1928-03-22

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

[Stage Direction]
First and second reports of select standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.- Mr. Goodison.
On motion of Mr. Goodison (West Lamb-ton), the first and second reports of the select standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, were concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 74 for the relief of Dorothy Estelle McCutcheon.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 75 for the relief of Adelaide Marie Moore.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 76 for the relief of Delia Elizabeth Davies.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 77 for the relief of Edith Duff McCoo.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 78 for the relief of Kathleen Marion Baldwin.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 79 for the relief of Frederick James Lee.-Mr. Anderson (High Park).
Bill No. 80 for the relief of Laveania Maud Kelly.-Mr. Stewart (Leeds).
Bill No. 81 for the relief of Arthur John Evans.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 82 for the relief of Margaret Constance McIntyre Fairbanks.-Mr. Kay.
Bill No. 83 for the relief of Lina Elizabeth Foster.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 84 for the relief of Winifred Osborne Gimblett.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 85 for the relief of Ruby Jean Standing.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 86 for the relief of Albertine de Varennes.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 87 for the relief of William Bye Fasken.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 88 for the relief of John Alexander Parsons.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 89 for the relief of Martha Golding. -Mr. Church.
Bill No. 90 for the relief of Reginald Key. -Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 91 for the relief of Madeline Massey Knox.-Mr. Smoke.
Bill No. 92 for the relief of James Parker. -Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 93 for the relief of Dorothy La-Belle.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 94 for the relief of Richard Henry Orr.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Bill No. 95 for the relief of Marjory Sterne Boyd.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 96 for the relief of Florence Louise Parsons.-Mr. Goodison.
Bill No. 97 for the relief of George Daniel MacDonald.-Mr. Lennox
Bill No. 98 for the relief of Evelyn Connor. -Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 99 for the relief of Annie May Caldwell-Mr. Garland (Carleton)
Bill No. 100 for the relief of Florence Marjorie Cressman.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast) .
Bill No. 101 for the relief of Esther Buck Scott.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 102 for the relief of Norah Jones. [DOT]-Mr. White (Mount Royal).
Bill No. 103 for the relief of Albert Wood. -Mr. White (Mount Royal).
Bill No. 104 for the relief of Louisa Bal-dock.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 105 for the relief of Albert John Morison.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 106 for the relief of Amelia Judd Wasserman fierliner.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 107 for the relief of Ernest Edmund Parrington.-Mr. Bowman.
Bill No. 108 for the relief of Margaret Beaton Hale.-Mr. Preston.
Private Bills
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 109 for the relief of Annie Constance Vipond Coleby Lazier.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Bill No. 110 for the relief of Gladys Caroline Isbell.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. Ill for the relief of Victoria May Hardwick.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 112 for the relief of Annie Alice Tushingham.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 113 for the relief of Rita Peden.- Mr. Smith (Stormont).
Bill No. 114 for the relief of Lome William Paterson.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 115 for the relief of Albert William Hornby.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto High Park).
Bill No. 116 for the relief of Marguerite Adele Berwick.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 117 for the relief of Harriett Ellen Isabel Kirkpatrick.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No 118 for the relief of Martha Evelyn Taylor.-Mr. Garland (Carteton).
Bill No. 119 for the relief of Winnifred Clark.-Mr. Bowen.
Bill No. 120 for the relief of Maria Eremca, otherwise known as Marcia Eramko.-Mr. Robinson.
Bill No. 121 for the relief of Albert Glenn Steinberg.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 122 for the relief of Charles Frederick Spittle.-Mr. Thorson.
Bill No. 123 for the relief of Helen Lazelle Margaret Zeller.-Mr. Cayley.
Bill No. 124 for the relief of Rachel Pearson.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 125 for the relief of Ida Myerson.- Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 126 for the relief of Arthur Wellington Henry.-Mr. Stewart (Leeds).
Bill No. 127 for the relief of Dorothy Warren Gorrie.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 128 for the relief of Stanley Edmunds.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 129 for the relief of Irene Frances Phebe Pricker.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 130 for the relief of Jean Maxwell Douglas.-(No Petition).
Bill No. 131 for the relief of Constance Brown Kinsman.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 132 for the relief of William Wilbur Blackburn.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto High Park).
Bill No. 133 for the relief of Viva Venetta Rahmer.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto High Park).
Bill No. 134 for the relief of George Ranney Price.-Mr. Lennox.	'	[DOT]
Bill No. 135 for the relief of Percival Bovill. -Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 136 for the relief of Paul Char-boneau.-Mr. Lennox.

Bill No. 137 for the relief of William Franklin Darby.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 138 for the relief of Lome Wilbert Helmer.-Mr. Ryerson.
Bill No. 139 for the relief of Mary Marjorie Jacques.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Bill No. 14D for the relief of John Edward Gladstone King, otherwise known as John E. King.-(No Petition).
Bill No. 141 for the relief of Winnifred Lilias Maunsell.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Bill No. 142 for the relief of Hazel Kathleen Mulligan.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 143 for the relief of Jessie McLean. -Mr. Rothwell.
Bill No. 144 for the relief of Winifred Margaret Pope-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 145 for the relief of Elizabeth May Thomley.-Mr. Rennie.
Bil'1 No. 146 for the relief of Norton Webster Kingsland.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 147 for the relief of Alice Edith Knowles.-Mr. McGregor.
Bill No. 14S for the relief of John McArthur.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 149 for the relief of Charles Alfred Turner.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Bill No. 150 for the relief of Olive Druker. -Mr. Anderson (Toronto High Park).
Bill No. 151 for the relief of Lillian May Chandler.-Mr. Lennox.
Motion for first reading agreed to on division.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. PECK:: 1.	What real estate in the city of Ottawa has been purchased by the government since the year 1923?
2.	For what purpose was same acquired?
3.	What prices were paid, or are payable, for the same, and to whom?
4.	Is the government negotiating for the purchase of further real estate in the city of Ottawa ?
5.	If so, what property is being considered, and for what purpose is it required?


Mr. RINFRET:: Federal District Commission.
1.	Property on the north side of Laurier avenue, known as the Dey's arena property and containing about 60,000 square feet.
2.	For park purposes.
3.	$60,000 to Lady Sherwood and Sir Percy Sherwood.
4.	and 5. Proceedings have been taken to expropriate, for park purposes, the following

Questions
properties:	(a) The Russell House block,
bounded by Sparks, Elgin, Queen and Canal streets; (b) Lot 66 Slater street.
Department of Public Works.
1.	The properties bounded by Sparks, Wellington and Elgin streets have been expropriated.
2.	For enlargement of Connaught place.
3.	(a) Compensation to be fixed by the Exchequer court; (b) Estate of C. W. Bangs, W. J. Irvine, Ottawa Electric Company, Limited, Matthewman estate.
4.	and 5. Not in the public interest to disclose.


PATROL BOAT VIGILANT
Mr. ERNST:: _ 1. Is the patrol boat Vigilant now engaged in the customs preventive service?
2.	If so, where?
3.	Is the Vigilant owned by the Department of National Revenue, or under charter?
4.	If under charter, from whom, and what are the terms of the charter party?
5.	Was the Vigilant formerly owned by the government?
6.	When was the Vigilant sold, to whom, and for what amount?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Yes, under charter.
2.	Atlantic waters off Nova Scotia-base Halifax.
3.	Under charter.
4.	John Thomas Payette, Penetanguishene, Ont. $2,250 per month for period of seven months, 1927; nine months, 1928; nine months, 1929.
5.	Yes.
6.	29th December, 1921 to Manley Chew, Penetanguishene, Ont., for $18,000.


CANADIAN WAR RECORDS
Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: 1.	Which department of the government has control of the collection of paintings, photographs, and war relics, known as Canadian war records or Canadian war memorials?
2.	Where are they stored?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Public Archives.
There are in the public archives four large paintings of war scenes, which were received from Lord Beaverbrook last year; and a large number of war relics and photographs relating to the war.
Department of National Defence.
(a)	Paintings.
No information.
(b)	Canadian Official War Photographs.
1.	Negatives and photographic albums containing prints, in possession of Department of National Defence.
2.	Negatives in geographical section (Lowe-Martin building). Prints in historical section,
Department of National Defence (Daly Building).
(c)	War Relics.
No information.
Department of Public Works.
The collection of war paintings, drawings, etchings and other works of art, comprising what is generally known as the Canadian war memorials, is now and has been in the custody of the National Gallery of Canada since it was placed there by the government in 1920. With the exception of eight paintings, now hung on the walls of the Senate Chamber, the collection is in safe storage in the National gallery.
The pictures have been exhibited from time to time as the opportunity presented itself and a considerable sum of money has been expended by the National gallery in keeping the works in first class condition.


POWER DEVELOPMENT IN QUEBEC
Mr. RYCKMAN:: 1.	Has the Beauharnois Power Company or any other company or person applied to the government or any department of the government for the right to take water to develop power under the charter granted in the recent session of the Quebec legislature to said company for the development of power?
2.	Has said company applied to the government or any department of the government for approval of plans and authority to proceed with its works?
3.	In the report of the joint board of engineers laid on the table of the house during the present session, the said board recommends another navigation proposition instead of Hungry bay. Under the circumstances, is it the intention of the government to take action in connection with any application for approval of plans and to give authority for commencement of work until the final decision is reached concerning action to be taken in connection with the St. Lawrence waterways proposition?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: [DOT]
1.	Applications have been received of the Beauharnois Light, Heat & Power Company and are of date March 17th, 1927, and January 17th, 1928.
2.	Preliminary plans have been submitted to the Department of Public Works and the Department of Railways and Canals.
3.	The recommendations of the Joint Board of Engineers, and the proposals of the Beau-hamois Company, will receive consideration in due course.



Exclusive Prospecting Rights


MR. GEORGE K.YTE
Mr. RYERSON:: 1.	Is Mr. George Kyte, ex-M.P., for Richmond West, Cape Breton, employed by the government of Canada?
2.	If so: (a) when was he so employed; (b) for what purpose; (c) at what salary; and (d) upon whose recommendation was he appointed ?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


CARRIAGE OF MAILS IN NEW BRUNSWICK
[Stage Direction]
Mr. HANSON;
1.	Was one Arthur Carvell of Lakeville, Carleton county, New Brunswick, appointed to drive the mail from Woodstock to Lakeville, Carleton county, New Brunswick, in the months of September and October, 1927?
2.	If so, how many trips did he make in September, how many in October, and how many trips was he paid for?
3.	Are mail contracts ever entered into with a minor ?
4.	Has the Canadian National Railways a contract for carrying mails from St. John, Fredericton and Woodstock, north to Lakeville?
0.	If so, why was any arrangement made with Arthur Carvell or any one else for hauling the mails from Woodstock to Lakeville in the months of September and October, 1927?
Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	A temporary arrangement was entered into with Arthur L. Carvell for this service.
2.	Thirteen trips in September, 13 trips in October, 26 trips paid for.
3.	No.
4.	Yes.
5.	To expedite the delivery of daily papers from Saint John and also the despatch of the outgoing mail from the Lakeville district.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Addington):: 1.	How many acres of land have been granted by the federal government to the main and branch lines of the Canadian Pacific Railway and to other railways in: (a) Manitoba before 1870 and since 1870; (b) Saskatchewan since July, 1905; (c) Alberta since July, 1905; (d) what is now Alberta and Saskatchewan previous to July, 1905; (e) what is the approximate or estimated value of such land grants?
2.	How many acres of land have been granted to land companies under settlement terms: (a) in Manitoba, (b) in Saskatchewan and Alberta before and since July, 1905; (c) what is the value of such grants?
3.	Under what statute or by what authority did the federal government claim the right to dispose of such lands: (a) in Manitoba; (b) in Saskatchewan and Alberta both before and Bince 1905?

4.	How many acres of land within the borders
of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, since each became a province, have been alienated by the Dominion up to January 1, 1928, in each province for: (a) railways; (b) land companies on settlement terms; (c) homesteads; (d) Hudson Bay Company; (e) school purposes; (f) any other purposes?	_
5.	How many acres of land does the Dominion claim ownership of or jurisdiction over in: (a) Manitoba; (b) Saskatchewan; (e) Alberta?
6.	By -what statute or authority does the Dominion claim the right of such jurisdiction?
7.	Did the Dominion retain ownership of or administrative authority over any of the territory added some 15 years ago to the provinces of Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec, and if so, by what authority in the case of each.


EXCLUSIVE PROSPECTING RIGHTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: I would ask the Minister of
the Interior whether or not there is any truth in the rumour that is prevalent that he or his department contemplate the granting of exclusive prospecting rights to large areas in the Northwest Territories. I would not ask this question at the present time were it not for the fact that I have received some very urgent messages with respect to it. I hardly believe it is possible, but I think it would reassure the public mind if the minister would make a statement.
Hon. CHARLES A. STEWART (Minister of the Interior): Two applications have been filed for exploratory privileges in the Northwest Territories covering fairly large areas. Both have been considered but neither has been granted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the papers be laid
on the table?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: There are no papers except the applications.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, the applications?


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: We cannot hear
what is going on.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: The minister says they have not yet been granted.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: That is not what he
said.


Edward Joseph Garland: If the Minister of Justice will be patient I should like to complete my question:	Is there any intention on the part of the government to issue such rights to any individual prospector or corporation?


Charles A. Stewart: There have been exploratory rights granted in the past, but as indicated by the leader of the opposition there seems to be very strong opposition


192S
[Stage Direction]
St. Lawrence Waterway
to granting rights of this character to anyone. The government is always willing to pay attention to objections of that kind. Personally, I see no very serious objection to the policy but one does not want to raise a row about a matter of this kind. May I say for the information of my hon. friend that an exploratory right was granted on the Indian reserve close to Calgary. We had to cancel that right, and it has not been asked for since.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Was that for natural gas?


Charles A. Stewart: And oil.


REPARATIONS COMMISSION REPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. F. WHITE (London):: May I ask
when the report of the reparations commission will be tabled? I have received some communications with respect to it and that is my reason for asking the question.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The matter is still under consideration.


Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: Will the Secretary of State amplify a little his answer to the question of my hon. friend from London? Is it the tabling of the report of the commission, or the report itself that i3 under consideration?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The report itself is under consideration. It is not considered advisable to table it before we have considered it fully.


ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY CORRESPONDENCE WITH UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka-On-tario):: I notice a report in the Toronto
Globe to the effect that the government has sent a communication to Washington on the subject of the St. Lawrence waterway development, and coupled with the report is the statement that the government here has applied for certain privileges in the United States market. Is that correct?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: When the papers are
tabled my hon. friend will see that the report is not correct.


CONDITION OF FARMERS IN THE INTERLAKE DISTRICT, MANITOBA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. P. BANCROFT (Selkirk):: I should like to ask the Minister of the Interior a ques-
56103-101i
tion. I have here a report of a meeting held at Okno, Man., March 11, at which there were 125 farmers. At this meeting the serious condition of the farmers in the district was discussed, and a number of recommendations were made. I should like to ask the minister if he will have his officials in Winnipeg investigate thoroughly the conditions of settlement in the district referred to.


Charles A. Stewart: Does my
hon. friend mean as to drainage?


Leland Payson Bancroft: Yes, the causes, and
the conditions which prevail.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, we will ask the departmental officials there to make an examination and report.


RADIO-REPORTED CANCELLATION OF LICENSE INTERNATIONAL BIBLE STUDENTS ASSOCIATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: I would ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries if there is any truth in the report that the radio license granted to the International Bible Students' Association has been cancelled.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: I may state that
no final decision has been reached in the matter.


CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: I would ask the Minister of
the Interior when we may expect the return ordered on the 19th of last month of copies of documents relating to the diversion of water at Chicago.


Charles A. Stewart: I will make inquiry and answer my hon. friend to-morrow.


AMHERSTBURG PUBLIC BUILDING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GOTT (South Essex):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question based on the following extract from the Amherstburg Echo of March 16th last:
It is understood that Victor Renaud has been recommended by Thomas Rowley for appointment to the position of caretaker of the Dominion government building, in place of Ted Tnnnicliff, who has resigned.
In view of the fact that this position-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. This question will stand as a notice.
1582	COMMONS
Civil Service Act-Mr. Garland (Bow River)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was understood, Mr. Speaker, that we would proceed to-day to public bills and orders so that members who gave up Thursday afternoon some weeks ago to the Minister of Finance to enable him to introduce his budget, would have the opportunity to proceed at the point at which they would have proceeded had we gone on with the regular order that day. I move:
That the house do now proceed to order No. 23 being the second reading of Bill No. 3, an act respecting the civil service (restoration of excluded positions).
It is understood that after six o'clock we will return to the regular order of business.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
t-

[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River) moved the second reading of Bill No. 3, respecting the civil service (restoration of excluded positions) .
Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Speaker, I am frankly astonished at the number of refusals on the other side of the house to grant a second reading to this bill. In answer to your question "Shall the second reading of thei bill be carried?" there was quite a volume of "no" and that before the members who spoke had heard the argument thereon. I would take it, therefore, that they have pretty well made up their minds that in so far as patronage is now permitted they are going to cling to it with the tenacity of the party system of the older days. I hope, however, that after I have presented what few facts I have at my disposal on this matter, many of these same gentlemen will join with me in doing what they can to enforce and strengthen the principle as applied to our administrative service.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I cannot hear the hon. member who is speaking.


