retreat behind the declaration that he does not want to appoint anybody. He says that the minister will not appoint; that the governor in council will appoint. Now when he retires within the secret council chamber, what will be the conditions there? He will ask the Minister of Immigration to appoint an appraiser of silk goods. He will ask the Minister of Agriculture to recommend the appointment of an appraiser in Paris hats and costumes. He will ask the Prime Minister possibly to appoint an appraiser in knitted goods, or silks, or stockings, or something of that kind.


William Daum Euler: On what does my hon. friend base a statement of that kind, that any individual member of the cabinet will be asked to make a recommendation?


Arthur Edward Ross: I am putting it in that way so that the minister will see the ridiculous position in which he is placing himself.


William Daum Euler: The hon. gentleman is putting himself in a ridiculous position.


Arthur Edward Ross: The suggestion is
ridiculous, of course, because nobody but the minister himself will make the recommendation. Then why resort to the camouflage of saying that the governor in council will do it? It is the minister himself, and no one else, who will make the recommendations. If he did not, he would have to resort to the ridiculous procedure I suggest, such as asking the Minister of National Defence to recommend an appraiser for musical instruments, or the Minister of Justice to recommend an appraiser for oriental rugs, and so forth. The thing is so ridiculous that one must laugh at the minister, and wonder if he can really believe that the members of the House of Commons are so innocent as to accept his statement.
Passing from that, because I recognize that it is the minister's retreat that is shown in

his acceptance of this bill, I would ask that in his retreat he will nevertheless boldly stand out for the returned soldier, and see that he is placed in the same position in which he stands under the Civil Service Act. I ask him now in his retreat simply to see that an amendment to that effect is placed in this bill before it receives its third reading.


William Garland McQuarrie: The minister has made his position perfectly clear in regard to returned soldiers, that he will not include in this bill a provision such as is contained in the Civil Service Act giving a preference to returned men.
There is another matter which it seems to me should be taken care of in this bill, and that is the preference that is given under subsection 3 of section 21 of the Civil Service Act to residents of localities where the appointments are to be made. That subsection reads as follows:
Except as to appointments to positions in the headquarters of the several departments and other portions of the civil service at Ottawa, the appointments to any local positions in any province shall, so far as practicable, be made from bona fide residents of such locality.
I remember when that provision was put in the Civil Service Act. As a matter of fact, I myself moved that this particular provision be inserted and was responsible for having it embodied in the act, and my reason for doing so was that we had found that men and women from other provinces were being brought into British Columbia to fill civil service positions there. That was most objectionable because we considered that we had in the west people who were quite capable of filling these positions, and I remember giving certain instances at that time of appointments which had then recently been made. It seems to me that that principle is being departed from in this case. It is a principle that I think should be preserved in this bill. I believe that, so far as practicable, appointments should be made from among the residents of the locality where the vacancy occurs. I would ask the minister if he is willing to consider an amendment to his bill to take care of that principle.


William Daum Euler: I would say in reply to my hon. friend that the whole purpose of the department in this bill is to try to secure the most capable men for these positions. If it should be found necessary in carrying out that intention to take a man from one part of the country and put him in a position in another part, if I thought that the interests of the service would best be served by so doing, I would have no hesitation in making



IS, 1928

[Stage Direction]
National Revenue Act
such an appointment. I should hope that ordinarily men would be taken pretty generally from the district in which they live, and in all probability it would be so done in the great majority of cases; but I do not desire to lay down an absolute rule which would merely destroy the purpose of the bill.
William Garland McQuarrie: Would the minister embody in his bill subsection 3 of section 21 of the Civil Service Act?


William Daum Euler: No.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Subsection 4 of section 1 provides that:
The minister may, after such examination as he may prescribe, select and nominate suitable persons for appointment,-
And so on. I understood the minister to say that in the regulations to be prescribed he intends to have the board of appraisers conduct the examination of candidates. If s'o, why not substitute for "such examination as he may prescribe" the words "examination by the board of Dominion appraisers"? If he intends to put this in the regulations, I do not see why he should not embody it in the bill.


William Daum Euler: Ordinarily we should not attempt to clutter up a bill with what might much better be dealt with by way of regulations; otherwise statutes would be burdened with a great deal of unnecessary matter. But I presume what is in my hon. friend's mind is that the recommendation should go direct from the board of appraisers to the Civil Service Commission in order to avoid what he fears, that the minister himself might exercise political patronage. Am I correct?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: It would certainly exclude any supposition of that kind.


William Daum Euler: My answer is this. The purpose he desires to serve would not be served by inserting in the statute the words suggested, for the simple reason that the members of the board of appraisers are appointed by the minister. If he desired to use his power in a wrongful way, he could use it just as easily through the board of appraisers as in any other manner.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Surely if the board of appraisers recommended certain candidates, and the minister did not want them, he would not go to the extent of dismissing the board.


William Daum Euler: No.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: On several occasions, Mr. Chairman, the minister has stated that it is not his intention to exercise political patronage-to give jobs as rewards for political
services. I do not imagine it is his intention; I never did. But at the same time the house is putting him in the position under this bill of being the one who shall determine what candidates shall be appointed. For instance, the Civil Service Commission may not appoint the person named by the minister in the first place. Then of course there is what the minister terms an additional safeguard; if the appointment is not made by the commission it is made by the governor in council. But there is no use for any of us to think that the governor in council will cadi candidates and examine them. It is simply a question of accepting or not accepting the minister's recommendation; and he has stated that they will accept his recommendation. Undoubtedly this constitutes patronage, in that it gives him power, as head of the department, to make appointments. The burden of his argument is that he needs qualified appraisers. If that argument is sound, 1 may point out that a similar argument has been used in connection with the preventive service, and to-day the minister stated that he intended to put the preventive service back under the Civil Service Commission.


William Daum Euler: No. I stated that appointments to the special preventive service, now entirely under the minister, would be made in exactly the same way as appointments of appraisers.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The member for Bow
River (Mr. Garland) on April 23 inquired of the ministry with regard to the preventive service. That return has not yet been brought down, although it passed the house some time ago. Whatever may be said with regard to statements made by the minister and other members of the government when they were in opposition, I think it is easy to demonstrate by referring to the debates of this house that all ministries handle patronage appointments in a way that they would not readily admit should be handled by the representatives of another party if it was in power. That seems to be the general attitude. Most of the declarations read this afternoon were made by members now sitting to the right of the Speaker when they were in opposition.
I think it will be generally conceded that not only the people, but civil servants themselves, are afraid of patronage. In the abstract, patronage has been condemned by everyone except those who for the time being have been handling it. I have before me two telegrams that were sent to my desk-mate (Mr. Garland). He is not in the house this
National Revenue Act

afternoon or doubtless he would be reading them himself. The first telegram is as follows:
E. J. Garland,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ont.
Understand resolutions before parliament affecting appointments and promotions in Department of National Revenue. This association believes appointments and promotions under Civil Service Commission as at present preferable to anything savouring of return to patronage, and beg that you use your influence accordingly.
George Edgecombe,
Secretary,
Northern Alberta Customs and Excise Officers Association.
The other message is from Quebec:
E. J. Garland, M.P.
With reference to proposed amendment to National Revenue Act introduced by honourable Minister National Revenue, we respectfully submit that if resolution is carried in its original form the very object which the Civil Service Act nineteen eighteen had in view would be defeated; and we respectfully draw your attention to the fact that if said resolution is pressed in house same should be strenuously opposed, because if carried would simply mean a return to patronage, a state of affairs which we believe to be detrimental to the service, as it would deprive an officer of incentive in the way of promotion and tend to lessen the morale of the service and impair its efficiency.
Quebec Customs and Excise Officers Association.
J. A. Young, President.
W. P. Fitzpatrick, Secretary.
There is no question, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is asking for power that in the hands of his successor might be used to set up a system of patronage in the department. The minister is quite emphatic in his refusal to consider any amendments regarding returned soldiers or tending otherwise to restrict the power under this bill to determine who shall be appointed to the positions dealt with. For that reason I am opposed to the bill. Of course the minister may be quite confident that he has the necessary majority to vote the bill through anyway. But we have taken a stand against anything of this sort in days gone by, and I think it is only proper that we should stand by the Civil Service Commission until we can see it demonstrated, by reference to past experience, that it has been better for the civil service and for the revenues of the country that civil servants should be appointed on any other principle than the merit system. Of course, it is easy to show that mistakes have been made in the past under the merit system. No system is perfect. But after all we are dealing with fMr. Kennedy.]
patronage versus the merit system, and I do not think there is anyone to-day, in a responsible position, who will stand up and defend patronage as against the merit system.


William Daum Euler: I decline to be put in the
position of appearing to be opposed to any preference being given the returned men, or of desiring the abolition of the merit system. I want to say emphatically that such an attitude is entirely foreign to my intention. It is merely a question of embodying an amendment in the act, and I do not see how any such amendments as my hon. friends suggest, incorporated in the act, would ensure against a minister who deliberately desired to exercise discrimination either against men already in the service or against returned men.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The bill gives the minister power to ignore the commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not propose to
trespass long on the time of the committee, but I do submit that the minister has approached the matter from the wrong standpoint. He has endeavoured to make an exception to the rule: what he should endeavour to do is to bring all appointments within the rule. That is what he should be labouring to accomplish to-day instead of seeking to discover exceptions to the rule. I find that when the Spinney bill was considered by parliament it was based upon a report submitted by a select committee, of which the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) was a member; and in making a speech on that occasion in reference to the report, the hon. gentleman said:
Technical, professional and scientific employees, it was generally felt, should be appointed with the advice of the deputy heads of the departments.
It is for that principle that we on this side of the house contend; that is to say, that technical and professional men should be appointed with the assistance of deputy heads of the departments. But the appointing power should be with the Civil Service Commission. Any departure from that principle is wrong, and in this instance the minister is departing from it, although he is endeavouring, by a clever use of words in his bill, to utilize the Civil Service Commission in order to give an air, shall we say, of fairness to proposals that are purely political.
Now, we are not dealing with the minister himself, if he will only bear that in mind. We are not dealing with the hon. gentleman personally, but with the Minister of National Revenue, in relation to the question of ap-

National Revenue Act
pointing professional or technical men with the assistance of deputy heads of departments. That is the subject matter of the discussion. We desire efficiency in the public service. How shall that efficiency be secured? It has been decided by this parliament times without number-and in very many instances owing to the urgings of members who now sit opposite-that the Civil Service Commission provides means whereby efficiency may be secured without recourse to political patronage. That is the principle underlying the Civil Service Act. A departure from that principle is now proposed. That departure, the minister says, is an exception to the rule. But we submit that the method by which the position of the civil service can best be maintained is a simple one: all you have to do is to ask the board of appraisers to set the examination and let the candidates write them as they please. Let the Civil Service Commission conduct the examinations, so far as responsibility for them is concerned, and make the appointments, giving the preference, as the Civil Service Act provides, to returned soldiers. Is it beyond the reach of the Civil Service Commission to get a gentleman from Montreal who was an assistant buyer in a great departmental store to be an appraiser of leather values? Is it impossible for the commission to get one who had been for six or seven years in a trust company, and who in years gone by was associated with the textile industry, to be an appraiser of the products of that industry? Could not the Civil Service Commission do that as well as the minister and his commissioner? The question is a simple one. If the Civil Service Commission is to function, and parliament intends that it shall make the appointments, let the board of appraisers set the examinations and have the commission assume responsibility for them and for the appointments.
As regards the second question-giving preference to returned men-this is a principle in the Civil Service Act which, we contend, should be maintained. If maintained in its integrity it would have the result of retaining in Canada a large number of returned men who are now in another country. All you need to do is to ask for the returns and you will find hOw many Canadians are receiving pensions in the republic to the south of us and who should be getting them in Canada.
Under these circumstances, so far as we on this side are concerned, the minister may take his bill out of committee, and on the third reading we will offer the two amendments to which I have referred. On the third reading it will be recorded whether or not
this house proposes to revert to the old system of patronage which in practice has been so disastrous to this country, and to take from men who have deserving claims on the country the preference which the Civil Service Act now gives them.