Edward Joseph Garland: I sympathize with Your Honour. Although my voice is by no means a loud one it can usually be heard.
After all there is one question the answer to which should determine our attitude totMr. Speaker.]
wards this whole problem and that is: Does Canada's public service need, efficient business supervision instead of political control as in the past? The answer to that will answer the whole problem in my opinion. This question has already been answered effectively and well in successive parliamentary reports on the civil service since 1877. From 1877 to 1924 successive commissions and committees have sat and discussed the whole problem, and in every case they have come to one definite conclusion, namely, that the merit system should be not only brought into effect but maintained properly in all its strength.
There is at the present time no provision for appeal and personal boards of welfare as in other democratic countries. That is another question and it is now being dealt with by a committee in another way; but there is another reason why the bill that I have before the house at the moment should carry and that is that, owing to a lack of proper supervision of the entire service, it is estimated that there is an annual loss to the country of more than $25,000,000 which could readily be saved if business management were permitted to apply.


Mr. CAHILL:: Who estimates that?


Edward Joseph Garland: I will give that in just a moment. In support of this latter statement several considerations may be mentioned. An annual saving of $746,000 alone has been effected by the government printing bureau under the readjustment by the Civil Service Commission. An annual saving of $860,000 has been achieved in the Post Office Department, partly by departmental economies, it is true, but partly also by adjustments made in the personnel by the Civil Service Commission. In the evidence adduced before the Spinney committee of 1921, Dr. Roche, a former minister of the interior, declared that an investigation of that department would reveal conditions similar to those in the printing bureau where a saving of thirty-seven per cent had been effected. If this is so, then more than a million dollars are beiing wasted in that department alone. The cost of the staff of the Interior department increased $1,500,000 from 1915 to 1922; it increased $1,000,000 from 1919 to 1922, which fact caused a protest by the way from Senator Bradbury in the Senate.
Similar references might be made concerning other departments. In one department there are several hundred men with expensive equipment lying idle, incurring an expenditure of nearly a million dollars. It is on record that the late John Fraser, when Auditor General, claimed more than once that the

Civil Service Act-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
Ottawa service was bearing an excessive overhead of 66 per cent. In the cost of maintaining the personnel at about $60,000,000, he estimated that a saving of 25 per cent or $15,000,000, at least, could be made. In public purchasing by open competition an estimated saving of thirty per cent on say $30,000,000, or $9,000,000 in all, could be effected and no mention is made of the losses on political contracts such as the Timiskam-ing dam, railways, merchant marine, and other matters.
What I have said might be extended almost without limit. For example, in ten parliamentary commissions on the civil service only once did the same person sit on two commissions and the same lack of continuity applies generally in the case of the history of civil service legislation introduced in this house since confederation. Then there is the extraordinary fact that though annually there is distributed in unnecessary expenditure more than $25,-
000.000, 19,000 civil servants receive on an average from $1,100 to $1,400, or slightly less in salaries.
One clause of my bill asks that the powers of the commission be extended. At the present time under the act the Civil Service Commission, although nominally having the power to go into and reorganize departments, in effect has not the power unless the deputy and other officials of the department consent, or invite the reorganization. That condition of affairs is wrong. It, should be compulsory upon the commission as part of its duties to enter into and reorganize the various departments of government consecutively, starting, if you like, with the largest and continuing through to the smallest. I say, as the result of what examination I have made of conditions, that if such a reorganization took place, if the commission undertook its duties properly and well, there would be a saving of even more than $20,000,000 a year in the administration of our civil service.
I am asking for the reinstatement under the commission of those positions that have been exempted by several orders in council, all but one of which were introduced by the present administration. When the present administration came into office practically the entire service was under the merit principle, but in the intervening years an enormous number of orders in council have been passed from time to time exempting various positions. In addition I am asking that departments that were regarded on their inauguration as temporary in nature, be now placed under the commission and given the rank of permanent. There is no reason I can see why they should not be so placed. The Prime Minister in his
recent speech on the budget stated that, having listened to the arguments of hon. members, there was no intention now of doing away with the income tax, and therefore we may assume that the income tax branch of the department will continue to exist. If it is going to continue to exist, then I ask, in fairness to the system and the staff of that branch, that they be placed under the commission and receive the advantages of the permanency of the staff and all the other recognitions that they would acquire under it.
The same thing is true with regard to the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment and the Soldier Settlement Board. Hon. members will remember that the argument at the outset for placing those departments outside of the operations of the act was that they were temporary, but ten years after the war we find they are still being maintained and in many cases the votes have been increased for those departments. There is therefore no indication at the present time of any temporary nature in those two departments. In fact recent speeches by hon. members would indicate clearly that we may regard the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment as being, at least in our lifetime, of a permanent nature. Then why should we not make it permanent and place it under the act? Hon. members will at once rise in opposition to this proposal of mine and say: How are you going to establish an effective test for the minor positions-the labourer, the postmaster of a small post office with a salary of less than $200 a year, and all that sort of thing? My answer to that is that other countries have done it and other countries are doing it effectively to-day. You will find throughout the world nations applying the principle which I am asking to be applied in this case to the very class of positions which this government saw fit to exempt under special orders in council.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: It was not the government that exempted them, but the Civil Service Commission.


Edward Joseph Garland: Ah well, the commission for some reason or other which we had better examine possibly before a committee of this house did, it is true, make some suggestions to the government with respect to that, but I say definitely to the government that if the ministers of the crown of that day had adhered to the principles which they themselves enunciated at an earlier date they would never have consented to the request of the commission, which was in my opinion an evasion of their proper
1584	COMMONS
Civil Service Act-Air. Garland (Bow River)
responsibility and duty, and which had behind it unquestionably pressure from those who wanted to get back to the patronage system again. I do noit think you can escape that implication.
As a result of the abuses arising from patronage, including inefficiency, extravagance and abuses, the Union government some years ago placed under a special law, which I have under my hand, all civil service positions at that time; in other words, they provided that all positions in the service must be filled on the basis of open competition and of demonstrated ability to pa-form the work required. Those are almost the words of the act itself. As I have said, thousands of positions, some 13,000 odd, have since that time been exempted. The principal objection to retaining these positions under the Civil Service Commission was the impracticability of carrying on the proper examinations. When this question is discussed by hon. gentlemen opposite, and perhaps by one or two to my right, they will say that you cannot have an effective examination for these positions, and why should you have an examination at all for a labourer, for a man who works with a pick and shovel? My answer to that in the first place is that you can have an effective examination, and1 in the second place that the sustaining of the merit principle is so allimportant that no excuse on the ground of a temporary difficulty should be recognized as a binding reason why all these positions should be exempted'. We had a discussion in this house not long ago, a very heated and rather partisan one, with respect to the appointment of men to work on the retaining wall of the Rideau canal, and if the discussion that took place at that time is any criterion of the attitude of the public as a whole on this question, then what I have said stands well buttressed by the remarks of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning). At that time, if I remember aright, he intimated that so far as he was concerned he thought it would be better for all concerned, better for the members for Ottawa, better for himself and the government, and better for the men, that the commission should have the handling of these appointments. I refer you to bis words in Hansard of a few days ago.
Now the question arises, if you place these positions on the merit principle and make them subject to a civil service examination, no matter how perfunctory or casual it may be, some day or other you are going to be faced with the difficulty of making appointments, say, to the Public Works department in the city of Vancouver, and how are you going

to ask that branch in Vancouver or any other branch in a city far distant to wait until the Civil Service Commission in Ottawa has reter-mined whether it has men on the eligible list for that class of position? That is a difficulty that I have anticipated. I expect that will be one of the arguments that will be hurled against this bill, but my answer to that is that it is provided for in the act itself, in section 39, sub-sections 2 and 3, where it is provided:
When employees are required on short notice for emergency work outside the city of Ottawa a responsible agent or officer of the department requiring such extra assistance may engage the necessary employee and the said agent or officer in each case shall forthwith report to the commission through the deputy head of his department the names of the persons so employed.
And again:
No such employment shall extend beyond thirty days unless approved by the commission; but where the place of employment is outside the Dominion of Canada, the term of such employment may extend to ninety days.
Again:
Such employees may be paid the prevailing rate of pay at which persons qualified to perform such emergency work may be secured in the place or locality where the work is required to be done.
So that whole situation is carefully and studiously met by the provisions of the act itself. There is no difficulty, therefore, with respect to the making of temporary or emergency appointments in any part of the Dominion even if the Civil Service Commission is not at the moment in a position to make these appointments, because it is allowed thirty days, and an extension of time, if necessary, upon application from the deputy head of the department or the head of the works concerned.
I have in my hand evidence regarding the objections of council to the merit principle being applied in these exempted positions. A moment ago I intimated that the cabinet was responsible for the abandonment of the merit principle in this connection. When the commission reported to the government, the governor in council considered the situation, and then referred the matter back to the commission. On page 4 of the regulations you will find noted these words: "Considered too cumbersome and unnecessary, and the last step would be worse than the first." These words being interpreted to mean that the council did not agree to the merit regulation, and Dr. Roche says:
That was brought to our notice. When it came up in the formal board meeting, my colleagues-I give them credit for their own honest opinions-differed with me. I felt that

Civil Service Act-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
we had put that in all previous regulations, and I did not see why we should suddenly find out by a sudden conversion that this is not workable, and therefore I refused to sign a memo, without that being in, and I did it because of this fact.
That is the reason why I have included in my bill a provision tihat no position shall hereafter be excluded from the operation of the Civil Service Act of 1918 excepting upon the unanimous report of all the commissioners. There are only three of them, and the unanimous report of the three commissioners should be given. I find by examination of the reports of different committees and commissions examining into the civil service that in almost every case since the commission was established there has been a feeling that at least two of the commissioners have been to some extent influenced by those who would return to patronage, but there is one man to whom great credit is due who has at all times consistently refused to be swayed from the path of duty as 'laid down for him by the act itself, and that man is Dr. Roche. The greatest credit is due to him.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that the other two commissioners were swayed from the path of duty?


Edward Joseph Garland: No, not at all, but I feel that for reasons which they may very sincerely hold, they have listened perhaps at least with greater effect-we will put it that way-to the pressure from those who would return to patronage than Dr. Roche has. That is the way perhaps to put it. That is why I think, if the government is sincere in its desire to maintain the merit principle, it will at least insert this clause in the act, that no positions hereafter shall be excluded from the operation of the act excepting upon the unanimous report of the three commissioners. That is not asking too much; it is a fair provision. At the present time there is a strong suspicion which it would be well for the government to remove from the public mind and from the minds of hon. members of this house-it is no more than a suspicion, I grant you, but it is there and I have heard it in this house since I came here-that the last two appointees of this government to the Civil Service Commission are being motivated by the desire of the members of the party surrounding the Prime Minister in their actions with respect to these things.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
my hon. friend is going a little wide of the mark when he attacks in this Way commissioners who are not here to defend themselves. If he has any direct charge against any commissioner I wish he would make it; then it could be investigated. I submit that no hon. gentleman should reflect on a member of the public service either directly or indirectly unless he is prepared to go further and make a definite charge.


Edward Joseph Garland: I think the position taken by the Prime Minister is very fair, and I will be equally fair by withdrawing any implication there may be in my remarks. But I do say to him that I have simply expressed in my statement the point of view that has been expressed to me.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might say
that there is hardly a man in the public service who is not criticized in a similar manner by some opponent.


Edward Joseph Garland: All that
may be very true; but it would be to the interest of the government, and the commission itself that any suspicion of that kind should not be allowed to continue. My proposal to the Prime Minister would be that in all cases of this kind where any such question arises, where there is any doubt in his mind as to either the commission itself or the recommendations that come from it, the matter should be referred to a committee of this house; and I will in a moment quote the right hon. Prime Minister's own words in that regard. I stated a little earlier that other countries had found it quite practicable to place under the operation of the merit system and to make subject to examination appointments of men, such as ordinary day labourers, much less higher positions. Let me quote a memorandum which I have in my hand respecting some of the regulations covering the appointment of unclassified labourers in the federal service of the United States. This is an extract from regulations of the United States Civil Service Commission, published in the report of the commission for the year ending June 30, 1922, Regulation No. 1 provides:
1.	The Civil Service Commission is authorized to apply these regulations to such cities or parts of the executive civil service as it may deem expedient.
2.	It shall be the duty of all officers in the executive civil service to aid the commission in all proper ways in carrying these regulations into effect.
I will pass over the qualifications of applicants and come to the particular subject under discussion, the point of eligibility:
1586	COMMONS
Civil Service Act-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
1.	The names of eligibles, with the kinds of labour in which proficient, rated at 85 or more, shall be registered by sex in the order of their ratings on physical condition,

on physical condition.
-except that honourably discharged soldiers, sailors and marines, their *widows and the wives of soldiers, sailors and marines disqualified by injuries received in service and line of duty, shall have priority.
2.	Eligibility shall be for one year, but the period may be extended by the commission for all those on any register if it is deemed inexpedient to hold a new examination.
I turn then to the report of William C. Deming, who explained the details and advantages of the merit system. At that time he was head of the federal Civil Service Commission of the United States. Take unskilled labourers, for example:
Those who seek employment as unskilled labourers are given a physical examination only. It would be useless to test a pick-and-shovel man or a charwoman in arithmetic or geography.
I quite agree with him. But when opponents of the merit system state that it is not practical to make an eligible list for unskilled labourers, I say the evidence of what has been done in other countries must disabuse their minds of that point of view.
For the mechanical trades,-
And, by the way, an enormous number of Skilled artisans have been excluded by order in council passed by this government.
-a physical examination is required which constitutes 40 per cent of the total rating. The other 60 per cent is given to a rating on training and experience in the particular trade upon which application is made.
I could go on and quote what they do in all other cases, such as the technical professions, book-keepers, stenographers, file clerks, general clerks, and so on, through the whole rota of possible positions.
We also find, Mr. Speaker, that parliamentary reports from beginning to end since 1877 have consistently denounced patronage in the government service. Let me refer very briefly to these reports. A committee under the chairmanship of Mr. George Casey, M.P., reported in April, 1877, and this is an extract from the report:
Political patronage is responsible for other evils, and we do not hesitate to express the conviction that many unnecessary civil offices have been retained, and that new places have been created, for no better purpose than to provide for the followers of influential politicians.
Again,
Generally speaking, political influence has been found to interfere more or less in the working of all branches of the service, and always with bad effect.
IMr. E. J. Garland.]
'*'And always with bad effect." Here is another extract from the first report of a commission to investigate the civil service, of which Mr. Donald Mclnnes, of Hamilton, was chairman, and Mr. Martin J. Griffin, secretary. This was on March 5, 1881. The report says:
It-
The patronage system.
-embarrasses ministers in providing an efficient public service, and it causes great and often irresistible pressure to be brought on members of parliament to force their consent to the nomination and appointment of unfit persons.
That last statement, Mr. Speaker, I wish to repeat.
-and, it causes great and often irresistible pressure to be brought on members of parliament to force their consent to the nomination and appointment of unfit persons.
Now the question has been put to me: Am I not in a better position to nominate a postmaster for a little village in my riding than the Civil Service Commission? My answer is twofold. First, I do not know- although I probably could learn-the qualifications required to fill the position. That, however, could be overcome, and possibly I should be as well able as the commission to determine from a stated form the eligibility of any individual who might apply or whom I might have in mind for nomination. But the statement of this commission has the strongest force in matters of the kind, that the member himself does not always feel free-although he may be independent enough to act freely-in making the appointments if he has it in his power to do so. The pressure1 of political partyism is too strong upon him, the need for getting his friends into office is frequently too apparent to him, and there is the inclination on his part that is almost inescapable to appoint, other things not even being equal, those who are his political friends. I ask any hon. member opposite to place himself in a position where two men are applying for a postmastership; one of them is a frank and avowed Conservative, a man who does not agree with the hon. gentleman politically at all; the other is a good friend of his own political persuasion. Now, this good friend of his own political persuasion may not be quite as efficient as the other applicant, but it is very easy to argue-
'Some hon. MEMBERS: Why not?