William Daum Euler: May I ask a question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


William Daum Euler: In connection with the appointment of returned men, and giving them preference in positions such as appraisers, is it the hon gentleman's intention to move an amendment to the effect that returned men shall always receive the preference, although we might find some man in civilian life peculiarly fitted for a particular position as an appraiser? My purpose is to get the best men available.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely-for the salary
you will pay. There were nearly half a million returned men in this country, which is substantially one-eighteenth of the population, and in that half million there are individuals equally qualified with any man who may be secured by the department for the salary offered, to serve the purposes mentioned. That is my answer to the minister's question. The preference given to returned men under the Civil Service Act is all we intend to ask for. We do not intend to ask that any new standards be set up. We merely desire to make sure that the standard heretofore observed shall prevail under the act, and that the provisions of the act in its integrity shall be observed.


William Daum Euler: If they are equally qualified they will receive the preference.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the section carry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: On division.
Section agreed to on division.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the title carry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: On division.
Title agreed to on division.


William Daum Euler: Shall we go on with the third reading when the bill is reported?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, at the next sitting-we have two amendments to offer.


William Daum Euler: You can offer them now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.
Bill reported.
Pension Act



PENSION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from May 14 consideration in committee of Bill No. 289, to amend the Pension Act-Mr. King (Kootenay)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 5-Commission attached to department.
Mr. KING (Kootenay):: When the committee rose we were dealing with sections 5 and 30; it was suggested that these sections stand for further consideration. I have given the matter some thought, and I think the section as drawn is quite proper and does not in any way curtail the activities of the Board of Pension Commissioners; in fact, it places in the statute the conditions under which we are operating to-day. In 1920 the government of the day brought into the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment those officers who were formerly attached to the pension board; the only mistake they made at that time was to make the medical officers and investigators departmental officers. As I explained to the house, it is my purpose to leave with the commission those officers upon whom they must depend for information on which to base their judgments, and these are principally the medical officers and investigators. These officers will be under the control of the pension board and will report directly to that body. The other officers, the clerks, stenographers and other employees of that kind, will be in the office of the commission but will be employed by the department. I now move that subsection 4 of section 5 be amended by striking out the words "for the purposes of the department", in the fifth line.


George Reginald Geary: I have one or two remarks
to make in connection with section 5. In order to function quite properly and to the satisfaction of those with whom it has to deal, the Board of Pension Commissioners should be a body within itself and should not be controlled by any other body, least of all by any department of the government. Thus far we have had an independent Board of Pension Commissioners. Of course objections have been taken to some of the rulings of that board, and officials who have to deal with applications for pension, as in the case of other applications for relief, are not always as popular as they might be. However, I think perhaps we might say that some of this unpopularity, if such there be, has been caused through the fact that the board stands up so straight that it leans backward. I

think it cannot be accused with cause of consciously exercising favouritism or discrimination.
The orders in council to which the minister referred were passed in 1920 and 1921, and authorized the transfer of certain officers of the board to the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. I think the minister is right, as far as my information goes, when he states that practically all the officers were transferred with the exception of secretaries and the medical advisers. However, the minister must be aware of the fact that this did not work out well and was the cause of an increasing dissatisfaction which culminated in the investigation conducted by Mr. Scott of Montreal into the working of the department. Mr. Scott made his report in October of 1927; certain contentions of the board were before him and probably formed the basis for his investigation and finding. It was alleged, and I think upheld by Mr. Scott, that opinion and advice was deliberately given by departmental officials to applicants for pension, and in many cases this advice was erroneous. Contrary to the provisions of the statute, pensions were diverted by the department, without the consent of the board, in order to recover departmental outlays and expenditures for hospital maintenance, medical attention and so on, and I think I am right in saying that diversions were made to reimburse certain advances made from the disablement fund. These matters were gone into, and Mr. Scott recommended inter alia as follows:
(1) The Board of Pension Commissioners should be given such staff or medical examiners, investigators, and clerks as will enable them to function as an independent body for the purpose of,-
(a) Collecting all necessary information and evidence relating to matters relevant to the eligibility of ex-service men and their dependents for pensions, rendering decisions thereon, and calculating the pensions payable.
I submit to the minister that his proposed bill does not give effect to this recommendation; in other words, it perpetuates the very evil which Mr. Scott found to be more or less rampant in the administration of the department. The commission is no longer nominally possessed of the independence which it formerly had, and it is now definitely attached to the department. The bill says in terms, "The commission shall be attached to the department." I do not know what that means, but certainly it is open to the interpretation that the board is now under the department in exercising some of the functions which it must exercise.

Pension Act
Mr. KING (Kootenay). Section 6 of the original act did the same thing.


George Reginald Geary: I have not bothered to read the whole section, but it is as follows.
The commission shall be attached to the department and the expenses required to be incurred for the discharge of its duties, including the salaries of its officers, clerks, and other employees shall be met out of the moneys provided by parliament for the purposes of the department.
I submit that this is an entirely different kind of attachment from that which existed heretofore and the tendency, if not the fact, is to remove the independence of the tribunal which has been set up and to make that tribunal more or less subservient to the control of the department which is a part of the government; in that way pensions will be brought into politics. If there is one thing on which I think I can speak for the men of the forces, one thing in which they are vitally interested, it is that pensions never should get into politics; pensions must be kept out of politics and there must be a feeling among the men that everyone is being treated on his merits, with no bias, no discrimination and no favouritism. I do submit to the minister that this section is inclined to place this important department under and attached to the new Department of Pensions and National Health, and in fact strikes a blow at the independence heretofore enjoyed by that board.
As I understand it, the appropriation for the board is now voted by parliament; we have the say as to what money they may spend, and having that say we can also control how they spend it. Now it is proposed to do away with the appropriation for the board; under this act it will be transferred to the department, and the staff at present under the control of the board will be placed on the departmental pay roll. I submit that that is an evasion; it is not good, and it is not conducive to the proper determination of applications. It does not give the men the independent tribunal to which they are entitled. I think it follows that the board will be entirely in the hands of the department, as to what staff it may have, and what staff is to be loaned to the board by the department. That is a most important matter. They should not be limited to the staff that the Department of Pensions and National Health chooses to let them have. The Department of Pensions and National Health may let the board have only such staff as will do the work the department wants it to do, and no more; that is, the board may not be allowed to have a sufficient or properly appointed staff.
Then, there is no provision made for an annual report, as it will be absorbed in the report of the Department of Pensions and National Health. I submit that the whole status of the board will become that of a commission within the department. It will not be a commission outside the department, a commission standing on its own feet, and functioning independently-it has no allowance by this government in the way of funds- but it will be a commission of some sort or other within the department. No one has been able to convince me, and I have discussed this matter, that it will not tend towards the board gradually coming under the dominance of the department, and so pensions will be put in politics. I do not know whether I understood the minister to say that the status as a deputy head is to be cancelled.


John Warwick King: It is not usual
in a case of this kind.


George Reginald Geary: It is not usual, but it has
worked out very well; it should have the status of a deputy head of a department.
I think the minister will agree with me that the commission's power will be curtailed to that of merely giving decisions upon medical examinations and investigations, on reports not obtained by itself, but obtained and made by officials over whom it has no direction or control; officials of the Department of Pensions and National Health. That is a decided change. In speaking of this Pension Act, the minister has said, as appears on page 2571 of Hansard:
The pension commission will remain as they are at present, independent, but it is true that this department, in the course of its administrative work, vdll pay the cheques after the adjudication has been made.
I submit that this bill, as it is brought down, is not in accordance with that statement. I do not say that the minister has ignored that in drafting this section, but I do think that if he considers the objections I have raised-just to give him something to reply to; we will discuss it more in detail as time goes on-he will find that the whole trend of this section is to destroy that independence which is so precious, and which should not be touched in the slightest degree. I think he will come to the conclusion that he has gone too far in this bill, and that the power of the commissioners has been seriously interfered with. It is quite likely that it will become a mere adjunct politically, instead of an outstanding independent body.
I submit that the matter is of the highest importance to the men, women and children who are concerned with pensions, and this section should not be passed without the very
Pension Act

closest scrutiny and consideration. I bespeak the co-operation of the minister in giving sympathetic consideration to what has been said. I do not want him to feel that he has to stick to something that he has done, but I ask him to keep an open mind so that as the discussion proceeds and he finds possibly that we are right he may be prepared to modify the section to meet our views. I speak for what I consider the best interests of the soldiers, some at least of whom feel very much alarmed about this section. I do not want him to shake his head at this moment, because the discussion will probably go on for some time, and I hope he will see the light before we are finished.


John Warwick King: I think my hon. friend is labouring under a misapprehension. If he will read the old section and then the new one he will find that we have tried to embody in the latter what was covered by three or four sections heretofore. As far as the commission is concerned, it is an independent body; we have nothing to do, and will have nothing to do, with its adjudication or consideration of pension cases. All we propose to do, under this amendment, is just what we have been doing heretofore, with the exception of a small personal staff of clerks and stenographers here in Ottawa. I cannot conceive why the payment and auditing of those salaries should not be done in one department rather than in two and that that is all that is intended by this amendment.
In regard to the medical staff required for investigations and examinations, I think the commission should have this staff and, in fact, it has been the practice in the department since the Scott report. These officers are now under the immediate direction of the board and if it requires any officers of ours at any time it merely makes the request, and the officers become all officers of the Pension department and report to the pension board.
I am sure there is no desire on the part of the government, and it certainly is not my desire, to encroach in any way upon the pension board, or to interfere with its independence. It has been the desire of parliament since its inception that such a thing should not occur, and I am satisfied that desire still exists. In the administration I believe a great saving could be made and overlapping prevented. I cannot see where the making out of the cheques in the department will in any way interfere with the activities of the commission, or with its independence.
At one time the pension board had some four or five hundred employees scattered

throughout Canada. In 1920 the government of that date did not hesitate, by order in council, to strip the board of those employees, leaving only a small group here at Ottawa. As I said before, I think probably a mistake was made at that time when they did not leave the medical officers within the control of the pension board. The section does not materially affect the administration as it has been carried on in the past, and will not affect the independence of the pension board.


George Reginald Geary: Section 7 of the old act reads as follows:
Subject to the provisions of this act, and of any regulations made under the provisions of this act. the commission shall have full power and authority to deal with all matters pertaining to pensions, consider all applications for pension, and to award, refuse, cancel, pay and administer pensions.
Section 5 of the new act reads as follows:
Subject to the provisions of this act and of any regulations made thereunder, the commission shall be charged with the duty of considering and adjudicating upon all questions relating to the award, increase, decrease, suspension or cancellation of any pension under this act and effect shall be given by the department to the adjudication of the commission.
What do you mean by " effect shall be given"? It was final before, but now you say " effect shall be given ". I do not know how far you are going to give effect to the findings.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Frederick Johnston: Shall the clause carry?


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: I think the minister agreed yesterday with the suggestion that subsection 1 of the old section 5 would be rewritten in this amended act. The minister did agree yesterday, and to-day was of the same opinion, that the words " for the purpose of the department " must come out in the proposed section 4. Yesterday his suggestion was that we could insert the old section which reads:
The commission shall have all the powers and duties of a deputy head of a department for the purposes of the Civil Service Act.
It seems to me that section 5 as proposed is practically right, with the elimination of the words-
For the purposes of the department.
-and with the insertion of subsection 1 of section 5 of the act as it now stands. After all, under the act as it stands, the report of the commission to the minister is such report, statement or information as the minister may require. He indicates to the commission what they shall report to him. It is thus under the act as it is now that the annual

Bell Telephone Company
report is provided for and it is a separate report by itself, whereas under the proposed amendment the minister determines what portions of that report may go into the annual report of the department to parliament. I do not know that that is of very great importance, but the elimination of subsection 1 of section 5 is certainly of importance and changes the effect of the act. It takes away from the commission the powers and duties of a deputy head of a department for the purposes of the Civil Service Act, and reference to the Civil Service Act will show that the powers and duties of a deputy head are very important. If as a matter of policy the minister is of opinion that those powers should be taken away from the commission, that is a different matter; but if it is not his intention to take those powers away, subsection 1 should remain in the act.


Mr. RALSTON:: With reference particularly to subsection 1 of section 5, I just had occasion to look up the act with regard to the railway commission, which I suppose would be in somewhat of an analagous position as a judicial commission attached to a department, and I found that there was no subsection such as the one which appears in this legislation with regard to the Board of Pension Commissioners. Therefore it would seem that the purposes of administration are well served by the elimination of that subsection. As I say, the Board of Railway Commissioners do not have it, and I think that is a commission which stands practically in the same position with regard to judicial matters in relation to the Department of Railways as the Board of Pension Commissioners does in relation to the Department of Pensions and Health. There is therefore a good precedent for not including that subsection.
As my hon. friend says, I do not think there is very much in the suggestion about reports. One can well understand that the reports of the Board of Pension Commissioners and of the Department of Pensions and Health would be duplicated in many matters and the idea is that the annual report of the Department of Pensions and Health shall contain in regard to the Board of Pension Commissioners such information as may seem necessary and at the same time not duplicate information that is already given with regard to the general affairs of the department. My hon. friend will remember that the operation of the department has to do with activities with regard to treatment. Those activities with regard to treatment depend upon the
decisions of the Board of Pension Commissioners, so that when the Department of Pensions and Health make reports with regard to treatments they are really covering part of the activities of the Board of Pension Commissioners as well which are included in their report and therefore should not be contained in both.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
(on division)
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Sydney Franklin Lankin-Mr. Geary.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from April 10 consideration in committee of Bill No. 43, respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Power to increase capital.
Mr. CHURCH:: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The promoter of this bill, the junior member for Ottawa, is not present, and under the rules of the house no one else can endorse the bill, so I submit that it is not properly before the committee. The name of the junior member for Ottawa is on the back of this bill, and the bill, I submit, will have to be re-endorsed before it can be considered in committee. I ask for your ruling, Mr. Chairman.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: The practice in this house has been for the sponsor of a bill to entrust it in his absence to some other member. The hon. member for S't. Hyacinthe-Rouville has stated that he has been entrusted with the charge of this bill, which is now before the committee.


Mr. IRVINE:: The junior member for
Ottawa is also the sponsor for the preceding bill, relating to the Canadian American International Bridge Company. Why was not that bill taken up by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville, if he is taking charge in the absence of the junior member for Ottawa?


Mr. MORIN (St. Hyacinthe):: There was no one to take charge of that bill, but there is in this case.
Bell Telephone Company

The object of this bill, Mr. Chairman, is to raise the capital of the company from $75,000,000 to $150,000,000. The company operates in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. This is the part of our country which is the most densely populated; the telephone service in that territory is expanding from day to day and in a proportion much greater than the growth of the population. The increase in the demand for additional telephone service comes from the cities and from the rural parts of the country. The farmers all want to be able to communicate quickly one with the other and with the cities and towns where they market their products.
This expansion necessarily involves large expenditures every year and the capital to provide for these outlays can only be obtained in two ways, by borrowings and by the issue of additional capital. Expanding continuously from year to year the company must get its funds on the money markets, whatever may happen to be the conditions of these markets at the time. To do this successfully, it must be careful to maintain its credit at a very high level. That is for it the thing of paramount importance, the maintenance of its credit. Its borrowings, therefore, must remain within a very conservative margin of its physical assets. If the company exceeded that limit, and thus impaired its credit, the public would be the first to suffer by it.
The only other source of funds is the issue of capital. The company, having practically exhausted its present authorized capital, and having to meet the demands of the public for additional service, must therefore be authorized to increase its capital.
The increase asked for may at first sight be deemed excessive, but a short examination of the records of the company and of its present situation should convince any unprejudiced mind that the amount is not exorbitant. It is calculated to provide for the needs of the company during the next ten years.
The last increase in capital took place in 1920, and it was for $45,000,000. During these eight years that amount was subscribed by the public at par, or above par, and was invested in the plant; it provided for the natural development of the operations of the company. There is no complaint at all about the use which was made of that money. This amount was not the only investment in additions and extensions to the plant. In 1920 the bonded indebtedness of the company was $16,750,000. That was raised by $23,250,000 to $40,000,000, so that the total capital expenditures on additional plant and equipment 
amounted to $68,000,000, apart altogether from investments of the depreciation fund.
The average increase in telephones during these years was 38,000 per year. Last year the capital expenditures of the company amounted to $18/100,000; the construction program of the company for the next five years calls for capital expenditures of 102 million dollars. Under such conditions the increase asked for seems to be normal and justified.
A refusal to pass this bill would mean that parliament would intervene to prevent the company from providing the additional telephone facilities demanded by the public. This is a public utility company; it is compelled by its charter to extend the service to whoever asks for it if he complies with certain conditions. After having put this obligation upon the company should this house refuse it the right to issue the additional capital which it requires for that very purpose, it would be a most unfair situation, and as a representative of the province of Quebec I protest against such a stand.
This bill was referred to the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. It was a fairly large and representative committee. A number of questions were put by members of the committee and all were answered, apparently to the satisfaction of the members of the committee, since the bill was carried without amendment. The company was represented before the committee by its officers, who were prepared to give all data and information which the committee might require.
The bill has already been before this committee once and a discussion of forty minutes took place. Some statements have been published from a few members that they intended to kill this bill indirectly by talking it out. This is not a fair way of dealing with a bill of this nature. The company is entitled to fair play and the public which is served by this company is also entitled to fair play.


Mr. CAHAN:: Is not the hon. gentleman
now talking it out to the best of his ability?


Louis-Simon-René Morin: Under these circumstances, and at this stage of the session I feel justified in moving that the bill be now reported, and I make a motion to that effect.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: I desire to second the motion, that the bill be now reported.


John Frederick Johnston: The motion does not
require a seconder. It is not debatable.


Robert Gardiner: I rise to a point of
order, Mr. Chairman. The sponsor of the bill

Bell Telephone Company
(Mr. Edwards, Ottawa) is not in the house, and no evidence has been given to the committee that the hon. gentleman who has just spoken has permission or authority to sponsor the bill.


Louis-Simon-René Morin: The point of order has already been raised, Mr. Chairman, and settled by you.


John Frederick Johnston: That is correct. The
point was raised on a former occasion by the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church). The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville (Mr. Morin) has announced that he is in charge of the bill, having been entrusted with it by the original sponsor, the member for Ottawa (Mr. Edwards). It has always been the practice to accept the word of an hon. member that he is in charge of a bill when its sponsor is not present. Under the circumstances I must rule that the point raised by the hon. member for Acadia is not well taken.


Thomas Langton Church: I move that the committee rise.


Robert Gardiner: I rise to a point of
order, Mr. Chairman. I ask you to require the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville to produce his authority to act as sponsor of this bill.


Louis-Simon-René Morin: The hon.
member must know that I have the necessary authority, since he was in the committee of railways, canals and telegraph lines when this bill was under consideration, and I then presented the bill for its sponsor.


William Irvine: I rise to discuss the bill,
Mr. Chairman, I am not speaking to the motion at all.


John Frederick Johnston: The motion is not
debatable.


William Irvine: I am not debating the
motion, I am speaking to this bill. The bill has not been dealt with by this committee.


John Frederick Johnston: We have to dispose of the motion that the bill be now reported. If the motion is negatived the hon. member will have a right to speak, but that time is not now. Mr. Morin moves that the bill be now reported-


George Reginald Geary: I beg to move, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) be now heard. This motion is in order at any time. I am not debating the motion before the committee. I am making a substantive motion that the hon. member for Wetaskiwin be now heard.


John Frederick Johnston: I have to inform the hon. gentleman that only one motion can be considered at a time. The motion of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville was before the committee. I allowed the hon. member for Acadia to rise to a point of order, which probably I should not have done. But the motion which is before the committee at the moment is that this bill be now reported. That motion is not debatable. Those in favour of-


George Reginald Geary: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


George Reginald Geary: I demand the right to speak on a point of order.


John Frederick Johnston: There is no point of order before the committee; there is a motion, which is not debatable.


George Reginald Geary: My point of order, Mr. Chairman is that your ruling is wrong. If you will consult the Speaker or the Clerk of the house you will find that I am perfectly in order in making that motion, and it must be heard. There is no question about it.


John Frederick Johnston: The point of order is not well taken.


George Reginald Geary: I could equally well move, Mr. Chairman, that you leave the chair.


John Frederick Johnston: We have to deal with the first motion, that the bill be now reported.


George Reginald Geary: Mr. Chairman, I desire to take the necessary Steps to appeal from your ruling to the house.


John Frederick Johnston: The hon. gentleman knows that the motion is not debatable, and that his appeal is not in order.


George Reginald Geary: I am not debating the motion.


John Frederick Johnston: It is for the committee to decide whether or not this bill shall be reported. If the committee decides in the negative, then the hon. gentleman can raise his point of order, but he cannot do so now.


Thomas Langton Church: I rise to another point of order.


John Frederick Johnston: Order. Those in favour of reporting this bill at this time will kindly say "aye".


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


John Frederick Johnston: Those opposed will
kindly say "nay".


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Frederick Johnston: In my opinion the ayes have it.
Bell Telephone Company


Mr. McGIBBON:: Mr. Chairman, it is quite plain that our proceedings are becoming a farce.


John Frederick Johnston: Order. I declare the motion carried.


Peter McGibbon: Parliament is becoming a joke.


John Frederick Johnston: Order.
Bill reported.


Hewitt Bostock: When shall the report be received?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Never.


George Reginald Geary: Mr. Speaker, am I in order-


Hewitt Bostock: There can be no debate on receiving a report. Is it the pleasure of the house that the report be received now?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Hewitt Bostock: There is nothing else to do but to ring the bells and call in the members.


George Reginald Geary: What is the question, Mr. Speaker?


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the house that the report be now received?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Hewitt Bostock: A division is unavoidable; It is impossible for me to ascertain whether the ayes or the nays have it, though in my humble opinion the ayes have it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Hewitt Bostock: Call in the members.
And the members having been called in:


Hewitt Bostock: The chairman of the
committee of the whole having reported Bill No. 43, respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, I have asked the house whether the report shall now be received. It is actually impossible for the Speaker to ascertain the sense of the house in this matter, except by a division.
And the question being proposed to the house by Mr. Speaker: "When shall the report be received," and Mr. Speaker being unable to decide from the ayes and nays the sense of the house as to the time for receiving the said report, he submitted the question to the determination of the house, "That the said report be now received;"
[The Chairman]
The house thereupon decided the question in the affirmative, on the following division:
YEAS Messrs:
Allan,
Arthurs,
Baldwin,
Bancroft,
Bell (Hamilton West), Bell (St. Antoine), Benoit,
Bettez,
Blanchard,
Blatchford,
Bock,
Boivin,
Bouchard,
Boucher,
Boulanger,
Bourgeois,
Bowen,
Bowman,
Boys,
Bradette,
Brown,
Cahan,
Cahill,
Cantley,
Casgrain,
Charters,
Chevrier,
Clark,
Denis (St. Denis), Denis (Joliette), Desaulniers, Descoteaux, Deslauriers,
Dickie,
Donnelly,
, Dunning,
Edwards (Waterloo South),
Elliott,
Fafard,
Forke,
Foster,
Gervais,
Girouard,
Goodison,
Guerin,
Hay,
Heenan,
Hepburn,
Hocken,
Howden,
Ilsley,
J acobs,
J enkins,
Johnston (Long Lake),
King (Kootenay East), Lacombe,
Lacroix,
Laflamme,
Lanctot,
Lang,
Lapierre,
Lapointe,
Lavigueur,
Letellier,
Macdonald
(Glengarry), MacLean (Prince), McLean (Melfort), MacNutt,
McKenzie,
McMillan,
McPhee,
McQuarrie,
Mercier (St. Henri), Morin (St. Hyicinthe-
Rouville),
Morrissy,
Motherwell,
Odette,
Parent,
Perras,
Preston,
Prevost,
Ralston,
Rinfret,
Robb,
Roberge,
Robitaille,
Ross (Moose Jaw), St-Pere,
Sanderson,
Seguin,
Simpson,
Sinclair (Queens), Smith (Stormont), Spence,
Steedsman,
Stewart (Edmonton
West),
Stewart (Leeds), Telford,
Tolmie,
Totzke,
Vallance,
Veniot,
Young (Saskatoon), Young
(Weyburn).-104.
NAYS Messrs:
Adshead,
Anderson (Toronto-High Park), Anderson (Halton), Barber,
Bell (St. John-Albert), Bird,
Bourassa,
Brady,
Campbell,
Carmichael,
Chaplin,
Church,
Cowan,
Esling,
Evans,
Fansher (Last Mountain), Fansher (Lambton East),
Gardiner,
Garland (Carleton) Geary,
Gershaw,

St. Lawrence River Bridge Company
Glen,
Grimmer,
Heaps,
Irvine,
Johnstone (Cape Breton North-Victorda),
Kaiser,
Kellner,
Kennedy,
Lucas,
Luchkovieh,
Macdonald (Richmond-West Cape Breton), Macphail (Miss), MeDiarmid,
McGibbon,
Maloney,
Maybee,
Milne,
Price,
Quinn,
Robinson,
Ross (Kingston City), Rowe,
Senn,
Short,
Speakman,
Spencer,
Stirling,
Thompson,
Tummon,
Ward,
Woodsworth,
Young (Toronto Northeast)-53.