Edward Joseph Garland: He may not be in this particular case. It is very easy for +be hon. gentleman who has the appoint-

Civil Service Act-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
ment in his hands to say to himself: Oh, well, the other chap is a good friend of mine;
I am sure he' will be all right anyhow; I will let the thing go through; I don't want to have a Tory in that job anyhow. That is how we are tempted to act; it is human nature. But in the administration of our public service such temptations should be eliminated as far as possible. Let me quote an extract from a report of a commission composed of Messrs. J. M. Courtney, chairman. Thomas Fyshe and P. J. Bazin, on March 17, 1903:
That entrance to and promotions in the service should not he a matter of political patronage, but that the whole outside service should be placed under the Civil Service Commission: that promotion therein should be by merit, and that the higher positions should be filled from the service itself.
A commission composed of G. N. Ducharme and R. S. Lake reported to much the same effect on November 9, 1912. In the report of Commissioners Slack, Lewis and Eugene Tarte in 1918 we find much the same language; in fact, the language of this report was even more trenchant. The statement appears:
General conditions in the printing bureau may be briefly described as shocking. They are. however, the perfectly natural consequence of the "system" which created them. Under any but government ownership the sheriff would long ago have closed the doors of the plant.
Much the same language is used in the report submitted in 1921 by the parliamentary committee of which Mr. Spinney was chairman. and in the final report of the special parliamentary committee brought down in June 1923 under the chairmanship of Mr. James Malcolm we find1:
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.
They did not say "in part"; they did not say that the principle must be preserved with respect to the service generally but not as regards 13,000 positions. The statement is explicit that, in the opinion of the committee, the merit system should be faithfully adhered to. Let me now give an extract from a report of a special committee of the Senate, session 1924, under the chairmanship of the Hon. F. L. Beique:
Your committee is convinced that the method of appointment and promotion by competition (usually known as the merit system), is preferable, in every way, to advancement by favour or influence. In support of this principle may be cited the
findings of a number of committees, extracts from which will be found in the appendix to this report.
I have already' quoted from some of these findings. My time is going and although there is much that I should like to say I must curtail my remarks. The ideal condition in government would be one in which the administrative function, in so far as it is generally applicable, would be separated from the political function. The political function in the business of government is the function responsible for policy and authority. I am speaking in broad terms. I admit there may be modifications of that rule from time to time, and in certain instances but broadly speaking the political function is one of policy and authority. The administrative function, the civil service, has for its duty the carrying out in a business like manner of the policy determined by the political. To do this properly the administrative should not be hampered by the political nor vice versa.
I hesitate at this stage to bring to the attention of the house the record of the Liberal party in this connection. It is not one of which I am proud personally, because I adhere to the merit principle and believe in it, and because the Liberal party, through its greatest leaders, has from time to time expressed itself in determined tones on this question, and now to find them in office under pressure from their friends, from the commission, or from some other source going back upon their own stated principles and repudiating their own convictions is to me repugnant. I am not going to weary the house with a recitation of all the orders in council. Let it suffice to say that the positions which are to-day exempt from the Civil Service Act number between thirteen and fourteen thousand, roughly, and this in spite of the words of the Prime Minister himself. The right hon. gentleman, speaking in Ottawa on September 11, 1926, is reported to have said:
May I say further, ladies and gentlemen, that I stand strongly, and have always stood, for the merit system and promotion on the basis of merit and will do my utmost to see that that is maintained. I might say much more, but being in the middle of an election and on the eve of the day of polling, I naturally have to be somewhat reserved and careful in the statements that I make.
Now that the election is over may I cordially invite the Prime Minister to abandon that reserve and carefulness and regale the house with exactly what he would like to have told that meeting in Ottawa. He continued:
I do not wish to say anything here that is other than in accord with what were our
1588	COMMONS
Civil Service Act-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
policies prior to the time that T went out of office. All that I have said to you to-night is simply by way of stating that I am prepared to implement what we were ready to do.
The last sentence is a qualification which is not easily understood. I do not know what they were -prepared to do but they were prepared to do it anyway. Now, I find- the Minister of Justice, speaking on March 11, 1921, is reported in Hansard at page 839 as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Maisonneuve

Who at that time, Mr. Speaker, was yourself.
-and I am opposed to the resolution moved by the hon. member for Victoria.
Then Sir Sam Hughes.
I do not believe in political patronage. It has been tried in many countries of the world and it has been found wanting everywhere. I think that positions should go to merit and never to influence, on the part either of the candidates themselves or of their families, and I am opposed to nepotism in the distribution of public offices. There is one matter I wish to deal with for a moment or two, and that is the fact that this government is not giving proper support to the Civil Service Commission.
He was referring to the Union, government, and now I apply his own words to himself: I say that this government is not giving proper support to the Civil Service Commission. I must now pass on. There are many other quotations that might be given from men of prominence in the Liberal party who have since left the house. The Hon. Charles Murphy was one of the most brilliant exponents of the merit principle and he exploited, it on every occasion to condemn patronage.


Mr. POULIOT:: May I ask a question?


Edward Joseph Garland: I have only forty minutes. The hon. gentleman will make a speech himself, I have no doubt. So far as this question is concerned, I must say that in my seven years in this house I have found no more honest, convincing and consistent supporter of the merit principle than the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, and I appeal to hon. gentlemen on my right to follow the leadership of that man in this matter. I feel that their present leader will follow in his footsteps; I hope he will adhere to the merit principle as the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen did. Let me quote Mr. Meighen's statement:
We put the civil service on the rock basis of merit, although this was done in the face of the bitterest of party opposition, but the task was achieved. I want to say that under any government of which I shall be the head the civil service will continue to stand on the rock basis of the merit system.

A burst of applause followed that pronouncement of policy. Mr. Meighen went on to say that the civil service was in danger and he mentioned certain matters of a partisan character to which I need not refer. He also referred to a statement made by the Minister of National Defence, " now sometimes called minister of self defence," the Hon. E. M. Macdonald of Pictou, to the following effect:
Of all the facts of which Mr. Meighen is guilty, the one unforgivable sin I can never forget is the passing of the Civil Service Act . . . . There lies the greatest danger that surrounds the civil service, and keep this in mind, in so far as you vote.
I ask you too to keep that in mind when voting now. We find also that His Honour the Speaker, before his elevation to that office, is reported as follows-Hansard, May 2, 1921:
In Canada, my right hon. friend (Sir George Foster), who is the senior member of this house, knows how the lives of ministers of the crown have been made unhappy through this infernal patronage system	 Is there a member of this parliament with any selfrespect who of his own free will would return to the days when lobbies were filled with office seekers who made parliamentary life almost unbearable by their importunate demands?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just before my hon. friend resumes his seat I would like to ask him a question, as I am sure he would not wish- to mislead the house in regaird t o any orders in council which have been passed exempting civil servants or classes of civil servants from the control of the Civil Service Commission. He made reference to a large number who had been exempted, but I did not catch whether he said a large number of orders in council or a large number of individuals who had been exempted under orders in council. Would he tell me that first?


Edward Joseph Garland: A number of -orders in council have been passed by this government exempting various positions, a list of which I have under my hand.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: How many
orders in council?


Edward Joseph Garland: If the Prime Minister will give me about five minutes I will add them up.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend used the figure of 48,000 or something like that.


Edward Joseph Garland: No, between 13,000 and 14,000 positions have been exempted since this government came into office.

Civil Service Act-Mr. Chevrisr


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not understand how my hon. friend secures that number; does he mean that number of classes or that number of individual employees?


Edward Joseph Garland: In answer
to the Prime Minister, I now request the permission of the house to place on Hansard a complete list of all the orders in council passed by this government, giving the names of the positions and the numbers of the positions exempted since this government came into office.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I want the
house to hear the orders in council. I have no objection to my hon. friend reading them if the house will give him permission, but I would ask him whether he has not reference to the orders in council passed under the following clause of the ' Civil Service Act:
In any case where the commission decides that it is not practicable nor in the public interest to apply this act to any position or positions, the commission may, with the approval of the governor in council, exclude such position or positions in whole or in part from the operations of the act, and make such regulations as are deemed advisable prescribing how such position or positions are to be dealt with.
That is the clause in the act under which the orders in council referred to by my hon. friend were passed. One of the classes exempted under that provision is all positions where the salary does not exceed 8200 per annum. I have no doubt that if my hon. friend includes in his figures all those persons whose salaries have been under 8200 per annum he may be quite correct in the numbers he gives, but it is very misleading to represent that the government have taken from under the control of the Civil Service Commission by order in council thousands of positions, when these orders in council have been passed as being in the public interest, and in fact at the instance of the Civil Service Commission itself.
Mr. E R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa): Mr. Speaker, I have made my position so clear upon a number of similar occasions that I need not take very much of the time of the house to-day. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) has stated that since this government came into power they have released 14,000 positions from the control of the Civil Service Commission. The facts do not warrant that statement. If we consult the journals of the house for 1923 we find that Dr. Roche, in giving evidence before the parliamentary committee, stated that there were orders in council passed by the previous administration, particularly that order in council passed in September, 1921, which exempted over 11,000 positions and by the word "positions" I mean categories under which people had been employed. On June 29, 1922, when this government were in power, order in council No. 1053 was passed, which recited all the orders in council which had been passed by the previous administration having to do with these exemptions. Dr. Roche stated that up to that time about 13,000 positions had been released, and that the order in council of June 29, 1922, released only 3,000, so my hon. friend was quite in error when he stated that this administration had exempted 14,000 positions.
Then the hon. gentleman quoted a sentence from the Malcolm report, which stated that the merit system must be preserved at all costs.	That is nothing	new to me;	I	wasone of	those who wrote	that sentence	in	thereport,	and ever since	then, in my	everyutterance and in every way I have bound myself	to support the	merit system.	But
there are two kinds of merit systems. It is far from my thoughts that we should destroy the Civil Service Commission altogether; there must be some kind of a commission. There was such a commission in 1908; it was improved from time to time, and we might as well be frank about it. The Civil Service Commission is not a sort of old King Tut's grave, upon which we must not place an unholy hand; we must be able to speak about that commission without being charged with the desire to destroy it. Surely the Civil Service Act is not above reproach, like Caesar's wife, and surely one can say something about it in an honest effort to improve it without being charged with having a nefarious or murderous intent. If we had a little more co-operation; if the hon. gentlemen who speak in such glowing terms about the merit system would only view these problems as we have to view them, we might get somewhere. In 1918 the Civil Service Act was amended for the purpose of allowing the Griffenhagen classification to be adopted into the service. That was one of the most unnatural classifications ever made, and the service feels its effect even to-day. It will be years and years before the noxious seeds of that classification are completely eradicated from the civil service, and those who suffer most are the civil servants themselves. The Civil Service Commission did wonderful work in trying to solve the difficulty, but this classification was introduced at that time and the Civil Service Commission was reorganized. That law was framed in haste, and it was drawn up for a purpose which had nothing do with the Civil Service Commission.
Civil Service Act-Mr. Chevrier

Surely it will be admitted that that law, as is the ease with every law, was not perfect in the beginning; surely certain features may be improved from time to time.
When I mention co-operation between the government and the civil servants I come immediately to what has been advocated for some years, a closer bond between these different elements which will probably come about through the medium of civil service councils. I quite agree that the merit system must be preserved and that all entrants into the civil service should pass a competitive examination. We are told now that the civil service law of Canada is designed exactly along the lines of the laws prevailing in other countries, but we have not been told as yet the names of those countries. If my hon. friend refers to the English civil service law he refers to something which does not exist, because there is no civil service law in England. In that country there is only a series of orders in council, which give the greatest latitude to the heads of the different departments. I hold in my hand photostat copies of those orders in councils, if anyone would care to see them. Then my hon. friend said there was a civil service law in the United States; he referred particularly to the state of New Jersey, and stated that everyone was admitted to the civil service of that state through the merit system and a competitive examination. Then I find at page 30 that in the state of New Jersey there is a noncompetitive class and this is what is said with respect to it:
Positions in the non-competitive class shall be those of a minor character, the filling of which is impracticable either through competitive examination or through registration under the provisions of rule XI.
There is another provision about the noncompetitive class in the state of New York. At page 10 we find the following:
In the state service, all unskilled labourers and such skilled labourers as are not included in the competitive class or the non-competitive class; and in addition thereto there may be included in the exempt class all other subordinate offices for the filling of which competitive or non-competitive examination may be found to be not practicable. But no office or position shall be deemed to be in the exempt class unless it is specifically named in such class in the rules, and the reasons for each such exemption shall be stated separately in the annual reports of the commission. Not more than one appointment shall be made to or under the title of any such office or position, unless a different number is specifically mentioned in such rules. Appointments to positions in the exempt class may be made without examination.
The same words that are used in the Canadian law.
fMr. Chevrier.]
Now as to the differences between the Canadian Civil Service Act and the British Civil Service Act, let me say this: I have quoted this memorandum time and again, and it no doubt appears in Hansard. I have often quoted it on public platforms. This is what it says:
The head of a Canadian department who is responsible for the carrying out of the work of that department is told by the commission what clerical assistance he will require and is then furnished with that assistance, and he is further told by the commission what professional and technical assistance he will require and is furnished with such persons to do that technical and professional work as the commission decide have the qualifications. If the head of the department wants more help, he notifies the commission who decide whether he does or not and what kind of help is needed.
The British commission is subject to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, and is not independent of parliament as is the Canadian. It makes all appointments (after examination, approved by the treasury) unless the position is wholly or partially professional or has requirements otherwise peculiar and not ordinarily to be acquired in the civil service in which cases the head of the department nominates the appointee. Also in cases where the head of the department and the treasury consider it to be in the public interest, they may dispense with all or part of the qualifications-
And so on. I am not blaming the Civil Service Commission for administering the law as they find it. I have pointed out the defects of that law but I cannot blame them for administering the law as they find it. I should like to see the responsibility placed where it should lie, namely, with certain provisions and certain qualifications, upon the deputy head or the minister himself.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a great privilege indeed to have such a fine protective staff as we have in connection with this Hous.e of Commons, the finest body of men I believe that ever occupied positions in this building. Now if parliament had not the privilege of choosing these men or having the final say, do you think we should have such a fine and well disciplined body of men as we have now? The responsibility for looking after this body of men is placed upon the Sergeant-at-Arms who acts under the direction of Mr. Speaker. I for one am satisfied that if the Civil Service Commission had to choose the members of this staff it would not be as fine a body of men as it is to day nor would the discipline be as good. It stands to reason that that could not be otherwise.	.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does not the responsibility for the appointment of these men rest upon parliament itself, or one who represents parliament, namely, Mr. Speaker?

Civil Service Act-Mr. Campbell


Mr. CHEYRIER:: Indirectly the staff are
under the control of parliament but Mr. Speaker and his officers are immediately in control. There is a directing hand. Somebody assumes responsibility for the appointments and the personal element and the personal touch are noticeable. It could not be done in any other way. The argument advanced is that the Civil Service Commission is supreme or ought to Ibe supreme, but it is within the power of this parliament to tell the commission what it ought to do. The Civil Service Commission having exempted these positions for reasons known to itself, it ill becomes parliament to say to the commission that it must take those positions back. Now section 20 of the act says:
Except where otherwise expressly provided, all appointments to the civil service shall be upon competitive examination-
Then section 26 provides that the form of examination may be written or oral, or in the form of a demonstration of skill. So long as the Civil Service Commission will administer every bit of the law as it is enacted I shall have no quarrel with it. It is discharging a duty which has been imposed upon it and it is honestly discharging that duty. Now a moment ago I referred to order in council No. 1053. Let us see under what conditions that order in council was passed. It says:
The civil service commissioners are of opinion that the following classes of positions should be exempt from the operation of the Civil Service Act under the above section-
And section 4 of the act says:
The duties of the commission shall be:
(a)	to test and pass upon the qualifications of candidates;
(b)	of its own motion to investigate and report upon the operation of this act.
Let me quote the following from the order in council:	[DOT]
The Civil Service Commission is of opinion that it is not practicable to prescribe a system of competitive examinations or tests as required by the Civil Service Act, 1918, for making appointments to positions of this nature. The commission is further of opinion that there is good ground for believing that the above classes were among those which parliament had in mind for exemption in amending the Civil Service Act during the session of 1921, and the Civil Service Commission therefore, has the honour to report that it is not practicable to apply the Civil Service Act to the classes mentioned above and to recommend that they be excluded from the operation of the act-
I do not want these positions, but the Civil Service Commission has said that it is impracticable and not in the public interest to carry out the 'letter of the law. Therefore in its wisdom it recommends that these
appointments be taken out of its hands. What are these appointments? I am not going to read them all. but there are the following among others: painter, painter and paper-hanger, pattern-maker, plasterer, plumber and pipe-fitter, process welder. So it goes on all down the list. There are altogether 14,000 positions which means rather 14,000 persons, not categories that were affected.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the hon.
gentleman regard the present method of employing these people as satisfactory?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Yes, I do, because there is no other way to deal with them.


Mr. IRVINE:: Why argue if there is no other way?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: That shows the wisdom of my hon. friend and I leave him with his question. The Civil Service Commission has decided to exempt these positions from the operation of the law, and I have the greatest faith in and respect for the three commissioners. The hon. member for Bow River says in one breath that there should be no exemptions and in the next that there may be exemptions when the three commissioners get together and so decide. The Malcolm report of 1923 contained a stipulation

and the Civil Service Commission agreed to the recommendations contained in that report- that in all matters, whenever two commissioners sign, their decision was to be final except, that the dissenting commissioner should put down his reasons in writing for submission to the governor in council with the recommendation for exemption. If the law is continued in that way and if the Civil Service Commission desire to exempt further positions or to bring positions back under the act, I have nothing more to say. I am satisfied to leave the matter in the hands of the commission.


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, may I say at the outset, when I hear the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) saying that he is satisfied with the present system of appointment in connection with exempted positions, his remarks are entirely at variance with those of many members of his party when they sat on this side of the house, as I will proceed to show? I feel that the house and the country owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. .member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) for pressing the issue which is the subject matter of the bill we are now discussing. As evidence in support of this bill and as proof that the public service is impaired through the patronage

Civil Service Act-Mr. Campbell
system, I desire to place upon record some of the operations of that system in my constituency.
I will take first the question of the dismissal of the postmaster at Fort Pelly. This post office was moved seven miles from its original position. The newly appointed postmaster did not even reside in the district; he was not even a patron of the previous post office. It is rather amusing to read the correspondence and1 to find that the officials of the department, when they were instructed by the Postmaster General to appoint the present postmaster to that position, could not even find him, because apparently letters addressed to the post office of which he was to take charge did not reach him, because he was not a patron of that post office. In the file which I have before me no particular reasons are given for the change in that post office, but in answer to a question I put on the order paper the statement is made:
Representations made by residents through Mr. George McPhee, M.P.
That does not mean anything. We do not know what those representations were, and against that we have a petition signed by almost every patron of that post office requesting that no change be made in the office and that the then incumbent be left there. It was pointed out in the petition that the previous postmaster lived in the centre of the district and that the removal of the office six or seven miles away would seriously inconvenience the people. The request, however, of these people was ignored and in answer to a question as to the reasons for the dismissal of the postmaster we are told by the Postmaster General:
For better accommodation.
I wonder who should be the judge as to the better accommodation of the office. Sure/v it should be the people who are patrons of that office rather than others who live outside of the district altogether. I will venture the assertion that the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee) has never been in that district, knows nothing about it and has acted on letters received from some patronage hunters in the district. The removal of this office necessitated a change in the mail service costing the department considerably more money. Previously this service, which was a weekly service, was performed for $104 per annum whereas at the present time it costs $164.20.
Let me take the case of the postmaster at St. Front. The previous postmaster was a storekeeper and as such was in a much better position ordinarily to serve the people than a farmer would be. The position was

taken from him without any reason being given in the file, but in answer to my inquiry on the order paper the Postmaster General gives this as his reason:
The postmaster was dismissed for having taken part in the federal election of 1926 as deputy returning officer and enumerator.
Surely it will not be seriously contended that a man who is called upon to act in the public service as enumerator and deputy returning officer is taking part in politics. If so, that is something new entirely. I am quite sure that, as in most of these cases, it cannot be proved that this man took any part whatever in politics. This is a Frenchspeaking district and this man is one of the few residents in that district who could talk and read and write both languages. That being the case, it is possible that he was appointed, I do not know on whose recommendation, to the position of deputy returning officer, but the reason for his appointment was very likely that he was a master of both languages, reading and writing both of them fluently.
Let us consider the position of the postmaster at Poplar Bluff. This post office was moved five miles away and the roads between the old district and the new district, because the post office has been moved into a new district, are very bad, sometimes almost impassable. This leaves the people in the actual district of Poplar Bluff without a post office at all. The district into which it is moved is served by the post office of Arran. I think previously the people of that district secured their mail at the village of Arran and therefore the service is not of much use to them. May I read two of the letters which appear on sessional paper 150 showing how the change was made and how the new postmaster was appointed? This is a letter from Pelly under date of March 5, 1927, addressed to Mr. G. W. McPhee, M.P., Ottawa. It reads: Dear Sir:
At a meeting of the Pelly Liberal Association held on February 26, 1927, the following resolution was passed:
That W. 0. Stasuik, postmaster of Poplar Bluff, a Meighen appointee on the recommendation of M. N. Campbell-
I may say that is absolutely false. Thii man was appointed by the present government.

be dismissed for political partizanship, and we recommend Paul D. Dykun of S.W. 22-34-31 W. 1st. for the appointment of postmaster there.
Pelly Liberal Association,
C. P. Dundas,
President,
Mrs. L. M. Bridgmen,
Secretary.