Mr. COOTE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar). Had I voted I would have voted against the report being received.


Mr. GOTT:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kent (Mr. Rutherford). I have not arrived at a conclusion as to how I should vote.


Mr. RENNIE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the report being received.


Hewitt Bostock: The question now is, when shall said bill be read a third time?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Next sitting.


Hewitt Bostock: Next sitting of the housed I should explain that although the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) voted twice, that fact is easily explained. In fairness to the hon. gentleman I might say that he did not hear the motion as put, and made a mistake in his vote. I think he meant to vote against the report being received.



ST. LAWRENCE RIVER BRIDGE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from May 1, consideration in committee of Bill No. 71, to incorporate the St. Lawrence River Bridge Company-Mr. Smith (Stormont)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
Thomas Langton Church: When this bill was before the committee last I had spoken for four or five minutes, and stated that this bill should not be allowed to pass. Governor Smith of the state of New York has taken the stand that such international bridges should be built by the state or federal authority or by the municipal authority, and this parliament has 36103-193
jurisdiction over bridges which are international or interprovincia! or which affect navigation. In this connection I would like to quote the words of Governor Smith:
Such bridges should be built by the state or states or by one more governmental subdivisions or by a public municipal authority similar to the port authority," the governor declared in his blanket veto of the three measures. "If such a bridge is to be built over international waters it should be constructed jointly by the United States in conjunction with the Canadian government or by the state of New York in conjunction with the Canadian province affected."
Such projects, the governor felt could be financed at lower cost by the state or federal governments, while, he added, "they are in their very nature public; to authorize privately-owned toll bridges is a step as backward as to authorize privately-owned highways, under the wording of these acts, the franchise is practically made perpetual."
"If it pays private corporations to erect these bridges," the governor's memorandum continued, "it will certainly pay the state to do it. If tolls are to be charged, the state should be the recipient of the tolls, and they should not be in excess of what is required to operate and maintain property, pay the interest on the bonds and make the necessary annual contributions to the sinking fund for their retirement."
I contend that since this public policy has been laid down by the governor of the state of New York we should not pass this bill tonight. In addition to that we must remember that there is considerable dispute with regard to the rights of navigation in this case; which should be paramount in any event over the interests of anyone's private bill. This is contested international territory running from Brockville through Cornwall to the great port of Montreal. The rights of navigation are paramount. This is an international stream, and it is contended that it is subject to the rights of navigation. The surplus waters belong to the province subject to navigation and the bed of the river, the banks and rapids.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, this question should not be considered at the present time, until the decision has been given by the Supreme Court of Canada, as referred to in sessional papers No. 50, P.C. 115, dated January 18th, 1928. As this is an international question, affecting both countries, I cannot understand why there should not be a special sitting of the supreme court to hear and determine this question and not lay it over until the fall. The delays are not at all creditable. The provinces of Quebec and Ontario and the government of Canada will be represented by counsel on this hearing, and no matter what the decision is regarding

3042	COMMONS
St. Lawrence River Bridge Company
the jurisdiction of this parliament, they will not be satisfied and there will be an appeal to the Privy Council.
One of the matters involved is this particular question of the erection of bridges and other erections on international streams affecting navigation. These various questions have come up for a decision by the supreme court, because of the order in council to which I referred, and which reads as follows:
Does the ownership by the province of the bed of any stream, whether such bed be level or sloping, give to the province the ownership of water powers:
(a)	created thereupon by Dominion works for the improvement of navigation; or
(b)	existing thereupon by nature?
Clause 2 of the reference covers the particular bill now before the chair. Clause 3 reads as follows:
Has the province any proprietary interest in or legislative control over:
(a) the canals, with lands and water power connected therewith, and the lake and river improvements which were conveyed to the Dominion by section 108, schedule 3, of the British North America Act, 1867, or in or over the disposal of any water powers created thereby or existing thereupon from time to time; or
This particular bridge will extend from the province of Ontario over to the state of New York, and it is covered by the four comers of this particular reference. The clause continues:
_ (b) water-powers created by works for the improvement of navigation constructed by or under the authority of the Dominion since confederation; or
(c)	works constructed wholly for power purposes by the Dominion out of moneys appropriated by parliament for such purpose?
All of these subsections have to be read together, regarding the erection over international streams of public works, of bridges or similar structures, and an application is further necessary under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The fourth clause of this particular reference also covers this bridge, and reads as follows:
Has the Dominion exclusive legislative power to regulate waters for the purpose of navigation:
(a)	in navigable waters; and
(b)	in non-navigable waters?
This particular river is navigable right at this point. If this erection is allowed by an order in council of this government, or is allowed after a proper hearing with all parties present, under the Navigable Waters Protection Act such an erection will come within the four corners of this clause. Another reason why the bridge is within the reference is because of clause 5, which reads as follows:

Where the Dominion, for navigation purposes, expropriates or uses any part of the bed of any stream vested in the province, is the province entitled to any compensation for such expropriation or use?
Then clauses 6 and 7 read as follows:
6.	Has the Dominion the exclusive legislative control over and proprietary interest in water-powers brought into being by works authorized by parliament to be erected in an international stream for the purpose of carrying out an agreement between Canada and any foreign country looking to the erection of joint works for the improvement of navigation in such stream? If not, what are the powers and rights of the province with regard to such water-powers?
7.	Where the bed of a navigable stream is owned by the province or by a private individual, is the title of such owner subordinate to the public right of navigation, and to the provision of any statute which may be enacted from time to time by parliament, within the powers conferred by section 91 (10) of the British North America Act, 1867.
This particular reference of a public matter affects the body politic of Canada. This matter is now before the Supreme Court of Canada on a reference, and is sub judice and this parliament should not forestall what action the Supreme Court of Canada would take in that particular case regarding the right to cross this navigable stream to the state of New York by a private bridge. The rights of navigation are paramount, and a structure cannot be erected there without joint consent of Canada and the state of New York. I contend that it is against public policy; it is contrary to public policy that private parties % should be given extraordinary powers such as this legislation proposes to give.
Well, the bill goes to the foot of the list, and it will not do any harm if it never gets up again.



PENSION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 289, to amend the Pension Act-Mr. King (Kootenay)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
John Frederick Johnston: When the committee
rose at six o'clock we were considering section
5.	An amendment had been adopted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suggested to the minister yesterday that there should be included in the new bill a provision whereby the commission would be given the powers of a deputy minister, and he seemed to be favourably inclined towards that suggestion. I understand that from to-day after mature consideration he is not disposed to accept it. We can only protest against the measure as it stands and since the majority is ample to effect the purpose which the minister has in mind, when the third reading of the bill is

Pension Act
being moved, we will move that subsection for the purpose of adding it to the bill. That is the easy and simple way and it will shorten the discussion.


John Warwick King: Will the hon.
member move that to-night?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, on the third reading of the bill. If it is desired we will move it now as an amendment, but in view of what has been said by the minister it is a waste of time to do it, and we will therefore move it on the third reading.


Peter McGibbon: The minister is rather
stretching the spirit of this whole legislation. When the bill was referred to the special committee on pensions I raised the point whether that committee was going to have the final authority on everything. We were told that we would have and that the recommendations of that committee would be adopted in toto. The minister has on a number of occasions broken faith with the spirit of that agreement.


James Layton Ralston: Will my hon. friend give one instance in which the recommendations of the committee have not been carried out?


Peter McGibbon: I have already brought
up two or three of them.


James Layton Ralston: Will my hon. friend
suggest one?


Peter McGibbon: I can suggest one. There was an amendment made last night.


James Layton Ralston: What was it?


Peter McGibbon: In regard to the information that the pension board was to give to the applicant for pensions.


James Layton Ralston: On the suggestion of my
hon. friend.


Peter McGibbon: Yes, but the point is
that it was not in the bill.


James Layton Ralston: I beg my hon. friend's
pardon. The recommendations of the committee came up without that suggestion. My hon. friend suggested that it would be well to have that information, and the suggestion was accepted by the minister.


Peter McGibbon: That was not the recommendation of the committee.


James Layton Ralston: I have the recommendations of the committee under my hand.


Peter McGibbon: Pardon me. The minister has not. He has the recommendations as they appeared before che house.


James Layton Ralston: I beg my hon. friend's
pardon. I have under my hand the recommendation of the committee on that particular point. I am reading from page 318 of the votes and proceedings. If my hon. friend will look at the bill as it came to the house yesterday and follow the wording, he will find that the recommendation of the committee is word for word in the bill as it was presented to the committee.
(>b) The medical classification of the injury or disease causing the disability or death in respect of which the application has been made;
(ii)	The medical classification of such injuries or diseases as have been dealt with by the commission in connection with the application;
(iii)	Whether the injury or disease resultant in disability or death was or was not attributable to or incurred during military service or whether it pre-existed enlistment and was oi was not aggravated during military service.
Those words exactly were incorporated in the bill brought down by the government and introduced by the minister. In addition to that my hon. friend suggested yesterday that the grounds for refusal or acceptance of the pension should also be stated, and that recommendation was accepted by the minister.


Peter McGibbon: It is better for a man
to know exactly what he is talking about. The recommendations of the committee were not put in print and consequently the minister does not have them. The recommendations of the committee were turned over to a subcommittee to draft them and they did not draft them in the spirit or the form in which they were given. That was the point I brought before the committee last night.


James Layton Ralston: If I may correct my hon. friend, all I have before me is a copy of the votes and proceedings of April 30. I was not on the committee. On page 317 under the heading "Recommendations" I find these words:
The recommendations of your committee are as follows:
They proceed to give recommendations up to page 328 and they conclude with a recommendation for printing. That report was laid on the table and unanimously adopted by the house. I do not know what more we can have as the report of the committee. I should like to know whether we are being presented with something spurious in the votes and proceedings.	.


Peter McGibbon: I will leave it to the
judgment of the committee that the recommendation in printed form was not what was given to the subcommittee. The recommen-
Pension Act

dations were sent to the subcommittee to redraft them. I am not complaining. I said the other night that I was not complaining, but when at the very outset I raised the point, we were told that the recommendations of that committee would be accepted in toto. The chairman of the committee will bear me out in that, because I raised the point on the second reading. I say that the spirit of that agreement has been broken.


James Layton Ralston: I know my hon. friend
is under a misapprehension. There is no recommendation by the committee in regard to the subject with which we are now dealing. The recommendation of the committee with regard to pension legislation is word for word in the bill as it appears in the report. My hon. friend must be fair about this matter. The section now being dealt with is not in the recommendation of the committee; it was not dealt with by the committee in any way. It is a matter of administration which the minister said would be dealt with on the floor of the house and before this committee. The special committee has not dealt with it at all. This is the only committee that has discussed it and we are now dealing with it here. I do not think my hon. friend should charge bad faith when the special committee had nothing to do with it at all. It was not referred to them.
Mr. McGIBBON; It is a departure in this way, that it is something new. It never came before the special committee.


James Layton Ralston: Does my hon. friend suggest that it is not competent to bring before this committee and before parliament something that does not happen to have been the law before with regard to pension matters? With all due deference to the committee, the chairman and the members of it, I ask him: Does he think the report of the committee is to be the last word on pension regulations and is to exclude everything else with regard to these matters?


Peter McGibbon: That was absolutely the promise.


James Layton Ralston: As one member of parliament I do not propose to be bound by any promise that may have been made that a special committee is to be permitted to make recommendations and that no one else is to have a word to say on subjects not dealt with by it. That is a most preposterous suggestion.


Mr. POWER:: I think the hon. member
for Muskoka is under a misapprehension.

Matters relating to pensions and other things which interested soldiers were referred to the committee of which my hon. friend is a member. But it was never promised that if there was anything that we left out, the minister or somebody else could not make a suggestion. We were not speaking ex cathedra or as being infallible in all respects. As chairman of the committee I am not prepared to say that the very last word in legislation regarding soldiers was brought down by that committee. Indeed I think within a very few years we shall probably have to revise a great deal of the legislation which has been brought down this year.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Next year.