Civil Service Act

Mr. Campbell
We have the remarkable picture of people living in a village not even adjacent to this district, because this is a different district altogether, recommendng the appointment of a postmaster there and the Postmaster General acting on their recommendation without consulting a single person in the district. That is not representative government and if that is a sample of how the patronage system operates, the house and the country owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. member for Bow River for bringing this question before the house.
Let me just give what would be an interesting analogy. Let us say that the people of Toronto want a public work of some kind or a person appointed to a public office and the Liberal association or the Conservative association of Winnipeg pass a resolution upon which the powers that be act in the city of Toronto. That is exactly the principle that has been followed with respect to this particular post office, and I say again that it is a vicious principle indeed.
There is the ease of the post office at Nut Mountain, Saskatchewan. I find that a petition signed by all but three of the patrons of that post office was forwarded to the Postmaster General asking that there be no change made in that post office. The recommendation for the change was made by Mr. J. A. MacMillan, my Liberal opponent, in a letter which he wrote to the Post Office Department on December 27, 1926, in which in part he says:
I am informed that a petition was circulated in the Nut Mountain locality requesting that the post office be left where it is. but from the reports I have from reliable sources in that locality I would recommend the change, and feel that it should be made.
The point I want to make is this: Here you have a petition signed by all but three of the residents of the district, and yet a gentleman who does not live in that district, and who I am sure is personally acquainted with not very many patrons of the post office, recommends that the change be made, and on his recommendation that change is made. In addition to that, in the file in the office of the Postmaster General, there are no less than seventeen private letters from residents in that district, patrons of that post office, who protest in the most vigorous terms against the change of office and show how the service will be impaired in many respects if a change is made.
Then we have the removal of the post office at Maloneck, Saskatchewan. This is moved about seven and a half miles from the previous location. It is moved that much further into what is really another district entirely,
and as a matter of fact it leaves a district almost entirely unserved by a post office. Of course, the Postmaster General gives as a reason-I am not blaming him entirely, because he is acting on the recommendations made to him-that he is placing this post office where it was previously situated. That is true, but since the post office was located at this other place, many homesteads have been taken up in that particular district and an entirely new district has been opened up That new district was given a post office some years ago, I am not sure when, but I think since this government came into power. Now we have the people in that new district left entirely unserved by a post office. Here again I may say that the change was made on the recommendation of the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee).
Then we have the case of a post office at Rockford, Saskatchewan. In this case the original post office was temporarily transferred to the man who lived on the same farm and in the same house, and a good many of the residents recommended that he be given the post office. However, a petition was signed by forty-five of the residents recommending a certain party for the position. This other man, I might say, lived quite close to the original location of the post office. The recommendation from the hon. member for Yorkton again in this case was that the post office be moved to the residence of Mr. W. Weightman, who lives seven miles away at the extreme edge of the district. This change necessitated some people travelling a distance of twelve miles for their mail, and anyone who has lived in that northern bush country, where there are very poor roads and swamps and siloughs and so on, knows something of the hardships that would be involved in the settlers having to travel a distance of twelve miles for their mail. May I read a letter from the district superintendent at Moose Jaw, dated March 17, and addressed to the Postmaster General, in which he says in part:
It will be noted that in my memorandum of the 2nd, instant, it is stated that an inspector who recently visited the Ketchen post office, the railway town, was informed that Mr. Weightman's location would be suitable. This information was obtained from a Mr. Downs, an old timer in the district, who represented Mr. Weightman's as a central place in the community. It was also pointed out by Mr. Downs that the present location at Mr. Galbraith's is sometimes not accessible in the spring when the creeks in the locality are overflowing.
There is something rather remarkable about this, Mr. Speaker. This post office inspector was apparently instructed to go to the village of Ketchen, the nearest village to this post

Civil Service Act*-Mr. Campbell
office, and there we find him interviewing a gentleman who does not reside in that village at all, who does not reside even in that district. The recommendation for the change in this office was made by the hon. member for Yorkton, and he states that representations were made to him from the village of Preece-ville which is another village further east. This Mr. Downs, from whom the information was received, is a resident of that village, so I think it is a remarkable coincidence that this gentleman happened to be at Ketchen and met the post office inspector, and was kind enough to give him the information on the strength of which the post office was changed. Now what are the facts? I should like to quote from one or two letters in that connection, first, from a letter from the secretary of the school district, dated March 15, and addressed to the Postmaster General, in which he says:
As a patron of the Rockford post office I protest against the removal of the post office to Mr. William Weightman, who lives in one corner of the district and is from six to ten miles from a majority of the patrons. Also he is only six miles from the Strand post office and about the same distance from Ypres post office. It will be a gross injustice to about 75 per cent of the patrons. As secretary-treasurer of the school district here I have considerable correspondence, and I strongly object to travelling sixteen miles every week for my mail, eight miles each way. I beg that you will reconsider your decision re transfer of the office to Mr. Weightman, and leave it at its present location, Mr. G. N. Galbraith's.
I will now read just one or two of the clauses of the petition which was signed by almost all the residents in that district. The first clause gives the reason for asking that there be no change, and says:
(1)	Mr. Weightman lives on the extreme east side of the Rockford district, and the change will benefit no person but himself.
The petition goes on to say:
(2)	The road to Mr. Weightman's homestead in the summer time is next to impassable.
(3)	The bulk of the settlers in the Rockford district live on the west side thereof.
(4)	That the proposed change would place Rockford post office approximately six miles from the Strand post office and about the same distance from the Ypres post office, leaving the settlers on the west side of the Rockford district, some ten miles from any post office.
There you have three post offices clustered together, while an enormous district on the other side is not served at all. The last clause of the petition reads:
(8) That in the event of a transfer having already been arranged for, it be held in abeyance until such time as the post office inspector can visit the district and investigate the situation.

I just want to appeal to this house and ask hon. members if anything could be fairer than the request contained in this petition that at least any change contemplated be held in abeyance until a post office inspector can go to the district? But in spite of that request, no inspector was sent. It seems to me that the Postmaster General or somebody else was almost afraid to send a post office inspector to the district for fear that he would get a report adverse to those who wanted to satisfy the patronage demands. Certainly, if a post office inspector had gone to that district, he would have been convinced1 and could not have reported otherwise than in compliance with the wishes of the residents. Here is another letter, from a private individual again, demanding that a post office inspector be sent to that district, and pointing out what a gross injustice was being done. Here you have a petition signed by practically all the residents of that district deliberately and callously ignored, and action taken on the recommendation apparently of a gentleman who lived in another district entirely many, many miles away.
Take the case of the post office at Drobot. I may say in explanation that Drobot is not in my constituency, but in the constituency of the hon. member for Yorkton, but many of the residents of my district secured their mail at that post office, and it is a matter of considerable interest to my constituents. Strong representations were made to me on behalf of the people of that district. This postmaster also was dismissed on the recommendation of the member for Yorkton, but no reasons whatever are given for the dismissal. The post office is moved three and one-half miles away from its original location, and I might add that it is that much nearer to another post office, and that much further into another district and further from the district it was supposed to serve. A petition was forwarded to the Postmaster General signed by 220 persons protesting against this change, but as usual it was ignored. May I say that the gentleman who sent in this petition, and who lives in my constituency in the village of Buchanan, is an active Liberal and pointed out to the Postmaster General the injustice of this dismissal, but apparently that did not prevail against the recommendation of the member for Yorkton. May I read a paragraph from the letter of the gentleman to whom I refer, Mr. B. Poster, dated May 11, 1927, to the Postmaster General :
I personally am of the opinion that the post office at Stinka's place


Civil Service Act-Mr. Campbell
That is the name of the previous postmaster. -is more central for the Drobot district than it would be at Surkan's place, and the fact that the post office has been there for almost twenty years is in itself sufficient to satisfy you that the people in the district found it convenient.
In this case again the change involved a considerable increase in the cost of delivering mail from the village.
I have also had some representations made to me with reference to the change at Kam-sack. This place is not in my district, and I have no direct personal interest in it, but I notice in the file that the previous postmaster, who was in the office for sixteen years, is charged by the member for Yorkton with political activity. I understand that several residents of the district wrote to the Postmaster General demanding that there be a public investigation of the charge of political activity. I am assured that in no way can this charge be proved. That is equally true of the other instances that I have cited.
Take the case of Sheho. This place again is not in my district, but the post office serves some of my constituents. Here again the change was made on the recommendation of the member for Yorkton, who charged the former postmaster with political partisanship. There is no proof of this on the file, and there was no investigation. The former postmaster wrote me and this is a paragraph from hi3 letter dated December 27, 1927:
There was no investigation whatever, although I had given every satisfaction to the department. I attached a petition to my application from all the tradesmen in Sheho asking for my re-appointment, but it did not have any effect.
Then take the case of the former postmaster at Annette. This is another post office in my district. The case is covered by sessional paper 182. The man was dismissed on the instructions of the Postmaster General. No reasons for the dismissal were given, but I was shown in the Postmaster General's office some letters which had passed between him and the hon. member for Yorkton dealing with the matter. I was told they were private letters and were not in the sessional papers, and that copies could not be given. If a member of parliament or any other individual can recommend changes in the public service, and then the Postmaster General puts the member's letters on a private file, and refuses to produce them on an order of the house, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is an interference with the rights and privileges of parliament. This is a case of aggravated injustice. The department had very great difficulty in making the transfer owing to the fact that they could not secure anyone to carry the mail 56103-102
between the new post office and the village, which involved an increase in cost of about $126. The office was moved four miles north, and is that much nearer another post office, leaving a large part of the district unprovided with postal facilities. May I read an extract from a letter addressed by the district superintendent at Moose Jaw to the Postmaster General under date of April 8, 1927.
The removal of the Annette post office to Mr. Haras's place will increase the distance of the Preeceville and Ypres via Astwood and Annette mail service seven miles each way according to information received from the contractor. The contractor claims that to serve the Annette post office at the proposed site he would be obliged to travel four miles north from the present location of Annette and then return three miles south to obtain a crossing over the creek on the continuation of his trip to Ypres.
And so on.	.
A pro rata increase for seven miles additional travel amounts to $126 per annum.
In this case also there is a petition, signed by 57 residents, representing 90 per cent of the patrons of the post office. As far as I can understand there is not a single complaint against the administration of any of these post offices. If so, there is nothing on the file to indicate it. I presume the Postmaster General would give, as a reason for the dismissals, political partisanship. I accept the Postmaster General's word, 'but will change his reason a little bit. This is the real reason for the change in all these cases: There must be a change in order to reward some one for political partisanship. The newly appointed postmasters had to be rewarded for their services to the Liberal party during the last election. This is the actual reason for the action by the Postmaster General; there was no complaint against these men, who had given good service for many years. In fact a good many of them were appointed by the present government, and apparently were quite satisfactory until some one had to be rewarded for valuable services rendered.
In reply to a question asked in the house some time ago I find that 421 postmasters have been dismissed from the service since October 1, 1926.


Mr. YENIOT:: How many of the 421 are
reported in the return submitted to this house as having been dismissed for theft and irregularity? The hon. gentleman has the information; it is not fair on his part not to state it to the house.


Milton Neil Campbell: I did not say that all
these men were dismissed for political partisanship. It seems a remarkable thing that with-



Civil Service Act-Mr. Campbell
in two years so many of these men committed theft while very few did so in the ten years before.


Mr. VENIOT:: Would the hon. gentleman
wish me to keep in office a postmaster who was guilty of theft?


Milton Neil Campbell: Certainly not; but I
would like to know how many were guilty of theft.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman has in his hand the return to the house containing information of those who were dismissed for theft, irregularity, drunkenness and incompetence, all based on reports of our inspectors.


Milton Neil Campbell: I have no return. I
have the answer in Hansard. Incompetence is a very wide term and could be charged against anyone. But it cannot fairly apply to any man who has been in the public service for several years. One of these men was postmaster for sixteen years. Referring to the appointment of the postmaster for St. Boniface, the Winnipeg Tribune has this editorial comment:
Has political patronage entered into the appointment of the postmaster for St. Boniface? The circumstances under which the appointment has been made call for more explanation than the government has so far offered. All that the public really knows about the matter is that Dr. J. P. Howden, the Liberal member for St. Boniface in the Dominion parliament is highly pleased with the selection.
Less than two weeks ago the Civil Service Commission at Ottawa had a candidate selected for the position. The candidate was officially notified by the commission of his appointment. Suddenly the Post Office Department at Ottawa finds that the Civil Service Commission's appointee is not the best man for the job. The commission is ignored and another man is put in to fill the position.


Mr. HOWDEN:: Is the hon. member aware that the man who was appointed to the position at St. Boniface had been assistant postmaster for fourteen years, and that his appointment was demanded by the whole city?


Milton Neil Campbell: I may tell the hon.
member that I .know nothing about it. I am quoting from an editorial in the Winnipeg Tribune, and I presume the editor knew what he was talking about. Let me read the following clause from a resolution passed by the Manitoba Postmasters' Association in August,. 1927:
That whereas it is the custom for postmasters to be summarily dismissed for alleged political partisanship, and whereas the dismissed postmasters are not given an opportunity to defend the charges preferred against them, but action is taken solely on representation of federal members of parliament or defeated candidates, therefore be it resolved that no postmaster shall

be dismissed for alleged partisanship, without the fullest investigation by post office officials of the district in which the post office in question is situated.
I subscribe to that principle. If any of the postmasters in my district have been guilty of partisanship the least that could be done would be to make an investigation and give them a hearing, and I am sure they would be ready to bring proof to establish their innocence.


Peter John Veniot: Does my hon. friend find
fault with the dismissal of a certain postmaster in his county who acted as his special agent on polling day?


Milton Neil Campbell: There was no postmaster in my district who acted as my special agent.


Peter John Veniot: I have the record that
shows it.


Milton Neil Campbell: The Postmaster General's information is wrong. If proof can be established against any postmaster in my district I have no objection to offer, but the proof has not been established. I wonder what the Postmaster General would do if I could prove partisanship against postmasters who opposed me.


Peter John Veniot: There are so few Liberal
appointees left that it would be difficult for me to dismiss any of them if the hon. gentleman recommended it.


Milton Neil Campbell: That is a remarkable
answer to come from the Postmaster General after the changes I have recited. Now may I read a resolution passed by the Kamsack presbytery of the United Church of Canada, held at Wadena, August 30 and 31, 1927:
That the presbytery of Kamsack deeply deplores the re-introduction into the public life of Canada of the custom of making the appointments of many public servants subject to political patronage.
The presbytery is convinced that such ap; pointments should be made by the Civil Service Commission, or some other non-partisan body, and that such appointments should be on the fitness of the appointees rather than of their political or other affiliations.
The presbytery considers that by whatever party it is carried out the patronage system in political life, particularly in regard to the dismissal of men without a hearing, is not only contrary to the highest ideals of Christian citizenship, but is also an outrage on everything that is fair and everything that is British.
Apparently the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee), took strong objection to that resolution

 I do not know why, unless the cap fitted him-and he addressed a letter to the secretary of the presbytery. I have not

Civil Service Act-Mr. Campbell
a copy of that letter but I have the reply which was submitted to the press. It is from the secretary of the presbytery at Wadena, Saskatchewan, and reads as printed by the Kamsack Times:
The resolution re political patronage passed by the presbytery at Wadena on August 31, 1927, dealt with the general question of making appointments to, and dismissals from, government positions subject to political patronage and made no reference to any specific situation. But seeing you have raised the question of certain appointments in the Kamsack district. we would put before you the following facts:	*
1st. On July 12, 1927, the then postmaster of Kamsack. Alexander Wilson, was dismissed without notice and without any charge having been preferred. Mr. Wilson had held the position sixteen years and to the best of out knowledge and belief had been an upright and capable public servant.
2nd. On April 20, 1927, C. A. McConnell was summarily dismissed from his position as Indian agent on the Pelly agency, the alleged reason being "offensive political partizanship". Also, some time after this. H. E. Jones was dismissed from the position of clerk at the same agency, the reason alleged being "political partizanship". No attempts were made to prove the charges stated, nor was either of these men granted a hearing in their own defence. We understand that both men communicated with the deputy minister but received no reply.
3rd. Members of this presbytery wrote ministers of the crown, asking either that these public servants be not dismissed, or, in the case of Messrs. McConnell and Jones, that an enquiry be made into the truth of the charges. In some cases no replies were received and in others merely a formal acknowledgment.
It is rather remarkable to see the somewhat callous attitude towards this principle adopted by hon. gentlemen, opposite when we compare their present views with what they said while in opposition. I have a good deal of material from which I could quote but I will not weary the house with it seeing that the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) has already made use of it. Incidentally I would quote the opinion of former President William H. Taft of the United States:
If we selected employees according to the length of their noses, it would be better than the political spoils system of appointment.
May I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to quote words uttered by yourself when you sat on the opposition benches. On March 11, 1921, you are reported in Hansard as having said:
I sympathize, Mr. Speaker, with some hon. gentlemen who would like to restore patronage in the civil service in order to get a little more kudos with some of their electors. But after twenty-five years' experience in public life, I am still in favour of that great reform which was brought about by the Liberal government through the establishment of the Civil Service Commission at Ottawa. I am in favour of the Civil Service Commission for the appointment 56103-102J
of officers to the inside service, and I think that we should have .... in all the large cities where there is a branch of the civil service, competitive examination .... in order that these centres may be given the best possible service.
Later on, sir, you referred to the "infernal" patronage system; your remarks in this regard have already been quoted. On May 2, of the same year, you said:
Is there a member of this parliament with any self respect who of his own free will would return to the days when lobbies were filled with office seekers who made parliamentary life almost unbearable by their importunate demands? I say there is not one member of this house who would return to that system.
Further on you say:
The right to dismiss and appoint according to the fancy or the temper of the minister is not a right which should be exercised by a politician.
On June 3 you said:
There are things which this parliament must do and will do, but there are other things that it can well refrain from doing, and that above all should be the distribution of political patronage. . . Well, I am opposed to political patronage. If ever chance wills it that members of this side of the house-
The Liberal party was then in opposition. -shall pass over to the other side, I want the Liberal party, just as I want the Conservative party, to look after the real business of the country and leave to an independent body the management of the civil service.
That change, sir, has taken place and the Liberal party is now in power. But we see the same system carried on. I feel somewhat diffident, sir, about criticizing your own administration when you are not ia a position to reply, but I cannot refrain from referring to the situation in the House of Commons to-day. According to the Auditor General's report, 1924,1 find that in the House of Commons under Your Honour's jurisdiction there are forty-one sessional and extra clerks, ninety-seven stenographers and typists twenty debates amanuenses, seventy-five messengers, twenty-six pages, besides charwomen and so forth, involving a total expenditure of $230,000-all under the patronage system. There are policemen and others but I have not time to give the whole list-
Now I would appeal to the Prime Minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, who I am sorry is not in his place. I have always felt that he was a man of high ideals. Judging by his speeches in the country, by the idealism he preaches there, I really believe his heart is in the right place but he finds it impossible to resist the importunities of those around him. Perhaps I am wrong but I appeal to him at this

Civil Service Act

Mr. Pouliot
time to support the principle we are now advocating. The time will come by the turn of the wheel of fortune when the position in the house will be reversed and when the present official opposition will be the government. I ask hon. gentlemen opposite in all sincerity, do they want that sort of thing carried on then? Do they want these continual dismissals of the public servants under what Your Honour has referred to as "the infernal patronage system"?


Jean-François Pouliot: I have listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell), whose lamentations remind1 me of the saying of the prophet that "All men are bad, and only I am good." I am very sorry for my hon. friend, because he made a very bad mistake; in philosophy there is a principle that we should not conclude from the particular to the general. My hon. friend quoted a few facts, sad perhaps as they affect his friends but not the country at large, and we cannot conclude from those very few facts that we should support the bill presented by my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland), -which I think should bear the title " sour grapes."
I think it is always interesting to hear the stories of people who have been dismissed for good reasons. Personally I do not know what happened in Saskatchewan, but I know very well what happened in Temiscouata county, which I have the honour to represent in this house. I wrote to the Postmaster General requesting the dismissal of a certain postmaster because his young daughter had been found with about fifty stolen letters in her coat pocket. I think that was sufficient reason to request the dismissal of the postmaster, and I am sure if the hon. member for Mackenzie had been postmaster general in a group government he would have granted my request and dismissed that postmaster. Upon one occasion I had a man appointed as postmaster of a $60 a year post office. He considered that a great honour, but one day I had to ask for his dismissal because I received evidence that during the previous election he held a general treating party in the post office. Does not my hon. friend from Mackenzie think I had reason to ask for the dismissal of that man? There were not very many dismissals in my constituency, but those few were made for good reasons. Another postmaster kept a letter addressed to his brother-in-law, who lived in front of his house, for over a month. That letter contained a cheque for $125; the postmaster knew it belonged to his brother-in-law, but

because of some family trouble the letter was not delivered for one month. The postmaster offered the letter to people of the same name when he knew it was intended for his brother-in-law, and in addition to that the postmaster was very well known as a drunkard. I think in this case my hon. friend from Mackenzie would have done as I did. I have quoted only three cases in my constituency; we have 245 constituencies in this country, and if we multiply that number by three we have twice the number of dismissals made by the Postmaster General, so I think I am very reasonable in that calculation.
I believe this matter should be considered in a broad way.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am glad to see I am
beginning to convince my hon. friend from Mackenzie. The hon. member for Bow River is one of the cleverest members of this house, and I am sorry he is not in his seat at present. I wanted to ask him a question during his speech, but he refused to let me ask it. I would be more generous, and would give him ample time now to answer the question. Aa matters stand at present, are all important appointments with the exception of those mentioned in this bill made by the Civil Service Commission? We all know that that is not so. You know very well, Mr. Speaker, that every deputy minister is appointed by the governor in council, and that judges, whose dignity is above suspicion, are also appointed by the governor in council. You know very well that senators, those dignified old gentlemen, to which body I am glad to see some younger men have been appointed, are named by the governor in council, and you also know that ambassadors, charges d'affaires and ministers are appointed in the same way. When we come to some of the most important appointments in the civil service of this country, we do not go to the Civil Service Commission, We do not ask applicants for the position of Auditor General to pass an examination; the Auditor General is appointed by a vote of this house, and that also applies to the Chief Electoral Officer. Those are two of the most important positions in Canada. I am acquainted with most of the deputy ministers, whom I admire very much for their experience, their sense of duty and their responsibilities as public officials. There is only one exception, whom I will not name to-day, a gentleman who has occupied his position for quite a long time and who is known to hold a private correspondence with a former minister. That deputy suffers now from neurasthenia, and perhaps some time later I will

Civil Service Act-Mr. Pouliot
bring his case before this house. As an example, however, let us consider Mr. Hunter, the Deputy Minister of Public Works. He has a huge responsibility, as assistant to the head of one of the most important departments of governments, and he is a most capable man. Take the chief engineer, Mr. Cameron. He has just been elected president of the graduates of McGill university. He is well known in this country, is a very capable man, and his staff is composed of highly qualified officials. I wish to say something also about the divisional engineers whom I know, and who are very competent men, for instance, Mr. Sabourin, of Quebec, Mr. Bertrand, and Mr. Amyot, of Rimouski. I know these gentlemen well. They are very good men, and I do not think one of them was appointed by the Civil Service Commission as constituted to-day. They were appointed before the commission had such powers as were given to it by the late lamented leader ol the opposition, personally a most charming man. He was then I think Solicitor General or Minister of the Interior.
I have just been speaking of the Public Works department. Now let us take the department of the Postmaster General, whom I see here. The minister is a very competent man. Mr. Gaboury is a most excellent deputy minister; everyone will admit that. Mr. Coolican, assistant deputy minister, is a first-class officer. Mr. Anderson, superintendent of the mail service, is a friend of every man in this house. Mr. Gagnon is a young officer but very well qualified; and so on. Most of these officials were appointed outside of the Civil Service Commission. Take the department of my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). He too has reason to be proud of his staff. The deputy minister, Dr. Grisdale, comes from Quebec, and is known as a very competent man. Dr. Charron, his assistant, is a chemist and possesses bilingual qualifications. His name is well known and respected in Quebec.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Throughout Canada too.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, throughout Canada
too. I mentioned Quebec because Dr. Charron has lived in that province for a long time. Take Mr. Archibald, director of experimental farms; he is a gentleman of worldwide renown, and all the heads of branches in that department are very competent men. Most of them were appointed before the Civil Service Commission commenced to make appointments.
Take the department of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning). He has a very good deputy minister. We do not get much from that department
because the railways are now in the Canadian National system. But I wish to praise the officers of the Department of Railways and Canals also. The chief engineer, Colonel Duhue, is a gentleman distinguished in his profession. I think he was appointed at the request of the minister and the Civil Service Commission had very little to do with the appointment.
In the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment there are some very capable men, especially since the recent changes have been carried out. I am sure that the minister will not discontinue the good work but will persist in the determination to secure the highest efficiency in the department. May I take this opportunity to say that I hope the Board of Pension Commissioners, whose term expires this year, will be allowed to return home. We have had enough of those people. I am here to say what I think about them, and I am very sorry that no investigation was made into the board. After what I heard the other day in the committee room, I do not believe that Mr. Thompson is qualified to act for another term. I hope the next time the minister makes an appointment he will appoint a French Canadian on the board, because the French Canadians have good records as soldiers. If the minister does not choose a French Canadian he should .at least appoint one member who has bilingual qualifications, and who will recognize that when the appeal board gives a judgment it should be respected.
I see the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Forke) here. He is always in good humour, he never experiences any trouble, and he has a very important department. Everyone likes the minister. He has a very good deputy minister in the person of Mr. W. J. Egan, amongst whose accomplishments is a knowledge of the French language. I am sure that within a few years the people of this country will recognize the benefits of the new policy that that department is going to carry out in the best interests of the country. At this stage I wish to ask the Minister of Immigration and Colonization not to forget the very eloquent speech made the other day by my hon. friend the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) on the opportunities to be given-


Hewitt Bostock: May I remind the hon.
gentleman that he is discussing matters not relevant to this debate?


Jean-François Pouliot: I have said what I wanted to say and the Minister of Immigration and Colonization has heard my recommendations. I am sure he will take note of them.

Cii'il Service Act-Mr. Pouliot
Take the Department of Justice, which is one of the most important departments in this country. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is the first lawyer in Canada. He is a very able man and is greatly respected in this house. He also has good assistants. His former deputy minister is now sitting on the bench of the highest tribunal in Canada. I refer to Mr. Justice Newcombe. Mr. Edwards, his successor, is a very able jurist. His assistant is Mr. Renaud who was a Conservative. He is a very able man and has a command of both the English and French languages. He was appointed when the Conservatives were in power and had they always made such appointments, they would not have been blamed by anybody on the Liberal side. But that was not the case.


Peter McGibbon: Are you willing to introduce a resolution to do away with the Civil Service Commission?


Jean-François Pouliot: If that is what my hon.
friend advocates, I think he is right in a certain sense and I will explain that later on. I do not say he is altogether right. We have the department of my hon. friend, the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) Whom I see here with his broad smile. Everything goes smoothly in his department, but he has many things to do. He is the head of a department which looks after incorporations of companies and naturalization, and may I say that all requests are not granted and that every request is thoroughly investigated before any action is taken. The Secretary of State has a very able assistant in the person of his deputy minister, Mr. Mulvey, who is a well-known author on company law and whose book is very often quoted before the courts. He also has as his chief legal adviser, Mr. O'Meara, who is one of the best lawyers in Canada.
I see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) in his seat and I wish to pay a special compliment to him because, in a very popular ministry, I think he is the most popular, especially amongst business men. He is working very hard for the people of this country, but he has some very capable assistants who help him in reducing taxes, in reducing the national debt and in rendering service to the people. I am not going to speak of all the departments, but if we consider the amount of work that is done by every civil servant in Canada we are bound to give them our greatest admiration.
The Department of the Interior at Ottawa is an immense department. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) has a very good deputy minister, but he has also in his de-

partment quite a number of specialists, men who are very capable and who would perhaps command from three to five times as much in the way of salary if they were working for private concerns instead of being public servants. May I mention three gentlemen whom I know very well, namely, Mr. F. C. C. Lynch, director of natural resources intelligence service, and his assistants, Mr. Sherrin and Mr. Chalifour, men whose high capabilities are most valuable to the service in which they are engaged.


Hewitt Bostock: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I do not see the relevancy of his remarks to the subject under discussion. I do not know if he intends to apply his remarks to the objects of the bill now before the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have been speaking for a few minutes but I will explain why I make these remarks. The object of this bill is to bring the appointment of all public servants under the Civil Service Commission and I have been instancing some civil servants whose rank is very important, whose capacities are great, but whose appointments have nothing to do with the Civil Service Commission. I trust that explanation will suffice to allow me to continue with what I have to say.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: The hon.
member should complete the record of the departments. He has covered them all except the Department of Marine and Fisheries, the Solicitor-General and the Secretary of State.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I was included and I
was honoured by being so included.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am keeping the Department of Marine and Fisheries for the last, but I wish to say something about my genial friend, the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon).


Mr. POWER:: Say it with lilies.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, I will say it with
lilies, and I will bring them to the Solicitor General whose capacity is great and whose heart is open to understand the misfortunes of life. He is always ready to give full consideration to every case that is brought to his attention. He is helped in that connection by a very clever lawyer, Mr. Gallagher, chief of the remission branch, who was appointed by the Conservatives, who was the legal partner of Mr. Patenaude in Montreal, but might I say that he was the sun while Mr. Patenaude was the moon? Mr. Gallagher is a very clever lawyer; his sense of duty is great, and when a case is

Civil Service Act-Mr. Pouliot
submitted to him he takes care to read the whole file and to act conscientiously. I do not believe he was appointed by the Civil Service Commission. He was not appointed by our party but his selection was a very good move on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite. This is another instance, and if they had always made such appointments, no one would blame them for their appointments.


Peter McGibbon: The hon. member has
named quite a number of good ones they made.


Jean-François Pouliot: I named a couple of good ones and I may name some more. To complete what I have to say about the Solicitor General may I add that he is acknowledged by all as the best lawyer of his generation, not only in Quebec but in Canada at large?


Charles Gavan Power: In the world.


Jean-François Pouliot: Not in the world. That would be over-stating the case. When the Solicitor General is ten years older we shall say he is the greatest lawyer in the world.
I will say that he is the best lawyer of his generation in this country.
Turning to the Department of Marine and Pisheries, we have as minister the most eloquent French Canadian, indeed the most eloquent speaker that I have ever heard in my life.


Hewitt Bostock: I would ask the hon.
gentleman to speak to the bill.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am through with what
I had to say, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin). I come now to his deputy minister, of whom I spoke at the beginning of my remarks. I think it is a shame for any civil servant to be disloyal to his minister, and the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries has been disloyal to his minister.


Hewitt Bostock: OrdeT. It is not permissible to attack in that way a permanent official who is not in the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will take up this case
when the estimates of the Department of Marine and Fisheries come up, and I will remember his letter about the port of Montreal. In that department there are very capable men, such as Mr. Rodd, who is the head of the fish culture branch, and1 another gentleman, Mr. Cowie, a specialist, who I think was not appointed by the Civil Service Commission. He is a remarkable man.
Now may I continue my argument? There are other brilliant men whose names I could
not enumerate in the short time at my disposal, who deserve the consideration of this country because of their high qualifications, their great experience and profound knowledge, and their good service to the state. Some of them have been appointed by the Conservative party, others have been appointed by the Liberal party, but when a man does his duty we do not need to ask by whom he was appointed. All we ask is that he fulfil his duty according to his conscience, and according to what is expected of him. That is the way I look at it, Mr. Speaker. When I approach a civil servant for any information,
I do not inquire whether he was appointed by the Conservatives or the Liberals. I inquire, first of all, whether he is a conscientious man who does his duty .


Charles Gavan Power: Then he must be a Liberal; he cannot be anything else.


Jean-François Pouliot: Perhaps he is not a Liberal in politics, but he should have a liberal mind. When a man is appointed to the public service, whether by the Civil Service Commission or by the governor in council, he should the moment he is appointed forget the party to which he belonged and become independent. Instead of wasting his time in small matters of politics, he should attend to the duties of his office, and devote himself to the service of his country. That is the way I look at it, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that no member of this house will disagree with that point of view. If a former minister whose name is not forgotten in this house has been betrayed by people in his department who did not have that sense of duty, he was betrayed by people who were appointed by the Civil Service Commission.
I listened with attention to what my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland) had to say regarding his bill, and I heard him make a philosophical mistake. His phraseology was rather strange. He made an affirmation; he said that this government was not giving proper support to the Civil Service Commission. I rose for the purpose of asking what he meant by those words, but I did not 'have the opportunity to put my question. I would ask him now if he thinks the government is not giving proper support to the Civil Service Commission because of the fact that there are still some positions which are not under the control of the commission. The philosophical mistake that my hon. friend made was this. He took as a fact that the Civil Service Commission is an infallible body, that it cannot make mistakes. I have nothing to say against the Civil Service Commissioners; I respect them; I think they are good men; but they

Civil Service Act-Mr. Manion
can make mistakes. Here in this house we have 245 members, a member from every corner of this country, and no one is supposed to know the people of his county better than their representative in this house. Moreover, each member is interested in making reliable recommendations to any member of the government. If I recommend a man in my county who is not qualified for a particular position, T shall be the first one to suffer, because people will blame me for my recommendation. But if a member takes the responsibility of recommending for any government position the best man available, he has the satisfaction of having done his duty.