Charles Gavan Power: Let us hope not next year. I never understood from the minister that it was not his intention to add to our recommendations in a way that would be beneficial to the administration of the act and that would not be inconsistent with our recommendations. We dealt in so far as we could with amendments to the Pension Act dealing directly with soldiers. We endeavoured as far as possible to make this legislation more workable. If the minister comes and tells us that the departmental administration could be better carried on under such and such circumstances I do not see that that is in any way a violation of any promise which might have been made either to the house or to the members of the committee. We were not asked to deal with these matters. It was not suggested before the committee that we should deal with details of administration and we did not deal with them. I am not familiar with the amendment proposed by the minister. If it is not a good one I see no reason why any member should not get up and object to it. If it is a good one let us not object to it on the ground that the few of us who were members of the committee were not consulted about it. I do not think such a procedure would be fair to the minister; I do not think it is fair for us to endeavour to throw a monkey wrench into the administration of the department.


Peter McGibbon: We all appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Quebec South. I think if he will refer to the stenographic reports of the proceedings of that committee, he will find that everything I have said is backed up by those reports, and there was no member of that committee more strenuous than the hon. member himself in stating that the committee would have the whole say as to the bill that was going to be brought in.

Pension Act


Charles Gavan Power: My hon. friend will see in the report of the committee these words:
Your committee has not dealt with such amendments to the Pension Act as might be advisable in view of the proposed amalgamation of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment with the Department of Health.
We specifically state in our report, which was concurred in by the house, that we did not deal with those matters, and I cannot understand the position taken by my hon friend. As chairman of the committee, I state publicly and before the house that we did not deal with those matters, and all during the discussion, so far as it was possible, we got away from matters which were purely of an administrative nature. We thought that we had done our job sufficiently well when we brought in amendments to the act relating directly to the welfare of the soldier, relating more directly to his welfare than questions of the kind which have arisen now. That must have been well understood by members of the house, because when the bill was first brought down over a week ago, the hon. leader of the opposition and other hon. gentlemen opposite on various occasions stated, "If this is the recommendation of the committee, it will pass; if it is not, let it stand for discussion." There was no suggestion that only matters referred to by the committee should be legislated on this year. There are, of course, many matters relating to soldiers on which legislation could perhaps be brought down this year which would be beneficial to the soldier, but we could not possibly deal with all matters relating to or in the interests of the soldiers. But we are dealing with as many as we can, and if there are any others, I do not see any objection to the minister making any suggestions along that line.


Peter McGibbon: I do not want to get into an argument over this. I think most members of the committee tried to help out the chairman and the government and I would like to bear witness here to the impartiality of the chairman during all the meetings of the committee. But I think it is rather late for him now to hide behind the fact that the report was adopted unanimously by the house, because it was at his suggestion that we on this side allowed the report to be adopted unanimously. Certainly he did give us to understand, speaking on behalf of the government-I brought the question up myself-that nothing would be in the bill that had not been considered by the committee.


Charles Gavan Power: I want to check up the hon. gentleman right there. I stated that the government had given me an undertaking that
they would put into effect and bring down legislation ratifying and confirming everything that was in our report, but I did not say that the government would not bring down anything else, and if my hon. friend wishes to be fair, I think he will admit that that is the case. If not, I do not know what to say about it.


Peter McGibbon: I do not think I need to take any lessons in fairness from the hon. member for Quebec South. I think my reputation in that regard will compare favourably. I remember notifying my hon. friend the evening before that I was going to bring this matter up, for the very reason that I had heard that the government was going to bring in a bill and had matters under considreation which were not going to be submitted to the committee. That was at the first or second meeting of the committee. I told the hon. gentleman the evening before at a social engagement what I was going to do, and if he did not give the rest of the committee to understand that we would have the final say as to the bill, he certainly gave me that impression. I think if he wishes to be fair, he will agree that we did all we could to enable the chairman and the rest of the committee to bring in amendments that we thought were fair and reasonable, and to present an nonpartisan report, and we refrained from making any minority report because we wanted to present a united front to the house and the country on this question, which is not a political one.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 30-Federal Appeal Board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This stands in the same position. This is not a committee recommendation; it is a departmental section, and the question of the Civil Service Act applying to these employees is also in issue here, is it not?


John Warwick King: The clerical service for the appeal board has been supplied from the department. If in the reorganization it is found advisable to make some of the clerks and stenographers permanent within the department, that will be done, but I do not think it is the desire of parliament or of the people of this country at the present time to look upon the appeal board as a permanent board. This is merely to control the services which are now being given to the board through the department; it is simply confirming what is being done at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Pension Act
John Warwick King: My hon. friend
from Vancouver-Burrard has suggested that he would like the committee to reconsider section 25. This section was passed some days ago. It is a section coming from the committee, and it is supposed to be in accordance with the unanimous recommendation of the committee. I hesitate after the discussion of a few moments ago to open up any section that has been passed, but if it is thought wise, I shall be glad to hear from my hon. friend.


John Frederick Johnston: I might point out that section 34 was allowed to stand.
Section 34 agreed to.
On section 25-No pension to widow unless married before disability, or living with or maintained by pensioner.


John Arthur Clark: I am very glad that the minister of this department and the Minister of National Defence and the chairman of the pensions committee are so broad in their views in regard to this act, and that we may introduce matters other than those considered by the committee if it appears that something has been omitted.
I have two suggestions to offer in regard to section 25. The first is in the nature of a legal amendment, and the other one affects the principle of the act.
Taking first the legal amendment, I submit that this section can have no effect as it stands. Paragraph (b) (i) reads:
Provided that a pension shall be paid when a member of the forces on and after the coming into force of this act secures from the commission a certificate showing that any pensionable injury or disease from which he was suffering at the time of the marriage would not in the opinion of the commission result in death.
The intention of the committee I know was that the words "on and after the coming into force of this act" should mean the coming into effect of this amendment, whereas if the section is passed in its present form it becomes a part of the principal act and will be read as a part of that act, and the words "on and after the coming into force of this act" will mean the 7th of July, 1919, the date on which the principal act came into effect. I do not want to elaborate on this argument. There are decisions of the courts on the point, but unless it is necessary-


Charles Gavan Power: That question has been submitted to the Department of Justice, and their report is in accordance with the view of my hon. friend, that we should substitute

the words "on and after July 1, 1988," for the words "on and after the coming into force of this act."


John Arthur Clark: I was just going to suggest that the words "the coming into force of this act" be struck out in each of the sub paragraphs.


James Layton Ralston: I drafted an amendment
referring to each of the lines.


John Warwick King: I move, Mr. Chairman, that the section be reopened for the consideration of this amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
James Layton Ralston: I move to amend section 25 by striking out the words " coming into force of this act " in line 2 of subsection (b) (i) and substituting therefor the words "July 1, 1928"; by striking out the words " coming into force of this act " in line 3 of subsection (b) (ii) and substituting therefor the words " July 1, 1928 "; by striking out the words " coming into force of this act " in lines 3 and 4 of subsection (b) (iii) and substituting therefor the words "July 1, 1928"; and by striking out the words " coming into force of this act " in line 3 of subsection (b) (iv) and substituting therefor the words "July 1, 1928".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Arthur Clark: Before the section is agreed to I wish to bring to the minister's attention something else which I think is very serious. As an illustration, take the case of many soldiers who returned, say, in 1918, before the passing of the main Pensions Act, and who married after their return, probably as the result of an engagement made prior to the war, in ignorance of the provision that the widow would not be entitled to a pension if she married a disabled soldier after the appearance of the disability; in fact she probably married him when he was apparently quite fit and without any expectation of death as a result of the disability. How is that case provided for under these amendments? Take subsection (i).


James Layton Ralston: Subsection (i) applies
to future marriages. Subsections (ii) and (iv) are applicable.


John Arthur Clark: Subsection (ii) provides:
That a pension shall be paid in the case of a member of the forces who has married before the coming into force of this act, and who has obtained from the commission a certificate showing that any pensionable injury or disease from which he was suffering at the time of the marriage, would not in the opinion of the commission result in death.

Pension Act
Nearly ten years have elapsed, and I should say that hundreds of these men have died as a result of the disability referred to, and their widows are not receiving a pension. How can you provide for such cases under that subsection? Obviously they are not provided for, and those men who married in 1919, before this act came into force, are surely the most deserving of all, for they married in ignorance of any prohibitive provisions. Now take subsection (iii) :
That a pension shall be paid in the case of a member of the forces who has married and who has died of a pensionable disability prior to the coming into force of this act,-
Perhaps this is the clause which is intended to apply:
-if, at the time of the marriage, the condition of such member of the forces was such that the prospective wife after making reasonable enquiries would not anticipate that the injury or disease would be a substantial factor in causing death, provided, however, that it shall be conclusively presumed that such injury or disease was not a substantial factor in causing death, if at the time of the marriage there existed no resultant pensionable disability from such injury or disease.
Just picture a woman who married a returned soldier in 1918 now proving that she made reasonable inquiries which led her not to anticipate that the injury would result in death. Why would she make " reasonable inquiries " as to the expectation of the man's life? I think the suggestion really is not fair. It is rather ridiculous to expect that the wife would make such inquiries, for there was nothing in the law at the time to make it necessary for her to do so. That argument might be used after the main Pensions Act came into effect, when she would be warned that if she married after the appearance of the disability she would get no pension; but for those cases where marriage took place before the passing of the main Pensions Act it is not reasonable. Now subsection (iv):
That a pension shall be paid in the case of a member of the forces who has married prior to the coining into force of this act and who fails to apply to the commission for a certificate showing that any pensionable injury or disease from which he was suffering at the time of the marriage would not in the opinion of the commission result in death and who subsequently dies of a pensionable disability if at the time of the marriage the condition of such member of the forces was such that the prospective wife after making reasonable enquiries would not anticipate that the injury or disease would be a substantial factor in causing death; provided, however, that it shall be conclusively presumed that such injury or disease was not a substantial factor in causing death, if at the time of the marriage, there existed no resultant pensionable disability from such injury or disease.
The same argument applies to this subsection. I would make two suggestions. First, that we adopt the provision which was embodied in Bill No. 70 in 1925 which passed this house, and which provided:
That a pension shall be paid when the marriage takes place prior to a date one year after discharge of a member of the forces.
That would cover the cases I have mentioned of men who married before the coming into effect of the main Pensions Act, and would give them a year after their discharge within which to complete the contract of marriage and protect the wife. The other suggestion is that the words:
-or if the member of the forces was not in receipt of a pension at the time of the marriage.
-be added at the end of paragraphs (iii) and (iv). Then the last sentence in each paragraph would read:
-provided, however, that it shall be conclusively presumed that such injury or disease was not a substantial factor in causing death, if at the time of the marriage there existed no resultant pensionable disability from such injury or disease, or if the member of the forces was not in receipt of a pension at the time of the marriage.
It would have this effect. As it stands now, if there is a pensionable disability for which the man has not been pensioned, the widow is out of luck and can never receive a pension. It seems to me that the words " or if the member of the forces was not in receipt of a pension at the time of the marriage" ought to be conclusive and the wife should be entitled to a pension should he die as a result of this disability. This section is a very complicated one and requires some mature consideration on the part of the minister and of the law officers of the crown. The section should stand until the minister has had a chance to reconsider it. I firmly believe that there are two or three points in it which have escaped the attention of the committee and which ought to be reconsidered before the section passes.


James Layton Ralston: As regards the case where marriage was solemnized soon after the termination of the war, or soon after discharge, the sections as drafted are, I think, intended to cover every case. The section to which my hon. friend refers, embodied in the bill of 1925, is now covered by the sections before us. What the 1925 bill did was to make it absolutely sure that where a woman married within a year after discharge, in the event of the death of her husband she would be entitled to pension if there was a total or a pensionable disability. Now it depends on what seems to be the really logical factor in
Pension Act

deciding these cases. My hon. friend knows, as does the house, that the reason for the section as it originally stood was the desire to avoid a repetition of the experience of other countries; so that this country would not be paying pensions in cases where the marriage was, or might be said to have been, a death bed marriage. The result of this practice in the republic to the south of us has been that they are still paying pensions on account of the civil war.
I would point out to the committee that this section is much broader than the provisions in England. In England, if the marriage took place after the discharge of the soldier or after the end of the war, no pension is payable to the widow if the man dies from a pensionable disability. We are going much further, and I for one am very much pleased indeed to see that we are adopting the principle contained in this section. But the principle is that there must be some examination of the circumstances under which the marriage was performed; and if the marriage was performed under such circumstances that the woman could reasonably anticipate that the injury or disease from which her future husband was suffering at that time-if it happened to be a war disability-would eventually cause his death, then no pension would be paid, inasmuch as it involved a liability not contemplated at the time of enlistment. That is the principle of sections 3 and 4.
There is another provision to the effect that the spouse may make the thing more certain by going to the Board of Pension Commissioners and asking them to inquire into the circumstances of the husband's physical condition at the time of marriage, and give a certificate that at the time of marriage the injury or disability was not of such a nature as, in the opinion of the commission, would result in death. Under either of these circumstances the pension is payable, and in a number of cases I have examined it would appear as if a great many of those who heretofore have been denied pensions will get the benefit of the amendment which is offered. May I say further that the effect of the amendment is not simply to provide for cases where death occurs at some time in the future, but to permit widows who have already made applications, and whose applications have been refused, to come now to the board and say, "We are able to prove the circumstances which are required under these sections and are therefore entitled to pension".