Hewitt Bostock: Time.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up very much time of the house naturally, after the very excellent and eloquent address of the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Pouliot), there is not very much more to be said on the subject. I am sorry for this, not on my own account, but because I know my hon. leader (Mr. Bennett), my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) and one or two other hon. gentlemen did intend to take part in this debate.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am very sorry.


Robert James Manion: I notice the regret evinced by the hon. gentleman. I rise, Mr. Speaker, to support in a general way the measure of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland). I do so with some qualifications, because since coming into this house eleven years ago I must admit that it is not always possible to live up to the ideals of our earlier years; we find that the real and the ideal do not always jibe. It is true that public opinion is largely in favour of the so-called merit system; that is, the system under which the Civil Service Commission makes all the appointments to the government service. Since public opinion should rule in a democratic country, that system should prevail, particularly as we have a Civil Service Commission which is supposed to make all such appointments. This being so, I d'o agree with the hon. member for Boiw River that it would be better either to give the Civil Service Commission power to make all these appointments, or throw the commission aside altogether and get back to the old patronage system. Let us have at least straightforwardness and honesty in this matter. If we are to go back to the old system, let us do so frankly and openly instead of following the insidious practice of the government.
The reason that I am giving the bill a more or less qualified support is that over a 
period of years before I became a member of this house I saw many appointments made under the old patronage system by both parties, just as the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) has said, and most of them were excellent appointments. I say that quite frankly. I have also seen appointments made since by both parties, and those too for the most part have been excellent appointments. In fact a large proportion of the appointments made by both parties in the past have been of an excellent character because1, generally speaking, they were made on the responsibility of the member concerned, who, of course, had to answer to his constituents for what he had done.
Now, sir, in regard to the so-called savings that may be made under a civil service commission as opposed to the cost under the old patronage system, I submit that under neither system can we be expected to live up to the economic standards of private corporations. There is a public charity which must be taken into account to a certain extent, and I think it would be regrettable if under either the merit or the patronage system we hewed absolutely to the line, sternly refusing on all occasions to give a position to anybody unless he fully deserved it and was fitted for it, because there are times when for the good of the country it is far better to give a man a position than to throw him out on the rather cold charity of the world.
The Union Government of which I was a supporter did, in 1918, put under the Civil Service Commission of that day practically all appointments both in the inside and the outside service. Since then thousands of positions have been taken out of the hands of the commission. And I am a little surprised at my hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Chev-rier) supporting the system whereby he and his confrere have to make so many recommendations on behalf of applicants for certain positions. On many occasions I have talked the matter over with other hon. members who then represented the Ottawa district, men just as upright as the hon. gentleman himself, but invariably they told me they were happier to see all the appointments made by the Civil Service Commission, because under the old conditions they were practically pestered to death by applicants for patronage.
I know my hon. friend from Ottawa who-spoke this afternoon is in exactly the same position to-day. Pass along the hall where his room is situated and at any time of the day you will find people chasing him for positions on the Rfdeau canal.
In spite of some criticisms to the contrary at times, I believe the Civil Service Com-

Civil Service Act-Mr. Manion
mission, as constituted, has done excellent work. I have had many dealings with it in a more or less formal way, as all members have, and while I do not know that I ever received a favour from it, I believe its decisions for the most part have been just, fair and reasonable. Because of that, Mr. Speaker, I think the government ought to accept this bill and make it an absolute rule to go back to the system of appointment to the civil service by the commission. Undoubtedly the merit system is supported by public opinion. I have given reasons why I am not so enthusiastic about it as are some other members. I have been longer in the house than my hon. friend from Bow River, I know he is absolutely sincere in his attitude in regard to this matter, as are many others, particularly the newer members, but I do not think they have1 had as wide an experience as I have had; and I repeat, to my mind it would be entirely safe to go back to the old system provided it was not abused. It was not the old spoils or .patronage system which was wrong, it was the abuse of the system. But, as I have said before, having the merit system in vogue to-day, we should support it to the fullest extent.


Mr. ROBB:: If I may ask my hon. friend a question. The staff of the Soldier Settlement Board and the Income Tax Board were appointed under the administration of which he was a supporter. Does he say now that those appointments were in any way inferior to the apointments made by the Civil Service Commission?


Robert James Manion: No. If my hon. friend had been listening to me he would have observed that I have taken the attitude that most of the appointments .made by both parties ini the past have been reasonably good appointments. In the pamphlet which the Minster of Finance sent across here a few minutes ago, it is said there are experts in the different departments whom it would be better to have chosen by the officers of those departments. That may be true. Still I adhere to the position that it is the desire largely of the people that the Civil Service Commission should have jursdiction. That is the desire also in England, apparently, and it is becoming Largely the desire in. the United States. In view of this I believe that we should continue our system of appointment under the Civil Service Commission.
Before six o'clock is called, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a word to the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot). When the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) was speaking, the Postmaster General pointed out that many of
the 421 dismissals made by his department, and claimed by the hon. member as political patronage dismissals, were made because of theft, drunkenness, incompetence and other crimes or irregularities. I have no intention of arguing the matter with the Postmaster General, but I submit to him in all sincerity that he owes it in justice to the other postmasters in various parts of the country, who were dismissed on grounds of political patronage, to give, at the earliest opportunity, a list of those who were dismissed for that particular reason, together with a list of those who were dismissed on any other account.


Peter John Veniot: The returns have been on the table for the last two weeks.


Robert James Manion: But they are not accessible to the people. When the minister made the statement, inadvertently I think, that a large proportion had been dismissed because of drunkenness, stealing, incompetence and other offences of that kind, he did not tell us how many there were. He did not say what the proportion was.


Mr. DUNNING:: It is in the return.


Robert James Manion: Yes, but the return is not accessible to the people, and unless the Postmaster General makes it perfectly clear who were dismissed cn these charges it is a reflection on the whole 421 who were dismissed. It is unjust to them.


Peter John Veniot: I do not intend to be unjust, and when my estimates are under consideration I will dissect all dismissals and give full information to the house.


Robert James Manion: That is what I was suggesting. I am quite sure the minister does not wish to reflect on the whole 421. I venture to say that a very small percentage will be found to have been dismissed for any such cause as has been stated. Mr. Speaker, may I ask that you call it six o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was understood that this evening we should go on with the regular business of the house. With the permission of the house, so that there may be no misunderstanding, I move that the house revert to government orders.
Motion agreed to and 'bill read ithe second time.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
1601	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Customs tariff-549. Wool, the hair of the camel, alpaca, goat or other like animal, not further prepared than combed: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Mr. KENNEDY:: Is this a reduction?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend will observe that under this item it is all free, while under the previous item 554 it was free in all cases; under item 555 it carried a duty of 2 cents per pound, 2i cents per pound and 3 cents per pound, and under old item 556 a duty of 10 per cent, 12^ per cent and 15 per cent. I think I explained the other day that the importation under these other items was very small.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: This is another case
where we do not seem to be doing anything, because nothing at all came in under old item 555 during 1926, and in fact nothing has come in under that item since 1923. The importations were all under old item 554. Under old item 556, the importation in 1926 amounted to 20 dollars, as far as I can discover from the records; so while there appears to be a reduction, in actual fact, there is no change.


Mr. FANSHER (Last Mountain):: Does all the wool come in under those three old items, 554, 555 and 556?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I would ask the minister if he knows whether or not any ruling was made by a customs board or any other body which enabled wool which had previously come in under item 555 to come in free under item 554?


James Alexander Robb: I think that has been the
practice for a good many years.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What is the reason for that? It looks like sharp practice on someone's part to make a separate item under which sheep's wool is dutiable, and then to allow it in free under another item. This is the kind of thing whi-ch makes me think there will be grave difficulty in the future in connection with the different classes of rags which come in free and the others which come in under a duty.


James Alexander Robb: I think from the time this item was first placed in the tariff many years ago a ruling was made that it was of a class not produced in Canada.


Mr. EVANS:: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance why the duty is lowered on wool and kept at its former level on the

finshed article? Is it possible that the manufacturers of wool were not able to pay dividends, or have not secured the profits they wished to secure, or did the tariff advisory board give any advice at all in this connection?


James Alexander Robb: Yes. I explained that to my hon. friend a few days ago. In this reclassification we are getting rid of two items which are practically obsolete. My hon. friend from Peace River just pointed out that there were practically no imports under those items.


Peter McGibbon: I would like to make just one final appeal to the minister. My personal opinion of the Minister of Finance is so high that I find it very difficult to criticize his estimates, but I do feel that he is doing an injury to the people whom I have the honour to represent and to the people of the country generally when he takes away the little protection at present enjoyed by the farmers of Canada. We know the destructive effect this Australian treaty has had upon the dairying industry, and I would like to make a last appeal to the minister to leave the farmer what little protection he has on his wool. I know the minister is a protectionist, as I think the great majority of the people of this country are protectionists, and for the life of me I cannot see why that principle should not be carried all around the circle. If we are going to give protection to the manufacturers, as we do and as I think it is proper to do, then it is reasonable to give protection to the farmers of this country as well. It seems to me we are discriminating unfairly against a class of people who are doing an enormous amount of work in building up this country, and who get very little consideration. I am quite willing to confess that even when my own party was in power I advocated raising the duty on dairy products and other articles, and I advocate that today. As a protectionist country-and I think that is the established policy of all parties in Canada-we should be fair and carry this protection to all classes. Give it to the manufacturer where it is required; give it to the labouring man by protecting his job, and give it to the farmer as well. I must say that I have a great deal of sympathy with the Finance minister who is buttressed on one side by the tariff board-and if he will take my advice he will scrap that board-and on the other side by our free trade friends from the west who sit immediately to his right. But after all he has a duty to perform to the people of this country, and I should like to make one final appeal to him not to abolish the little protection the farmers of Canada have.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend will admit that this wool has been on the free list for many years. In the case of the two items we are changing, the total importations under 555 amounted to $93, in 1927, and under 556 to $5,099.


Peter McGibbon: Will not all wool come
in free from now on?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Peter McGibbon: And we take away a
certain amount of protection which they had.


Mr. TOLMIE:: I should like to join with the hon. gentleman who has just spoken in making an appeal on behalf of the sheep farmers of Canada. It is a very striking feature that while our flocks have not been protected as far as the important wool crop is concerned for very many years in this country, our sheep population has increased only about
100.000	head in 57 years. Certainly we cannot boast about our progress in the sheep line. Our sheep population in Canada is only about
3,000,000 head as compared with something over 90,000,000 in Australia, 27,000,000 in little New Zealand, 23,000,000 in Great Britain, and
44.500.000	in the United States. Another striking feature has been that the United States, where the wool has been protected since 1816, has made steady progress in her sheep development. Perhaps anticipating the war they removed the duty from wool in 1913. The country became filled up with wool, and at the termination of the war the sheep business was in a very depressed condition. So they applied the tariff again. In the United States they have increased their sheep population by about 6.5 per cent within the last twelve months, and in recent months they have had more sheep available for slaughter than they have had since 1914. Comparing the two countries, we have the country upon the one hand where the sheep business has been stabilized by the protection of wool, and on the other hand a situation in Canada where we have been absolutely without protection as far back as I can remember, in the case of wool. On the one hand there has been rapid and substantial progress, and on the other hand very little progress, if indeed any at all. The United States is not considered a great mutton and lamb consuming country. They consume there about 5.4 pounds of mutton and lamb per capita, while in Canada we consume just about 9 pounds, and Great Britain consumes from 50 to 60 pounds. It is a well known fact-it is apparent to every man who is interested in agriculture-that we have huge areas of land
well adapted for the production of sheep and we have only a sheep population of about
3,000,000 head scattered over this vast domain. Our opportunities for the growing of sheep here are immense. They do very well on our ranges; they do as well here as they do anywhere on the continent. Our average clip on the ranges under ordinary conditions would be from 7 to 8 pounds of wool; and in British Columbia in some special flocks, particularly where there is a good Scotchman in charge of the flock, it runs as high as 10 pounds per head. The lamb crop is an excellent one too.
I know of one man in British Columbia who sold 3,000 lambs in September weighing round 80 pounds per head, bringing in a revenue of $30,000, averaging around $10 per head.
I feel that some effort should be made- I am not talking in any critical way because I think, perhaps, the Conservative government has erred just as much as the Liberal government is continuing to err by failing to give some protection to the wool producers-to improve the existing conditions. As far as the production of finer wools is concerned there is no reason why our wool here could not be very much improved, and I am very glad indeed to note that the research council is now taking this matter up. It is well known that we have a long dry belt extending through the length of British Columbia clear down the continent, including such states as Wyoming, Idaho, eastern Washington, and some others, and in those states they are producing fine wools of very excellent quality. As an indication of how good these fine wool sheep are, let me say that at the Salt Lake ram sale, which is held annually, they sold sheep at as high a figure as two and three thousand dollars a head, and within the last few years representatives of the Russian government have come over and purchased very heavily. They had the whole world to select from and they gave the preference to the Salt Lake sale and to other western states, indicating the very marked progress that ;s being made in the breeding of these fine wool sheep. If these sheep can be bred and produced on the American side there is no reason why the same thing cannot be done on the Canadian side where the conditions are very similar.
There has been some complaint about black hair found among the wool of some of our range sheep in the west. I think that is simply a matter of breeding, and by good care that can be overcome. That black hair in the wool is probably due to the fact that without protection for our wool the breeder of sheep aims to rely on his lamb crop rather than on his wool crop, and to produce sheep

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
that will yield both wool and lamb. We might place a reasonable tariff on wool. Perhaps that is not the remedy but I certainly think the situation is serious enough to have a thorough investigation made, and a careful survey of our opportunities, a careful survey of the whole sheep and wool situation. Then 1 think we would soon come to some reasonable conclusion whereby we would place the sheep industry in Canada on a good, sound, sane basis. Our opportunities for development are simply immense along these lines. I call the attention of the government to this particular question hoping they will give it careful consideration and try to develop in this direction.


James Alexander Robb: There is no member of this
house better qualified to speak on agricultural subjects, and particularly animal husbandry, than my hon. friend the former Minister of Agriculture. He has just told us that in fifty years there has been an increase in round figures of about 100,000 sheep in Canada, and also that in British Columbia last year one farmer made a profit of about $30,000 on the sale of his lambs.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Income.


James Alexander Robb: An income of $30,000. My
hon. friend from Victoria has not gone just as far as my hon. friend from Muskoka in advocating protection. The hon. member for Victoria has apparently given some study to this, because, while he has quoted some figures from the United States, he has been careful to take the high spots and the low spots where they would suit his figures. The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario sincerely, I am satisfied, believes that greater protection would increase the interest in sheep-raising in Canada and add to our flocks. We have right alongside of us a great nation. They have tried that out and Canada might very well profit from their example. I find, for instance, that in 1886 the total production of wool in the United States was 302,000,000 pounds. In 1925, the quantity in round figures was 300,000,000 pounds, but in 1924 it was only 286,000,000 pounds, so that hon. gentlemen will observe that during that long period there has been a decrease in the production of wool in the United States.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: What is the rate of duty on wool in the United States? I know it is very high.


James Alexander Robb: I do not have it with me.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Fifteen to forty-five cents.


James Alexander Robb: I was going to say it was
pretty high. In 1900, under the farm census of the United States they had 61,504,000 sheep and in 1925 they had 35,251,000 sheep. That is a considerable drop under the tariff policy of the United States. It is true, as the hon. member for Victoria says, that from 1925 to 1926 there was some increase, because I observe that in 1926 the number was 40,748,000, but away back in 1910 they had over
61,000,000, and in 1903, 63,000,000. The numbers began to diminish yearly from that time on.


Peter McGibbon: The Minister of Finance will admit that the numbers have been going up since more protection has been given.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend pointed out
that there had been an increase of 150,000 in Canada in fifty years.


Mr. KAISER:: The element of protection has very little to do with the diminution in the number of sheep in the United States of America. With them the question is not one of tariff. We are all taught that the United States is a cotton country and the effort of the cotton growers there to displace wool in the clothing of their people produced a fierce conflict which has continued for a great number of years. This point has been brought to our attention in quite a remarkable way in the construction, for instance, of automobiles. In this country the linings of automobiles cost more than in the United States because the latter is a cotton country and they use a great deal of cotton in the upholstery of automobiles, whereas in Canada we use wool entirely.


James Alexander Robb: I do not want to interrupt
my hon. friend's argument, but he may be able to explain this. Raw cotton, like wool, comes into Canada free of duty.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Just so, but the point we wish to emphasize is simply this. From our geographical situation we have scarcely any other choice of producing the clothing of our people than from our flocks of sheep, and in any country where they are driven to provide their people with clothing from wool you will find the figures very much the reverse of those pointed out by the minister. Such countries have increased the numbers of their flocks and their efforts to produce wool in order to make clothing for their people. Canada is a wool country in general and the United States is to-day a cotton country. That explains those figures much more

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
pointedly and sanely than they can be explained from the point of view of tariff alone.
Our wool problem is not only a matter of tariff. We have for years observed many forces playing upon our people and our farmers in the direction of reducing the flocks of our country. Strange to say, a question that has often come up is that of fencing. Our fencing problem is the same as they have in any other country, and in any country where they claim their flocks are important and where they endeavour in a national way to make their flocks profitable for their people, they overcome the fencing problem. A year or two ago I heard the Minister of Finance raise in this house the question of the dog., It is strange that dogs do not* kill sheep in England, nor in New Zealand, although the dogs and the sheep are of the same type as in this country. Why is that not the case in Canada? In recent years it has been discovered beyond all question that the dog which will undertake to kill sheep has something wrong in his head; he is a crazy dog.