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would be since the act came into force-since 1919.


James Layton Ralston: No; my hon. friend did
not get the effect of the provision.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I read it carefully.


James Layton Ralston: The effect of the first
section is that in the case of all past marriages-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Regardless of time.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, so long as they were before July first, 1928, as now provided by the amendment suggested by my hon. friend from Burrard. So that everyone gets the benefit of it whether the marriage takes place within a year or two years or three.
It is now ten years after the war. I may say to the committee that in the United States, under their pension legislation, the right to pension of the widow of a soldier ceases, as I understand it, ten years after the war. If the marriage takes place any time after ten years subsequent to the war, the right to pension goes. So that we are doing better, because by this act if marriage takes place fifteen years after the war, provided a certificate can be obtained, the widow can still claim pension, I do think the section ought to commend itself to the committee, and in the interests of those whom it is sought to benefit it would be inadvisable to attempt to incorporate in it any arbitrary provisions. We have already tried to deal, under the meritorious clause, with the cases which my hon. friend from Burrard has mentioned. The hon. member probably knows of cases of men who were engaged before they went overseas and who have applied under the meritorious clause, and some cases have been granted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And some refused.


John Arthur Clark: Would they come under this section?


James Layton Ralston: Yes; look at subsections
(ii) and (iv); they are covered in both. If they are still living they may go to the Board of Pension Commissioners and get a certificate; and it is provided that even if they do not get a certificate and death occurs subsequently the widow may s'till go to the board and say, "At the time I was married to my husband this was his physical condition and I had no reasonable ground for expecting that it would cause his death." In either case the pension is granted, so that the section covers the case mentioned by my hon. friend. The section to which the hon. gentleman has referred did not meet with the response which this country desired, and I hope that this section will have a more favourable response. This is word for word in keeping with the report of the committee, except for the fact that we have substituted July 1 for the words "before the coming into force of this act", and I feel that substantial relief is being afforded.



192S

[Stage Direction]
Pension Act
John Arthur Clark: The minister says that this provision covers the case I have mentioned. I thought I had made it clear that it does not. What woman, before there was a pension law, would make reasonable inquiries as to the expectation of life of her fiance? Yet this is what is required here. The only other provision under which she can secure recognition is this:
Provided, however, that it shall be conclusively presumed that such injury or disease was not a substantial factor in causing death, if at the time of the marriage there existed no resultant pensionable disability from such injury or disease.
But if the pension board, subsequent to the marriage, finds that the man, prior to the marriage, was suffering from a disease which afterwards progressed to such an extent that he became pensionable after marriage- although the disease pre-existed marriage- then under the subsection referred to the woman will not be entitled to pension.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is taking
the proviso the wrong way; it is a proviso for the benefit of the wife, and it states that in certain cases it is conclusively presumed that the disease did not contribute to death. It does not say that in other cases it may not be proved that the disease did not contribute to death. If it comes under this proviso, if it is conclusively presumed, that does not stop her from proving it quite apart from that.


John Arthur Clark: If there is no resultant pensionable disability.


James Layton Ralston: But this does not say that because there was a resultant pensionable disability it is thereby presumed that that disability was going to cause death.


John Arthur Clark: As I said before, this is
very complicated; I see it one way and the minister sees it another. This is how I see it:	If no resultant pensionable disability
existed at the time of marriage the woman may qualify for pension, but if after the marriage it is ascertained that a disability existed prior to the marriage for which he was afterwards pensionable, under that subsection she cannot qualify for a pension.


James Layton Ralston: Under that proviso she
does not get the benefit of that conclusive presumption, but she may show that the disability was not one which would likely cause death.


John Arthur Clark: Now the minister and I are in perfect agreement. Now, show me the woman who, in 1918, before there was a pension law, would think of making reasonable inquiries as to whether or not her fiance had a reasonable expectation of life. No man or woman would ever think of such a thing.


Charles Gavan Power: Why does my hon. friend
mention 1918?


John Arthur Clark: I mention it for the reason that many men returned from the front in 1918 and many were married in that year, but the Pension Act did not come into effect until July 1919.


Charles Gavan Power: There were pension regulations before that, and there was the old Militia Pension Act.


John Arthur Clark: Yes, but the difference is
this: They would have notice of an law on the statutes, but they would not have notice of any regulations. Ignorance of the regulations might be excused, but ignorance of the Pension Act would not excuse them.


James Layton Ralston: That applies to anybody married up to July 1, 1928, or until to-night, when we are discussing this matter. These people have had no notice of this, but my hon. friend will remember that the situation suggested is whether a prospective wife made reasonable inquiries. Perhaps there were no inquiries necessary, -but I would have thought that if the prospective husband suffered from a severe disability it would be reasonable to assume that the two of them together would consult a doctor as to what effect that disability would have, whether in 1918 or 1929.


John Arthur Clark: No, the minister does not
get my point. In 1919 there was a statute passed, which said they were not entitled to a pension if they married after the appearance of the disability, but they did not know of that in 1918.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, the same provision was there.-


John Arthur Clark: But it was not on the staute books.


James Layton Ralston: Does my hon. friend think either one of the parties read the statutes or the regulations?


John Arthur Clark: There is a difference in the legal position, and that makes their case so much stronger. I feel that the words "or if the member of the forces was not in receipt of a pension at the time of the marriage" should be added at the end of the sections (iii) and (iv). That does not make any very material difference, but it will clear up that point about the resultant pensionable disability. I ask the minister to take that under consideration and not press this section through to-night.
Pension Act


Charles Gavan Power: The principle involved in this section always has met with my bitter opposition ever since we have had pension committees. I have supported the principle that any widow who married a soldier after the appearance of his disability was not entitled to pension in case her husband died. That is the opinion held in England as laid down in the statutes of that country, and I have been one of those who fought against the adoption of that principle here. This is the principle which was also adopted by the senate. I would call that fact to the attention of my leader, hoping that some day it might qualify me for a place in the senate. However, this year I allowed myself to be convinced that possibly a good case could be made out for the widow who married after the appearance of the disability.


John Arthur Clark: Does my hon. friend think it would be possible to arrange for a seat in the senate right away, in order to let us get this measure through?


Charles Gavan Power: I heartily endorse that suggestion. I do not know whether there are any vacancies from my province just now, but if my hon. friend would help me out we might create one.


William Garland McQuarrie: My hon. friend can reform the senate then.


Charles Gavan Power: Certainly it would be a good senate then. However, I was prepared to accept the principle that in certain cases a widow who marries a man whom she knew to suffer a disability should get a pension; the thought I had in my mind and which was entertained by many others was to get away from the danger of death bed marriages and of perpetual pensions going on for years after the death of the soldier, benefiting people who could not be considered to have helped the soldier in any way while he was at war. The government of this country promised the soldier when he went away that they would look after his dependants, his wife and his children, but they did not promise to look after any wife he might marry after he returned.
I am free to admit that a case has been made out with respect to the returned soldier when we say that if in the event of his death we deprive his widow of a pension, in certain circumstances possibly we deprive him of a chance of getting married, although I do not believe this country would think very much of the woman who would refuse to marry a returned soldier on the ground that she would not be in receipt of a pension in case he died.

However, that principle has been accepted, and I submit to this committee that it should be restricted in every possible way in order that this country may not be burdened for years and generations to come with pensions which have not been earned but which may be paid to people who have no possible right to them. So we are surrounding this measure with certain restrictions.
It was proposed to the committee that persons who could prove a bona fide engagement to marry before the soldier went overseas should be entitled to pension. That contention received strong support from the National Council of Women and from a great many members of the committee, and I think would receive support from the public also. However, it must be remembered that here would be involved the question of evidence of an engagement to marry, which is a very difficult thing to prove. In many cases, the soldier being dead, the only evidence we would have would be that of the person claiming pension, and without saying anything derogatory to the soldier who went overseas, I submit that we would have hundreds of applicants who would come before the Board of Pension Commissioners and produce affidavits to the effect that in 'London they became engaged to marry a certain soldier who was afterwards killed overseas, or who returned to Canada and afterwards died as the result of a disability incurred overseas. I think to have admitted that principle would have made the act unworkable.
Other suggestions were made; it was suggested that in the case of soldiers who married within one year after their discharge and afterwards died the widows should be entitled to pension. I submit that if we place any such time limit it will be extended again and again, as has already happened this year in another connection. So the committee thought it advisable, instead of playing with questions of limitation, to remove them altogether in almost every case. In my opinion, if we are going to lift the restrictions which are placed about this section, we might just as well say to the house, "Let us do away with the principle, so that every woman who marries a soldier who returned from overseas and later died would be entitled to pension." It seems to me, however, that this section, drafted as it is, is one which could be accepted. It restricts in one way, and in another way it is far broader in its operation than any section drafted along the lines of the suggestions made in recent years that there should be a time limitation, or that those who married prior to the coming into force

Pension Act
of the act of 1919 should be entitled to certain benefits. This protects the widow from the time the soldier was wounded, provided the conditions specified herein are adhered to.
After all, we want to be of some practical benefit to the soldier, and I think the committee laboured with that end in view. On four separate occasions amendments to the Pension Act covering this matter were passed by the House of Commons, and were rejected by another house. It is at least possible that if the act seemed too wide, this section would benefit, I would almost say, hundreds of cases, and may appear to our friends in the other house as a less innocuous form. Personally I think it goes very far, and the legislation is at any rate based on a principle other than that of time limitation. Every member of this house knows that that is useless from the standpoint of restriction, and it is also arbitrary. I heartily commend the section to the house, if it is intended to do anything which may be of use to the soldier. With the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark), which makes clear the intent of the act, I think that the section should be accepted as it is, and should be passed. It was fully discussed in the committee. There were different opinions; I think a number of the members did not agree that this is the best possible section, but they all agreed that something should be done for the persons concerned.


Mr. BOYS:: As I understand it, the member for Vancouver-Burrard wants to know why it is the burden of proof is placed upon the widow, and that also puzzles me a little. Why should it not be up to the department in the first place? The marriage is proved; it is proved that a member of the forces died; then comes the question, shall the widow be entitled to a pension? Why should she not be entitled? Then you say, "You shall not have a pension unless you can show that prior to marriage you made certain reasonable inquiries, and after that you did not anticipate that the injury or disease would be a specific factor in causing death." When she shows that she was married, and her husband died from the injury, why should it not be up to the department to show that any reasonable inquiry on her part would have disclosed that death would likely result from the injury from which her husband was then suffering? You are putting the burden of proof upon the woman. Why should it not be upon the department, when she once establishes the fact that she was married to a soldier, and that he died from his injury?


Charles Gavan Power: Is my hon. friend referring
to the words after the word "provided?"


William Alves Boys: I am referring to the words
which appear in subsection (iii), paragraph (b) of section 32; section 25 of this bill. I will read it to make it clear:
That a pension shall be paid in the case of a member of the forces who has married and who had died of a pensionable disability prior to the coming into force of this act, if,' at the time of the marriage,-
I understand there is a change there.
the condition of such member of the forces was such that the prospective wife after making reasonable inquiries would not anticipate that the injury or disease would be a substantial factor in causing death.
The point I am trying to make is that the burden of proof should not be put upon the woman in that respect. I do not think any woman would be apt to know anything about this law. I suppose she would satisfy herself that she wanted to marry the man, and perhaps would know that he had some injury or trouble of some kind, but I do not suppose she would go any further, and I do not think she would ever make any such inquiry.


Charles Gavan Power: It would be reasonable* for her not to go any further.


William Alves Boys: I do not think it would be reasonable for her not to do that, when she would not know anything about the law. I will admit that if the man was suffering from an injury or disease which any reasonable person would expect might cause death, perhaps she should not get a pension then if she married him. But my point is that it should be up to the department, and not up to the woman. You say to her: "You have qualified in every way, but you have not made inquiry, and because you have not you must suffer."