Some hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: All right. In Kentucky they hold trials of dogs. A dog is brought before a magistrate and if it is demonstrated beyond all shadow of doubt that he is the dog that chased or killed a sheep, there is only one penalty and that is death to the dog. In every country where they have eliminated the sheep-killing dog they soon begin to breed dogs that will not kill sheep, and if they have done that in other countries they can do it in Canada.
As the ex-Minister of Agriculture has stated, it is fundamental that the people of this country should inquire into and get at the reasons why our flocks have been reduced. We should regard our flocks as they do in other countries, as one of the finest assets we have and endeavour to increase the numbers. Let us not get it into our heads that the tariff is the only factor. Other factors enter into the question and they should all be considered, an endeavour being made to eliminate all the reasons why our flocks should not be raised up to the numbers or even the percentages they were at the time of confederation. At confederation Canada had more than one sheep per head of poulation and it takes just about one sheep per head of population to supply sufficient wool to clothe the people of a country. Until we get at least one sheep for each head of population we are behind our times and behind our privileges. To me it is amazing to read that in Nova Scotia we have more than a
million acres of land suitable for grazing and yet so few sheep are raised there, although with the wool they could raise they could provide the whole of Canada with the clothing required and be more than ten thousand miles nearer the best market for lamb and mutton than any other sheep-raising country. Yet we see countries away on the other side of the equator coming across the line and capturing a market that is ten or twelve thousand miles away. We can look at this question from a hundred different angles, but they all lead to this point, that we have not lived up to the opportunities that should present themselves to a people such as ours and a country such as this.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I confess that I, a mere professional man, am greatly interested in this wool industry. I have been frequently associated with one of the large business enterprises in western Canada, and it has been my good fortune to have expressed to me from time to time the opinion of one of the pioneer stock men of that country, Mr. P. Burns, regarding the development of our cattle and sheep industry. He has frequently told me that British Columbia, in some parts of it, is better adapted in his opinion to the production of large flocks of sheep than any other part of the country he knows. There are sections of Alberta about which the same might be said. Flocks and herds were the foundations of national wealth in the early days of history, and even until to-day a nation's wealth is measured to some considerable extent by its flocks and herds. This country at the present time has less than three million sheep; it should have not less than nine million if we are to maintain the minimum production of flocks; and having regard to the conditions that obtain here, twenty millions would not be an extravagant number of sheep to be maintained in Canada. But we have only three million, and I think it is fair that we should ask ourselves why we have so small a number. The sheep is a peculiarly profitable animal, because not only is its coat of wool valuable, but the production of mutton and lamb for food purposes may be said to be equally valuable. Under those circumstances this country has made little or no progress with respect to the development of the wool industry, and yet there is no country in the world where woollen clothing is in greater demand or is more of a staple necessity of the people. The people of the west require wool, and with the development of its population we must have large supplies of woollen garments, for without them the people really suffer in the winter. That is so practically all over
160S	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Canada. We have made, it seems to me, vain efforts to develop the woollen industry and, if you will, the mutton and lamb industry in this country. I asked the other day, for purposes of information only, what the condition of the woollen cloth mills in Canada was, and I find that there are twenty-two mills, and that this is the position:
Woollen Cloth Mills in Canada
-	Cloth mills closed down with machinery still standing	Year closed	Looms(1) Vancouver, B.C	1926	8(2) Renfrew, Ont	1927	42(3) Isle Verte, P.Q	1924	7(4) Amherst, N.S	1923	46(5) Odessa, Ont	1927	4(6) Carleton Place, Ont	1927	32(7) Pembroke, Ont	1925	40(8) Chatham, Ont	T. H. Taylor & Co	1925	30(9) Rockwood, Ont	1925	22(10) Appleton, Ont	1925	10(11) Lanark, Ont	1925	5(12) Meaford, Ont	1924	9(13) Shawvibe. P.Q	1926	2(14) Owen Sound, Ont	1926	6(15) Kingston, Ont	1924	23(16) Brownsburg, P.Q	1927	4(17) Dundas, Ont	1926	11(18) Arnprior, Ont	1927	9(19) Midland, Ont	16(20) Baltimore, Ont	3(21) Madoc, Ont	1927	. 6(21a) Toronto, Ont	Canadian Woollens, Ltd (Standard Mills)..	1921	40375That shows that there are 375 looms closed.	and the figures brought up to the week ending
If we turn to the cloth mills to ascertain the January 21, 1928, show looms operating and number of looms that are operating and idle, idle as follows: we find that there are forty-six cloth mills,
Cloth Mills Operating
Average number ol looms operated and idle during week ending Jan. 21, 1928
-	-	Looms	Operated	IdlePerth, Ont	35	20	15Toronto, Ont	130	40	90Campbellford, Ont	128	37	91Almonte, Ont	15	13	2Cape St. Ignace	6	6	Simeoe, Ont	40	40	Brantford, Ont	120	70	50Paris, Ont	120	80	40Wellesley, Ont	3	3	Way's Mills, Que	7	7Almonte, Ont	20	13	7Oxford, N.S	26	26Moncton, N.B	32	27	5St. Croix, N.S	7	7	Bracebridge, Ont	14	7	7Preston, Ont	79	51	28Warwick, Que	5	5	Merrickville, Ont	7	5	2Lindsay, Ont	12	6	gDundas, Ont	8	6	2Barrington, N.S	4	4	Chicoutimi, P.Q	6	6Glen Williams, Ont	Glen Woollen Mills...	12	8	4Sherbrooke, P.Q	20	18	2Peterboro, Ont	140	60	80996	526	470

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
That shows a total of 996 looms, of which 526 are operating and 470 are idle. That is the position for the week ending January 21, 1928. There are some eight or ten other mills from which no report could be received by the gentleman whom I asked to get this information. They have only 83 looms, however, and the information that I have given was as full as could be obtained up to that point.
Let it be borne in mind that the first twenty-two mills that I mentioned had all the machinery for preparing, scouring, dyeing, carding, spinning, weaving and finishing wool, and one-half of their capital is invested in plant for manufacturing processes up to yarn. That is an important matter to consider.
I have given this house a list of the woollen mills in Canada. I have shown the condition of the industry on the 21st day of January last, the number of looms idle and the number operating, and in addition, as I said, there are eighty-three looms from which no report was received. Of the number of mills I gave, one-half, practically the first twenty-two mills mentioned, are employed in making use of all processes that convert wool into cloth. They have all the spinning and other machinery that goes with such an industry.
Now what does this tariff propose to do? This tariff, first of all, proposes that machinery shall come in free. I observe that in their submission to the tariff board the French industry strongly urge that French machinery should come in free, and I observe the same with respect to the British industry. That machinery is now to come in free to compete with men who have hundreds of millions of dollars invested in machinery in their industry. It will be a direct incentive to induce people to come in and destroy existing capital in this country. Whatever else may be said by hon. gentlemen opposite, however, strong may be their views with respect to matters of this kind, no less an authority than Adam Smith has pointed out that where you have vested industry established under those circumstances, care should be taken not to destroy the industry. But free machinery is to come in under these tariff proposals.
Then you have free yarns. Who are bene-fitting by this? It means, first of all, that the machinery now engaged in the production of yarns will become idle. You ask, why should that be so? Cannot Canadian industrial enterprise produce yarns quite as cheaply and quite as readily as can the Bradford and other English mills? With respect to that I can only point out that the evidence given to the tariff board, to which I alluded the other day, and from which I should like to read were it
not needlessly taking up the time of the committee, abundantly establishes that under the conditions there obtaining, unless we pay our people a wage on which they cannot live and lower their standard of living to a point that is unendurable, it is impossible for us to compete with them. Who that read the report the other day of the socal service board with respect to child mortality in this country would desire to lower the standard of living in Canada to a level lower than now obtains? I do not think any hon. gentleman would desire to do that. Yet unless we are prepared to do it we must face the fact that placing this yarn upon the free list means that these looms will become idle, and that the capital therein invested will become unproductive and therefore, will be destroyed. I have in my hand the issue of February 22, 1928, of the Textile Argus, published in Bradford. This paper, of course, points out the singular fact to which I alluded the other day.
The changes announced last week by the Canadian Finance minister in tariffs affecting the imports of yarns and fully manufactured goods into Canada would be read with peculiar interest in Bradford. It will be recalled that last year the Canadian manufacturers applied to the tariff board for a revision of import duties which would give them greater protection, and the matter was considered to be of such importance to the trade of Bradford and the West Riding that the West Riding chambers of commerce sent out Mr. J. H. C. Hodgson and the West Riding Manufacturers' Federation, Mr. George H. Wood to place before the tariff board carefully considered reasons why the duties should not be increased. Those who are familiar with the evidence submitted by these two witnesses will realize that they have made an impression on the powers that be in the Dominion, and that their mission to Ottawa last June has been fully justified. There are to be no increased duties on yarns or finished goods. The assistance which the Canadian government is giving to the Canadian manufacturers is to be secured in another and a more acceptable way. A very substantial proportion of the yarns used in Canada has to be imported, and the existing duty on British yarns is to be abolished. Owing to the dry atmosphere in Canada it is impossible to spin yarns there at all comparable with West Riding yarns, and the fact that the latter are to be free will no doubt increase yarn exports from this country to the Dominion.
With respect to that one observation, may I venture further to point out that the memoranda submitted to the tariff board by the British and French textile manufacturers are, one would say, not intended perhaps to influence public opinion, and yet they in terms state that in their view no case has been made out. For instance, with regard to one of these matters that is dealt with in the tariff, that is the duties on cut pile fabrics of mohair, wool,
1610	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
and so on, being raised from 17i to 27J per cent, I read again in the issue of February 29, 1928, of the Textile Argus the following:
As this is rather at variance with the general principle of the revisions, it has caused some surprise, and protesting cables have been sent to Ottawa by private firms and also a joint protest from the Bradford and Huddersfield chambers of commerce. One private cable reads: Astonished to hear British cut pile fabrics of wool, mohair and alpaca are included under general wool tariff, thus raising duties by 10 per cent. This applies to mantle cloths and dress goods as well as furnishing fabrics. We submit that cut pile fabrics for dress goods wear are not manufactured in Canada. New change results in penalizing British manufacturers by reducing preference.
I doubt not that the minister may read to us to-night some of the cables he has received with reference to that matter. I believe this house represents the commonsense of the people of Canada, and that if possible, they desire to develop a woollen industry in the Dominion. I take it there is no gentleman, whether he is a protectionist, a free-trader, or anything else, that does not desire to have established in Canada by some means or other a strong, vigorous woollen textile industry. Ike need it. We should not be dependent upon other people for our supplies of wool or w'ool yarns; we should be in a position, if circumstances over which we have no control arise to interfere with our marine communications, where we have sheep sufficient to produce woo! to meet the demands upon our manufacturers by our people to supply them with clothing as well as with food.
Now, some of my friends think the woollen manufacturer desires an abnormal profit. I was very much struck by some of the observations I heard in the house, and I wrote to one of our leading textile manufacturers with reference to this matter. Let me quote his words:
I am satisfied with one cent a pair profit on footwear. Suppose I sell for 37J cents a pair, why should the same retail at 75 cents? kt e do not get it. It is the spread between us and the consumer.
Then he proceeds,
If I make a dollar a suit profit for the best cloth which can be bought for $15 to $16, say $20 trimmings included, and which when made up will sell for sixty or seventy dollars, I am satisfied.
Now, under those circumstances most of us, I think, had a strong hope that a tariff board, set up and properly equipped, would ascertain the facte and make a report to the Minister of Finance for submission to this house, that would enable every hon. member to conclude what would be necessary to be done to secure
IMr. Bennett.]
this industry to the Dominion. My observation has been, even when talking privately to some of my friends opposite, that they share with me a desire to establish a strong Canadian woollen industry. But they say: This protection, Mr. Bennett, is absurd. When I ask them why, they say:	Well, it is too
much to expect that an industry should be protected to such an extent, and it will mean that the country will be exploited by the manufacturers. That is the stock answer given. Against that there is the statement of the manufacturer to me, that he will be satisfied with a profit of a cent a pair on woollen socks. Would any man deny that as a reasonable profit? Says this manufacturer : Give me only a dollar profit on any suit I produce, and I am satisfied. That cannot under any circumstances, be said to be exploitation.
Then what should the minister have given to us? He has revised this schedule; he has put yam upon the free list. That is done at the instance of people wfio do not live in Canada, and it gratifies them because it means their looms will work while ours are idle. I do not yield to any man in my regard for the mother country and for the people who live there, but my first concern as a legislator must always be this country-Canada.	I am untrue to my position if my first concern is not Canada. And if I find looms working in Bradford and idle in Almonte, and the reason is in the action taken by this parliament, to which action I am a party, I have been untrue to this country. That is my submission to my friends opposite.
Now, is it a fact that our looms are idle? I have mentioned that more than half of the looms we have in this country are idle, and that there is increased activity in the looms of other countries by reason of the legislation the minister is putting on the statute books. If this be so, we have failed lamentably to discharge our duties as Canadians. I say it without offence, and I ask my friends opposite if it is not true. If we can protect our people against exploitation, and at the same time develop the woollen industry of Canada, if we can increase our flocks-which have been the foundation of national wealth since the days of Abraham-then let us do it. We cannot lower the standard of wages nor the type of living of our people, and we live in a cold country where woollen clothing is necessary. Is it beyond the reach of Canadian statesmen to attain this end? Is it beyond their capacity to accomplish this object? Let us for a moment forget these shibboleths of the past, let us forget the

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
terms, free trade, protection, low tariff, high tariff, with which, as the Minister of Finance said in Winnipeg, we play at election times; let us forget them and recall to our minds that we are concerned with the fate of a great Canadian industry that is threatened with absolute destruction. Not in its entirety- they will all tell you that-because those of our mills that have always beenl importing yarns will be able to do better than they ever did but the mill that has a million dollars invested in machinery to spin woollen yarns will find that machinery idle, while its owner will have the melancholy satisfaction of seeing a corresponding activity, three thousand miles away, in the spinning machinery of another country. That is the duty of Canadian statesmen that is the duty of any Canadian government-to conserve Canadian industry.
This tariff seems to have been moulded by the woollen manufacturers of Bradford and Huddersfield and the textile manufacturers of France rather than by Canadians for Canadians. I concede the right of every man who may be affected to present his views to a tariff board whether in this or any other country. 1 recall that when the cattle embargo was in force against us during the war it was discussed by Canadians in England, certain representations having been made at the time which we contended should be oarried into effect. As I say, I concede the right of interested parties to express their opinions as they see fit. But it is the duty of any man occupying the position I hold, without power to change or modify in any respect the schedules now under consideration, to indicate the danger to which the country is exposed. I know it is futile to appeal to the minister to change his schedules, and in any event, if he does determine upon any change, he does so in compliance with the views of his supporters behind him; and then seeks to blame us on this side for the simple reason that such a procedure makes better reading for the manufacturers. But does the Minister of Finance really believe that anyone is deceived by that sort of thing? Let me assure him, Mr. Chairman, that picayune, peanut politics of this description is precisely the thing that discredits the action of any minister in charge of tariff revision. The idea of saying to a free parliament, after striking out an item the other evening because some of his supporters told him he had to do so, " the opposition must shoulder the responsibility!" Having acted on the request of his own supporters, he turns to us and says, " You are to -blame; go and tell your friends the manufacturers what you have done Is not 56103-103
that sort of thing calculated to make parliament a byword among the people? Everyone saw the play and understood it. Who was deceived? No one, and least of all the people most vitally affected.
I presume it is too late to endeavour to induce the minister to alter or change his plans, but at least we can point out the facts and place the responsibility where it belongs. We can place the responsibility on the government of the day-a government which is not at all concerned about the development of this great industry but which, apparently, is bent upon pleasing people who reside far distant from here, yielding to the importunities and demands made upon it, as indicated in the Textile Argus and elsewhere. It is much easier for the government to do this than courageously to say, as they said in the United States, "We intend to impose high tariffs for the moment in order to encourage the industry and put it on its feet. We intend to control the situation and as circumstances change we shall be able to modify our tariff to suit those changing conditions". At any rate, we on this side shall have to content ourselves with pointing out the facts and leaving the responsibility with those who have incurred it for the state of affairs to which I have made reference and which is reflected in the census taken during the first three weeks of January of this year, in anticipation of the very action that has been taken.
It is not a pleasant thing for one to have to speak in this way with respect to these items under consideration; it is not pleasant to contemplate the injustice which will result from legislation thus enacted. It is all very well to say that free yarns will mean cheaper goods. But I would remind my hon. friend the Minister of Finance that utter dependence upon others operating great distances away has been the undoing of every state of importance; at any rate it has been the ruin of all the states of which I have read in history. Copper is an illustration: what is happening to-day in regard to that industry? What was the state of affairs during the war in relation to copper and zinc? Before the United States went into the war they were able to say to the nations of the world, "There is our price; you pay it or die". Is it worth while to have this country independent? Is it worth while to raise it to the level of sheer independence and make its people economically free? We did this during the war. We entered into a contract with the late Lord Rhondda by which it was agreed that a higher price by a half cent per pound should be paid us for copper

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
for war purposes if we would develop our copper industry. The United States then raised the price of zinc to 44 cents a pound; that was their answer, before they came into the war, to the assertion of economic independence on the part of the empire and its allies. And in the woollen industry-upon which our life depends in winter-shall we be dependent or independent? Shall we raise vast flocks of sheep, nine, ten, twenty millions, or shall we continue to import mutton from New Zealand? That is the question. With the greatest markets open to us, shall we extend our foreign trade or not? You say it does not require a tariff? I say it requires the use of every tool or implement that parliament has at hand to safeguard the industry. To me it is perfectly indifferent whether it be a tariff, a bonus, a bounty, a drawback or an export duty; I insist that we use the instruments we have for one purpose and one purpose only, namely, to make this country economically independent. Failure to do this is failure to grasp the opportunities that 'Providence has given us. Is it not a disgrace that a country such as this should be content to raise three million sheep? Those with whom I have discussed the matter understand quite well that in the great reaches of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, in the far west, in the prairie provinces and in British Columbia, a very considerable industry could be developed if we had the courage. And this country has the courage. I say to the Minister of Finance that if only he would take his courage in his hands those who sit behind him would rally to his support, because although, by profession, they are free traders in the west, in practice they are ready to utilize every instrument or tool that can be pressed into service to make this country great and strong. I am sure that if hon. gentlemen opposite thoroughly appreciated the situation, if the facts were properly put before them by the tariff board and by the minister, so that they could draw their inferences as well as he, they would understand the importance of the industry and be prepared to support it. I can only content myself with protesting against these measures which threaten the economic independence of the country and spell ruin to millions of capital invested in the manufacture of yarns in Canada.