Charles Gavan Power: I would go so far as to say that it would be reasonable for her to make no inquiry at all and she would be entitled to pension.


William Alves Boys: I do not think my hon. friend would seriously suggest that any board or commission would come to the conclusion that a person who had made no inquiry had made reasonable inquiry.


Peter McGibbon: I am not opposing this suggestion, as I think iit is of considerable merit, but I made a proposition to the committee that I thought was simpler and probably more effective than this one. ,If you put all the women on an equality and restricted them to the first marriage after discharge, I think you would simplify it. It is something you can justify without any discrimination.
Pension Act


William Garland McQuarrie: I submit that the hon member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) has taken a wrong view of this matter. I understood him to say that he had always been opposed to granting pension to the widow of a soldier who had a pensionable disability at the time of marriage.


Charles Gavan Power: Where she married him after the appearance of that disability.


William Garland McQuarrie: Or who had married the soldier after the appearance of the disability. I think that is going a little too far. I quite agree that in the case of death bed marriages, as they are called, where, for the sake of getting a pension a woman marries a man who is just about to die-if there have been such cases, and I doubt very much if there have been many-she should not be entitled to the pension. In the ordinary case, where a man has a pensionable disability and gets married and has children, a situation arises which, to my mind, constitutes an anomaly. As I understand the act, in such a case there would be a pension allowed in respect of the children, but no pension would be given to the mother of those children. The pension would not be sufficient to enable the mother to pay her full living expenses and also the living expenses of the children; it would be sufficient only to provide for the maintenance of the children. I do not think a marriage of that kind should in any sense be termed a death bed marriage. It was a marriage which took place in the usual way, and there is no question that the mother of the children of a man who fought for this country in the war should receive special consideration.
I have in mind a case which may or may not have been brought to the attention of the committee1-I was not on the committee myself;-where a man and his three sons went to the war voluntarily. One of the sons was killed in the war and there was no pension in respect of him because he was not married. Another son, after I think two years or more of service in the hottest part of the fight, received a pensionable disability and he was invalided back to Canada. On his return he set about pursuing his ordinary occupation and he was able to carry on for some time. He got married; he had three children, and quite recently he died leaving a widow and three children with nothing at all to take care of them except the pension which would be allowed in respect of the children. It is quite true that the man at the time of his marriage

was receiving a pension and I presume it would also be held that in his case his disability constituted a factor in the causes which brought about his death. It seems to me, however, that that is a case which should be provided for and I would suggest that it would be only fair and reasonable for us to provide for payment of a pension to a widow where one or more children are involved. I quite agree with the hon. member for Yan-couver-Burrard (Mr. Clark) that the clause as it reads is not satisfactory, because, as he pointed out, what has to be shown is not that the man was receiving a pension at the time of marriage, but that he had a pensionable disability. That seems to be very unreasonable. I understand that if a pensionable disability existed at the time of the marriage, the widow is not entitled to a pension. I do not think that is what was intended by the committee. It would be more reasonable if it was provided that the man was receiving a pension at the time. In that way the clause would mean something because it is a difficult problem to decide whether the pensionable disability actually existed at the time of the marriage or not. If the man was receiving a pension then of course there could be no dispute about the matter. But even in that case I think the committee has not gone far enough and the people of Canada as a whole are willing that pensions should be allowed on a reasonable scale and that we should not be too technical in considering applications for pensions.
I have had a good deal of experience in dealing with pension cases and I am afraid I shall have to admit that I have come to the conclusion that the pension authorities have adopted a policy to the effect that they will if possible refuse to grant a pension. I do not know whether such instructions were issued or not, but it seems as if they were imbued with the idea that it was their duty to keep down pensions as much as possible. That is not what we should have in this country at all. That is not what the Canadian people desire. I would suggest that we should perhaps go to the other extreme; that we should be liberal in granting pensions and that there should be authority or jurisdiction or power in the pension commission to grant pensions* in cases where there is a real necessity for them.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

Dumping Duty-Mr. Fraser

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, May 14, consideration of the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) for committee of supply, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Anderson (Halton):
That all the words after the word "that" be stricken out and the following substituted therefor:
"In the opinion of this house the necessary action should be taken by the government forthwith to effectively control the importation into Canada, either on sale, or on consignment, of natural products of a class or kind produced in Canada under conditions which prejudicially or injuriously affect, or threaten to prejudicially or injuriously affect, the interests of Canadian producers."
Mr. J. A. FRASER (Cariboo):: When the house rose last night I had made reference to the declaration of the Prime Minister that what the government objected to in the presentation by the delegation was that they were asking the government to give the Minister of National Revenue and the officials of that department authority and power to fix throughout the year a tariff on the natural products of the Dominion of Canada. I listened very attentively to what the delegation had to say, and let me point out that the delegation made no such request of the government at any time. My observation would lead me to believe that the delegation was a company of reasonable and intelligent people, and that they did not come to Ottawa for the purpose of presenting to the government any request that would make them look foolish. These gentlemen knew perfectly well that they had been enjoying protection by virtue of some statute or regulation or order in council. I quite admit that they may have been confused as to the correct name to give to some of these statutes or regulations or orders in council, but they knew perfectly well that for the two preceding years they had been enjoying certain benefits by virtue of the application of some law or regulation or order. They were also of the opinion that they were entitled to the continuance of the benefits they were receiving under the law or regulation or order, because it is and has been the settled policy of the government of the Dominion of Canada ever since confederation to give protection wherever protection is necessary and reasonable. The manufacturers have been enjoying that privilege for a great number of years, and if the manufacturers are entitled to it, there is no reason why the farmers and producers of all kinds should not be entitled to protection. They may not have had a clear appreciation of the order in council, but they understood perfectly the applies

tion of its cancellation. They knew that their protection had vanished, and they came to Ottawa asking for the restoration of the protection which they had enjoyed.
I make the statement that the Prime Minister in making the statement he did, that this delegation came to Ottawa seeking authority for the customs officials to set a tariff or impose a duty, did not place the request of these gentlemen in the proper light. He put an improper interpretation on the request that had been presented to the government. In addition to that, he practically told them that he did not propose to accede to their request. Let the producers of the Dominion of Canada just analyse the statement which the Prime Minister made on that occasion, and I think they will agree with what I have said. I will quote from the stenographic report of the statement of the Prime Minister. He said:
I hope you will go away feeling that the government is only too delighted to have this opportunity of hearing your representations, and of stating the situation to you in the light of the facts as they are. And what I hope you will carry away with you is the correct impression, not that any statute has been repealed, and not that any power given to the governor in council has been repealed. That all remains, and will continue to remain as it is. All that has been repealed is what we have been obliged to recognize was an interpretation that was leading to extremes, in a manner which, speaking for myself personally, seemed to be highly prejudicial to the very interests that it was intended to safeguard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hear, hear;
that is all right.


John Anderson Fraser: That was the statement
made by the Prime Minister, and I want the producers of this Dominion to note exactly what the Prime Minister states. He states that the statute has not been repealed, that the power given under the order in council has not been repealed, that all remains and will continue to remain as it is. Remember, when the Prime Minister was speaking, the order in council had been repealed, and he makes the statement that it is going to stay repealed, because he says, "and will continue to remain as it is."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. The powers given under the statute remain as they are.


John Anderson Fraser: The power of the governor in council has been repealed, and it was repealed at the time the Prime Minister made that statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; my hon. friend is mistaken. What was repealed was the order in council, not the power given to
Dumping Duty-Mr. Fraser

the governor in council. The power given to the governor in council remains, but the particular order that the minister recommended under that power was repealed-not the power that the governor in council has.


John Anderson Fraser: The order in council has been repealed. Therefore section 6 and section 43 are inoperative.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


John Anderson Fraser: That was the effect, and the Prime Minister stated that that state of affairs was going to remain. That is my interpretation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me give my hon. friend the right interpretation. Section 43 remains in the statute. That section gives certain powers to the governor in council. That section still remains, and those powers still remain. Under that section a certain order was passed by the government, at the instance of the minister. That particular order has been repealed, but the minister to-morrow can bring another recommendation before council and the governor in council can pass an order under the general power that still exists.


John Anderson Fraser: I am well aware of that, but, with all deference to the right hon. the Prime Minister, I maintain that when the order in council had been repealed the legislation was inoperative.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, not the legislation.


John Anderson Fraser: Yes, the legislation, and
you cannot put it into effect.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is where the whole confusion has arisen. The legislation is still there which gives the governor in council power to pass any order in council under it.


John Anderson Fraser: It is still there, but what good is it? It is not operative. You cannot operate under it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, we can.


John Anderson Fraser: No sir, you cannot, without another order in council.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We could put through another order in council in five minutes.


John Anderson Fraser: I do not know that you can. The Prime Minister says that he could put an order in council through in five 
minutes, but he sat in power from 1922 to 1926, and he did not pass such an order in council.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There was no need for it.


John Anderson Fraser: No need for it? I know that the fruit growers of British Columbia were complaining during all those years of exactly the same thing, and they were asking for this relief. I still maintain that the statement made by the Prime Minister shows that the legislation is not operative. It is not working, and he says that it is going to remain that way. So the fruit growers of British Columbia cannot look to this government for any remedy under the existing conditions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is quite wrong.


John Anderson Fraser: I am sorry, but I must disagree with the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is quite
wrong, and the best appeal is to the statute itself. The statute is still there.


John Anderson Fraser: That is quite all right. I am not contending that the statute was repealed, but let me ask the Prime Minister this question: Are you going to put into effect another order in council to-morrow, as you state you have power to do?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, the very minute the minister comes to council and gives us reasonable grounds for putting that order into effect, the governor in council will I believe act on the advice of the minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That will not please the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young).


John Anderson Fraser: What are reasonable
grounds?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When the purpose of the statute is to be invoked.


John Anderson Fraser: In view of the repeal of the order in council, the legislation is inoperative so far as giving protection to the fruit growers of British Columbia is concerned, and I would ask, what are the chances of the fruit growers getting the benefit of any such order in council and getting the benefit of this legislation provided this government remains in power? We can only judge them by their past performances. This order in council and this statute continued in existence from 1922 to 1926, and the Liberal government of those days made no move to provide the growers of fruit and vegetables with any protection at

Dumping Duty-Mr. Fraser
all. They were voted out of office, and it was not until their successors had got in the saddle that any protection was provided for those engaged in this industry. I challenge any member of the government or any of its officials to deny that statement. I say they sat for four years with this machinery at their disposal, but they absolutely refused to make it effective in any shape or form. Now, do the fruit and vegetable growers of this country expect to get legislation or orders in council from this government to protect their industry?


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Was there not a duty of 30 per cent in effect all those years?


John Anderson Fraser: I am not talking about the common, ordinary duty at all. I am talking about the application of the special duty under section 6 and section 43, and my hon. friend from Weyburn knows it very well.


Edward James Young: The dumping duty goes on without the necessity of an order in council.


John Anderson Fraser: Well, the dumping duty
that I am talking about was not on.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are talking about your own.


John Anderson Fraser: No, 1 am talking about the dumping duty under 47a. Now, 43 was not put in operation.


Edward James Young: Section 43 cannot and does not provide for a dumping duty.


John Anderson Fraser: It provides for a special duty.


Edward James Young: No.


John Anderson Fraser: You are tangling this thing up so we cannot tell what you are talking about. The fact remains that the Liberal government did not provide any protection for our fruit and vegetable growers, and they will not provide it now. I challenge contradiction of that statement.


Mr. ILSLEY:: There is protection of 90 cents per barrel under the general law.


John Anderson Fraser: I am not talking about
that, I am talking about the special, or dumping, duty.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But you are saying-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Will the hon. gentleman
permit a question?


John Anderson Fraser: Certainly.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What is the protection
afforded by the general law on a barrel of apples; how does it compare with the United States tariff?


John Anderson Fraser: We do not talk of barrels of apples in British Columbia, we talk of boxes of apples.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My hon. friend knows that the tariff deals with barrels of apples.


John Anderson Fraser: Yes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Does he not know that the tariff is 90 cents per barrel?


John Anderson Fraser: I think that is correct.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is 20 cents higher than the United States tariff-one of the highest tariffs in the world on apples.


An hon. MEMBER:: What has that got to do with it?


James Lorimer Ilsley: My hon. friend was saying that no protection was afforded, and-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Anderson Fraser: Now then, the Prime
Minister stated to the delegates that the statute was going to remain as it is. It would have been just a little clearer to them had he added ''as it is and was from 1922 to 1926." Then they would know exactly what he meant, which was that the statute was not going to be put into operation. I interpret the action of the government as an acknowledgment that they are impotent to put into effect that special duty on fruits and vegetables on account of the peculiar situation, half of their support being free trade and the other half protection. The Prime Minister also said that:
The authority under the order in council was applied in a manner which, speaking for myself personally, seemed to be highly prejudicial to the very interests that it was intended to safeguard.
That is, the Prime Minister told the fruit and vegetable growers, after they had been enjoying the benefits of that protection for the last three or four years: You were not enjoying any protection at all; you only thought you were enjoying it. But as a matter of fact they were actually enjoying the protection, because he says here that it was-
[DOT]-highly prejudicial to the very interests that it was intended to safeguard.
Now, I want to ask the fruit and vegetable growers of the Dominion if they think that under the operation of the order in council and the appraisers' bulletins they were pre-
Dumping Duty-M*-. Fraser

judicially affected; or were they benefited. I am confident that every fruit grower will say: Why, for the last two years we admit that we have been enjoying benefits, and that is what we are coming here for. These practical men know perfectly well that they have been enjoying benefits under that condition of affairs. Not only has the producer benefited, but the consumer has not complained of the duties that were imposed under that section. I will refer to this a little later.
I say to the fruit and vegetable growers of the Dominion: As long as this government is in office the powers under those sections of the act are dead and will not be revived. In my opinion the Prime Minister wishes that order in council buried forty feet deep in the fertile soil of fair Saskatchewan, and he certainly will not erect over it a monument with the inscription, Resurgam. He would like to see it buried there forever.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But not the
statute. Leave the statute with its powers.


John Anderson Fraser: You cannot get me as,
badly balled up as you got the delegation the other day; I have studied it pretty closely since that time.
Now, I should like to address a few remarks to my hon. friend from Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Lanctot), who spoke last night on the effect of this section and pleaded eloquently for protection for the fruit and vegetable growers in his section of Quebec. How does he expect to get it from this government? I do not think he has a chance in the world. Under present conditions it is an impossibility for the government to provide it. The translation of his speech appeared this morning, and he said something like this:	After the
session is over I expect to come down to Ottawa with a delegation and put my request before the Government, and I think the Government will see that it is granted. Well, I do not think anything of the kind. I am confident that the government has no intention of restoring the order in council which would bring into operation the special duty. Therefore it seems to me it is impossible for the hon. gentleman to vote against this amendment.
But there is also another angle to this controversy. It is a matter in regard to which the cabinet itself is not of one opinion. That may be all right; I am not finding any fault with it. But I am pointing out to the people of this Dominion the existing conditions so far as the cabinet is concerned in relation to this legislation. You will find in

the same report from which I quoted a few minutes ago a statement made by the Minister of National Revenue towards the close of the delegation's visit. I wish to read that statement, and you will bear in mind that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had stated that the customs officials-the Minister of National Revenue and his officers-were not applying this act as the government had intended, but that they were fixing the tariff throughout the year, and that he did not think this was a proper application of the order in council. What had the Minister of National Revenue to say in that regard?
In the first place, 47a, the law under which the minister could be given authority to fix values, gives the governor in council or the cabinet authority to empower the minister to fix the value.
The Prime Minister in speaking to this delegation emphasized the fact that they were fixing the duty; the Minister of National Revenue says that they are fixing the value.
The authority to fix values is not in council at all. is not in cabinet. The power that is in council is to give the authority to the minister to actually fix the value. I think that should be understood.
The Minister of National Revenue, whose duty it is to interpret the act and to interpret the intention of the government, as well as to apply the act to the existing conditions, gives that interpretation. He says that the law empowered the minister to fix values. He states that the authority to fix values is not in council at all; it is not in the cabinet. The power that is in the council is " to give authority to the minister to actually fix the value" He goes on:
The one misconception, or possible misconception that I would desire to remove is this: that whereas the order in council did give the minister power to fix values, and did not state for what period those values should stand, it should not be assumed that these values were fixed by the minister for the whole year, and they stood all the year round.
That is to say, notwithstanding, as the Prime Minister pointed out, that these officials were to fix the duty for the year round, the Minister of National Revenue declares that such should not be assumed to be the case. He goes on:
The orders in no case, I think, were fixed to stand for a whole year. I think it would be very, very difficult for any minister to come in and say that he has fixed the values to, say, the months of July and August. . . . The whole idea of the minister and his officials is to endeavour to keep those values in force only for such time as such emergency exists. I do not think that there were any instances where it was kept on the year round. I think some of the trouble arose out of this fact: We did

Dumping Duty-Mr. Gershaw
fix the value of lettuce, and through an oversight in the department-and I am quite willing to take responsibility for that-at the time it was recommended to us that the fixed value should be taken off the lettuce, through an oversight it was not done, and that value was left on the lettuce for a period longer than it should have remained. I have no great knowledge of the details of all this, but I do know that the department officials do try to carry out the intention of the law and I think that we have been fairly successful in doing that.... I think we have been fairly successful, from the fact that^ so far as I am aware, there was never any objection made to it on the part of the consumer.
That is what the Minister of National Revenue said. He went on to say:
I do not want the impression to go abroad that values which had been fixed were fixed for the year. We have in this country a Department of National Revenue. We are collectors of revenue; that is practically our job, and this is one of the things that has been wished on it. However, I might say that we have taken the word of those who know the conditions. My friend the Minister of Agriculture advises me that he thinks a duty should be put, or a higher valuation should be put on certain goods, on vegetables, or on eggs, we will say. He makes the recommendation to the Minister of Customs. The Minister of Customs has been merely the instrument in carrying out the desires of that department.
There you have the Minister of National Revenue at variance with the Prime Minister of the country. More than that, the Minister of National Revenue absolutely ties up the Minister of Agriculture as the party responsible for recommending values. He finds that an emergency exists and then he passes on a recommendation as to value, and the Minister of National Revenue imposes it. What about my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell)? 1 thought he came from Saskatchewan. And I thought my hon. friend from Weyburn (Mr. Young) was from the same province. The hon. member for Weyburn complained that he could not get information. I think there is an explanation. The Minister of Agriculture has been playing the game of hide and seek with Mr. Weyburn, and Mr. Weyburn says, "I spy". That is the explanation. That is why the hon. member could not get his information.
I have just a few more words to say in conclusion. The district I have the honour to represent contains a great number of fruit and vegetable growers. I had the opportunity of passing through the apple district when the order in council was passed in 1926 fixing the price of apples. If the government could get in contact with the people and could realize the satisfaction which they derived from the imposition of that order in council I think they would reconsider this question 56103-194
and again fix the values of these products. The apple growers at that time, from one end of the valley to the other, made the same comment without any variations. They said: "We are glad that that value has been fixed, because we know now that we are going to get a certain minimum for our apples." For the last two years the trouble has been this: We packed and shipped our apples but we did not know whether there would be any return on them. The apple grower shipped these apples, and out of the first receipts he had to pay for these special charges, and in many instances the amount the apples sold for would not cover the charges. The result was that the grower actually had to dig down into his pocket, after cultivating his orchard and gathering and packing his fruit and shipping it. Apart from losing the whole of that fruit he was out of pocket in connection with the cost of these charges. If this government would realize these conditions and look carefully into the situation I believe they would reconsider the passing of the order in council as it applied from 1926 until the other day.


Mr. F. W. GERSHAW (Medicine Hat):: Those who have taken part in this debate have wandered far afield and the discussion has developed into a free for all on the old subject of the tariff. The hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) last night, in his clear and concise way, quoted at length from a letter written by the Secretary of the Medicine Hat chamber of commerce. I wish to say that this chamber is not a partisan body, and I am sure it has no desire or intention to provide campaign propaganda for any political party. I am sure also that it would be the very last body to claim that it represented the real feeling of the majority of the people in that district. There are many people there -consumers'-who believe that they should have the privilege and the opportunity of purchasing fruits and vegetables, when they come in, at reasonable prices and not at prices greatly enhanced by the tariff.
It seems that a wrong impression has gone abroad in two respects, and I believe that impression has been due to the material which has been broadcast so generally on one aspect of this question. The first impression, which in my opinion is wrong, is that the members of the Liberal and Progressive groups are not looking after the interests of the producers, the farmers. These groups, I might mention, were some years ago responsible for retaining the Crowsnest rates. These rates constitute the bill of rights of the Canadian shipper and have resulted in the

Dumping Duty-Mr. Gershaw

saving of much money annually to those producers in the prairie provinces. Since the imposition of the Fordney-McCumber tariff against our cattle, grain and other farm products, farmers generally are realizing that we need wider markets, and consequently we have been constantly searching for such markets for our products. Not so long ago the Liberal party went down to defeat in an endeavour to secure a reciprocity arrangement with the United States to give wider markets to our producers.
The second impression which has gone abroad, and which is not correct, is that early fruits and vegetables come in free of duty. Now, let me say that, rain or shine, in season or out of season, this parliament maintains a duty against the importation of these commodities. It is mentioned by the Minister of Finance last night, and I repeat the list now. The duty on apples is ninety cents a barrel; the duty on blackberries, gooseberries, raspberries and strawberries two cents per pound; and all other green fruit not provided for 25 per cent; cabbages, 30 per cent; potatoes, 35 per cent; tomatoes, 30 per cent; turnips, 30 per cent; and vegetables not otherwise provided for 30 per cent. These rates seem to me to be fairly substantial. In addition, it is quite clear that the government, who possibly at most removed the power which the minister or some officer in the department had, at a stroke of the pen, of changing the value or increasing it for duty purposes, surely have the power to impose that duty again by order in council at any time. I believe that the tariff in this respect may work in a way which is of no benefit to the producer, and it will certainly increase prices to the consumer. One case was mentioned last night where the peach producers sold 50,000 boxes of peaches in the prairie provinces, and yet the people had to pay a duty on something like 400,000 boxes, which was the amount used. It seems to me that in the interests of the people generally, this dumping clause should be invoked only when very special conditions arise; and I believe that in connection with such things as food products, and especially fresh fruits and vegetables, which are so necessary to the health of the people, the dumping duty should be imposed-in addition to the duties which are always in existence-only when very exceptional conditions arise.


Mr. C. H. DICKIE (Nanaimo):: and we would have the people flocking from the United States instead of going from here to the United States.
If we pay a little more for our apples; if we pay a little more for our eggs, or a little more for our butter, it will be worth it. I know the working men of British Columbia are willing to do so. We want the purchasing power, and we do not mind paying good prices. If the farmers succeed; if the vegetable growers succeed, and if the poultry men succeed, they will erect buildings and give work to carpenters, painters and plasterers. They, in turn, will erect buildings, and that is how an industrial community is built up.
There is no argument at all against a seasonal tariff on vegetables coming into this country. There is no argument against an effective duty on eggs coming into this country from the United States. Take the case of butter and eggs alone. When we entered into that very foolish

I won't say treaty-arrangement with New Zealand, which gave the same terms to them as were embodied in the treaty with Australia, we in British Columbia were going through a rather trying time. The dairymen had not succeeded, but times were getting better. Wages were improving, and people were eating more butter, and the dairymen began to succeed. When we entered into this treaty with Australia the Americans saw the danger. They had a duty of 8 cents a pound against us for butter, but, notwithstanding that duty, in 1925 we sent over $2,500,000 worth of butter to the United States. They saw that butter would be coming in from New Zealand, and they immediately placed a duty of 12 cents a pound on that commodity. That meant that we lost that $2,000,000 or $3,000,000 of trade with the United States, and the arrangement with New Zealand meant that 14,000,000 pounds of butter came into British Columbia and Halifax in seven months. That meant disaster to the dairy people. As has been stated in this house more eloquently than I can put it, all through Ontario they sold their stock, and in British Columbia they went out of the dairy business. If you go there now you will see them going out of the poultry business just the same.
Why, Mr. Speaker, can we not take a leaf out of the book of the people south of us? We have been acting as an immigration agent for them for years. They have attracted our people; they have been getting our population. We spend millions of dollars to induce people to come and settle in Canada. We can bring about the repatriation of many of our people; the members from Quebec can

bring back thirty or forty thousand of their compatriots if they would just agree to adopt legislation along the lines I am so clumsily trying to place before you to-night. We have the raw material here; we have a great agricultural country, and we have many other resources.
On motion of Mr. Dickie the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, May 16, 1928