Edward Joseph Garland: I do not
propose to deal with this matter at great length, but I must congratulate the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) on the eloquent plea he has just made. I have heard him on many occasions but rarely has he been in such
fMr. Bennett.]
excellent form and apparently so logical. Let me say, however, that in my opinion he destroyed the force of his speech by the last statement or two he made. The opinion he expressed is one he sincerely holds and believes in, but the idea that it is possible to make any nation economically independent is madness; it is a fallacy of the crassest kind. We can no more make Canada economically independent than the United States has been able to make the United States economically independent. It is a dream, the phantasy of a mind warped by convictions sincerely held in the wrong direction.
The leader of the opposition spoke about the destruction of this industry and he used several other trenchant phrases to emphasize the disaster which was rapidly overtaking it. Now there may be depression in the woollen industry; I sincerely believe there has been some depression in the last two years. But may I point out something that has been so far overlooked. So far as I have been able to ascertain-and in this regard I am rather slightly better able to know what I am talking about-women to-day do not wear wool, or they wear as little as possible. I happened to be travelling in eastern Canada last November and I visited some splendid woollen mills in the maritime provinces. In the Moncton mill I found that the manufacturers were more and more turning their attention to the manufacture of rayon mixtures. It is the introduction of rayon and artificial silks and material of that kind which attracts the ladies-I do not blame them-that has operated against the past profits of the woollen industry. That is one point that has not yet been noted. I do not think it can be stressed too heavily and it is one factor that has rather tended to lower the profits of these companies. But I would say this to the leader of the opposition and to those on his side who are so deeply concerned in this matter. I can produce proof to this house to-night that the woollen industry in Canada is not in bad shape, that it is not suffering seriously and that it is not likely to be destroyed. The best proof I can find is the action which has just been taken by one of the British woollen manufacturers, who has declared his intention to tear down his entire plant in Bradford, to which city my hon. friend referred, and bring the plant to Canada to manufacture wool here. What is his reason? The reason is that the woollen industry in this country is in good condition, and is making money. In to-night's Ottawa Citizen I find a Canadian press cable from Bradford, England, under date of March 22, as follows:

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
John Moore, woollen manufacturer, has decided to dismantle his mills here and transfer his woollen industry to Victoria. B.O.
I congratulate my friend the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie).
In this connection the Yorkshire Post, the chief organ of the Yorkshire woollen industry, says:	_
"There were dismal pictures of the Canadian woollen industry presented to the tariff board at Ottawa

We have had more of those pictures tonight.
-when the manufacturers asked for further protection. One need only to refer to the balance sheets of several Canadian manufacturers to see their exceedingly healthy condition. The new woollen business for Victoria is being treated in an exceedingly generous spirit by that municipality.	_
Among the common advantages to British manufacturers starting in Canada are: Ridiculously low taxation compared with the taxation in Great Britain; electricity a comparatively cheap form of industrial power, and Canada's enjoyment of an enviable freedom from industrial disputes."
I think that one despatch alone should be sufficient answer to hon. gentlemen to my right. The future of the woollen industry is assured so far as the future of any industry can be assured, but that industry cannot continue to live if something better takes its place; it will go if something better comes along. If the .people want to buy more silk, rayon or real silk, no protection we can possibly give and no system of bonusing we could possibly introduce could maintain any industry on such an artificial basis.


Mr. LAPIERRE:: In the course of his remarks the leader of the opposition gave us a list of woollen mills which had gone out of business, or which had ceased manufacturing cloth. Anyone connected with the woollen business knows that under the conditions obtaining in this country our woollen manufacturers cannot produce cloth in competition with that manufactured in England and Scotland. Serges made of Canadian wool have not been used to any great extent by the people of this country. As a matter of fact, imong those mills which have been men-ioned by the leader of the opposition are some that went into the business during the war, when prices were at their peak; when prices became normal these mills found that they could no longer continue.
Another reason why our Canadian cloth mills cannot compete with English mills i3 the rapid change of prices. Our small mills could only manufacture staples; when they went into fancy goods they could not compete with the English mills because of their small production. Our styles are changing 56103-1031
more and more every day, and the same thing applies to our hosiery business, as the hon. member for Bow River has stated. There has been a complete transformation of the woollen business; rayon has become the substitute for wool, and rayon combined with cotton is replacing wool all over the world Hon. gentlemen must have read a despatch which appeared in the papers a few days ago stating that certain rayon manufacturers in England distributed $60,000,000 in dividends among their shareholders, and that business has only been in existence for the last four or five years. It is also a fact that Courtauld's have established a rayon factory in Canada and that their business is continually expanding. It must also be remembered that the production of wool in the United States is continually diminishing.
There is still a further reason why the woollen industry is suffering. With improved machinery, cotton to-day is 'being combed to resemble wool, and is replacing woollen blankets and many other articles. Even our household furnishings are now largely composed of rayon and cotton, so when hon. gentlemen opposite attribute the depression in the woollen business to changes in the tariff they are far from the mark. I believe the minister has taken the right stand; he is going to allow those woollen manufacturers who now have obsolete machinery to bring in modern machinery which will combine the rayon with wool and cotton, which are the articles sold in the trade to-day.


Mr. EDWARDS (Waterloo):: What factories have obsolete machinery in the woollen business?


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: A great deal of the
machinery used on strictly woollen goods is behind the times to-day.


Alexander McKay Edwards: No. You do. not know what you are talking about.


Air. YOUNG ( Weyburn):: Mr. Chairman, I believe the leader of the opposition has not quite expressed our position with regard to this woollen business. We do not begrudge the woollen manufacturer his cent profit on a pair of socks, nor do we begrudge him a profit of one dollar on the cloth going into a suit. As I understand it, hon. gentlemen opposite advocate a duty on raw wool, which would increase the price of the raw material used by the woollen manufacturer. If we increase the price of his raw material he must of necessity increase the price of his finished article. My hon. friend from Bow River and the hon. member for Nipissing have pointed out that to-day the tendency is more in the
1614	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
direction of substitutes for wool such as cotton, rayon or silk, and every increase in the price of wool will accelerate that movement. So if you put a duty on wool, or increase the duty, you might help the cotton industry, the rayon industry or the silk industry, but you will strangle the woollen industry.


Peter McGibbon: In answer to the hon.
member for Bow River and the hon. member for Nipissing, I might say that their arguments are rather peculiar. The hon. member for Bow River reads a newspaper article as an authority against the absolute fact that mills are shut down and have been shut down all over the country for years. A newspaper article, I presume, is a much better authority than the actual fact. As far as the hon. member for Nipissing is concerned, it is quite evident that he has not given much study to this question. In the first place he states that a large number of these industries which have failed were started during the war, while as a matter of fact a number of industries which have been put out of business were previously in existence for over half a century.


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: They increased their output during the war.


Peter McGibbon: But now they are out
of business altogether because of the tariff reductions by this government.


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: If they were making these goods before the war they were using antiquated machinery.


Peter McGibbon: They did not have
antiquated machinery, and they do not need to take any lessons in their business from the hon. member for Nispissing.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: I had not intended to say anything on this question, Mr. Chairman, but we have heard so much about sheep and the woollen industry that I think it might be well to make a few observations at this time. We have been told that there should be 25,000,000 sheep in this country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said 10,000,000, one for each person.


Malcolm McLean: Well, whether it be 10,000,000, 30,000,000 or 50,000,000, a few million between friends is neither here nor there.


Robert James Manion: In Australia there are 97,000,000 sheep.


Malcolm McLean: I will come to
Australia in a moment; that country is a long way from Canada. It is true that Canada consumes a great deal of wool, and it is also
IMr. E. J. Young.]
true that Australia is better located for the production of fine grades of wool than are we in Canada. Australia has a very moderate climate for the growing of sheep and can produce smaK-bodied, thin-fleshed sheep, with a high grade of wool. Canada being a cold country with heavy brush lands, the conditions require sheep of sturdier frame and heavier flesh to enable them to stand the conditions, and these sheep produce a coarser wool than the sheep of Australia. It is not a question of duty at all. If it were, what would the 27,000,000 of sheep in Great Britain do? There they thrive without protection and without tariffs. They are able to do so because of climatic conditions, and the fact that the soil is of a character adapted to the profitable raising of sheep.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And there is a market
for mutton.


Malcolm McLean: Quite so. There is a market for mutton in Great Britain, and that country takes a good deal of mutton as well as wool from Australia. It is better, however, when the mutton market is close at hand. But the principal reason why they are able to produce so many sheep in Great Britain is that the climate and the soil suit the industry. On the other hand, the farmer in Canada has to feed his sheep during the long cold winter. It is an exceptional thing indeed for sheep to be fed in Great Britain. It is true that the lambs are brought down from the hills on to the arable lands in the low country for the winter; and some of the old breeding stock has to be taken from the highlands down on to the lowlands, and fed during that time. Without artificial feeding and under the conditions I have mentioned one can easily see how cheap it is to produce sheep. In this country our wide open spaces have been pre-empted. I do not suppose there is to-day a vacant sheep range in the province of Alberta, or in any other province probably outside of British Columbia. I admit there are some spots in British Columbia where it is likely that sheep could be ranged in large numbers yet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Without winter feeding?


Malcolm McLean: Possibly without winter feeding, but climatic conditions are severe on the uplands even in British Columbia. As I say, there are places in British Columbia where sheep could be ranged in approximately large numbers but nothing like ten, twenty or thirty millions and yet make the enterprise profitable for those engaged in it. The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Kaiser) told us the other night about trying

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
to induce certain wealthy men to engage in the business, and he stated that he had failed in the endeavour. I do not wonder at it. Sheep growers will not make a lot of money under present conditions in ranging great bunches of sheep on the still vacant lands in Canada.
Just a word about economic independence. I suppose that if the people of Canada were willing to tax themselves sufficiently in order to grow cotton, they might make themselves independent of cotton-either cotton cloth, guncotton, or the other fabrics of which cotton is the basis. The same with the production of citrus and tropical fruits. We have the soil and the fuel. Why do not we produce citrus fruits?


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Did I understand the hon.
gentleman to say that I was endeavouring to get wealthy men to put their money into sheep-raising?


Malcolm McLean: I understood the hon. member to say that he had endeavoured to get wealthy men to put their money into the raising of angora goats.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: There was no talk about
sheep-raising at all.


An hon. MEMBER:: Goat-getting.


Malcolm McLean: I believe that
there have been men who have invested their money in goat-getting but there are some portions of the country where it does not work well. It is impossible as the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) pointed out, to have economic independence, and I think Adam Smith would be the first one to admit it if he were living to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was speaking for the
moment, of economic independence in the woollen industry for the purpose of illustrating my other points.


John Evans: Looking at these schedules, and comparing this item with items 553 and 554, it shows an utter lack of policy on the part of the government. They have neither a tariff for revenue policy nor a consistent policy of protection. Items 553 and 554 are carrying the highest rate of duty in the tariff schedule, 35 per cent. But here we have relieved the manufacturer in the matter of raw materials. Again we have lowered our revenue without any corresponding benefit for the consumer. That is inconsistent. It shows that the government has not followed either policy consistently. It has, however, shown consistent obedience to the group that controls that side of the house to-day. It has shown
itself to be a class government. We have plenty of evidence in the treatment of the two items alluded to, and there is no other conclusion to draw than the one which I have drawn. The manufacturer is relieved altogether of paying any revenue under the customs tariff, and the government has seen fit to place the whole burden of protection to-day on the class that has borne it hitherto, the class that has to sell its products in the open markets of the world. I say that the whole policy of protection to-day is laid on the sweated labour of the homesteader, and that of his wife and children. It is inconsistent, and it shows a callous disregard of the rights of other classes. The farmer needs no protection to raise sheep, and protection has been an utter failure for the mills of this country That has been shown by the leader of the opposition. Neither farmer nor manufacturer can prosper under protection. If Canada is going to be economically prosperous the whole thing will depend upon the cost of production, because much as they may try to argue otherwise the prosperity of every industry to-day in Canada depends on the basic industry of the country. And in what condition is that basic industry placed? It has to produce under a protective policy and sell in the open markets of the world. I ask if any man to-day can say that is reasonable, or that this tariff has shown itself to be in any form a scientific tariff. I wonder if the Minister of Finance can spell that word? I wonder if the free traders from Saskatchewan, or the country west of the great lakes, know the meaning of a scientific tariff? What does the Consumers League say to this?


An hon. MEMBER:: Who are they?


John Evans: I see them represented on the other side of the house. Have they considered this situation? There is an utter disregard here on the part of the government of those who are to-day providing the biggest part of the income of this country. The policy which the leader of the opposition has propounded to-night is useless. It is an economic failure, The farmer needs no protection; the mills have failed under it. The cost of living has to do with production in this country. The leader of the opposition touched another point to-night in the tremendous spread which exists between the costs to the manufacturer, or the price which he receives, and what the consumer has to pay. Not only has there been hitherto, as there is to-day, too wide a difference, between the producer and the consumer, but the schedules of the tariff which we are now considering are favourable not
1616	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
only to manufacturers but to distributors and there are certain other measures which distinctly make that difference wider. This is not as it should be. The minister should consider this item further; he should let it stand in order to see if he cannot bring the raw material and the finished product closer on the tariff list. Surely any reasonable man, any man that has in him anything of British fair play, will see the unreasonableness of the attitude of the government towards those who are to-day making the biggest part of the income of the nation, who, I repeat, are still the homesteader and his family.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: The discussion on the wool item has taken rather a wide range and we are discussing under item number 549 practically all the wool items. Perhaps this may have the effect of shortening the discussion in the end. There is only one aspect of the wool business with which I am particularly concerned and that is in respect to the removal of the duty from woollen yarns, number forty and finer, which are manufactured to a large extent by an important firm in the riding which I have the honour to represent.
Until the present budget introduced by the Minister of Finance, worsted yarns were entitled to a protection of 12i per cent from Great Britain, 17i per cent on the intermediate tariff, and 22$ per cent on the general tariff; but as all worsted yarns which are imported come from Great Britain, we are not concerned very much with either the intermediate or the general tariff. The protection against worsted yams coming from Great Britain has now been removed, and they have been placed upon the free list. The result as regards the industry which I have in mind will be, I think, practically to close it up. It is an industry engaged altogether in the spinning of worsted yarns. There is, in connection with the woollen schedules in the customs tariff, a bit of history which perhaps it would be well to remember. The first tariff by a Liberal government-I do not mean away back in the days of Alexander Mackenzie, but in the Laurier-Fielding regime-was introduced into this house in 1S97. I think no change was made in the then existing duties on woollens, but there was in that tariff a provision which had a great effect upon the trade. For the first time Mr. Fielding introduced the British preference, granting for the first year, I think a discount of 12$ per cent; for the second year 25 per cent, and in the year 1900 the preference was increased to 33^ per cent. I well remember in the year 1902 going with a deputation of woollen men
*^lr. Evans.]
who came to Ottawa to interview Mr. Fielding, who was at that time Minister of Finance. They objected that the reduction of one-third of the tariff in favour of Great Britain brought about a situation under which they could not compete. Mr. Fielding took a reasonable and business-like view of the situation. He said' that he would have an inquiry made at once into the whole question, and within the next two years an inquiry was held and a report made to Mr. Fielding. As a result of that inquiry and report there will be found in' the Tariff Act of 1904 a clause that manufactured woollen goods-I am not now talking of yams-should enjoy a net protection of thirty per cent, notwithstanding any preferences, and the woollen trade enjoyed a protection of 30 per cent net from that day until the year 1923. Under a protection of 30 per cent the woollen trade prospered in Canada.
Prior to that time all worsted yarns came in free; but it was felt not only among the trade but among the good people of Canada in general that if we were able in this country to produce a very creditable cloth, a splendid woven cloth, it was strange that we' did not complete the fabrication; that we did not go back to the basis and make the yarns. If they could do it in England or in other countries, we could do it in Canada, so a deputation again called on Mr. Fielding and I again accompanied them. We met Mr. Fielding, the late Mr. Paterson and the late Sir Richard Cartwright, and my recollection is that His Honour, the present Speaker, was one of the ministers who received us. They laid their case before Mr. Fielding for the manufacture of worsted yarns in Canada. He' heard them patiently; he considered the whole situation, and I think he again ordered an inquiry. My recollection is that he sent someone over to Bradford to make a full inquiry into conditions which prevailed there with the idea of ascertaining why, if they could successfully make yarns in Bradford, we could not do the same thing in Canada. At all events in the session of 1907, when the main Fielding tariff was introduced into this parliament, Mr. Fielding granted the worsted yam manufacturers a tariff of 12^ per cent British preference, 17i per cent intermediate and 20 per cent general. Why did he do this? He did it in order to start the yarn industry in Canada. A number of mills which were in the habit of weaving cloths, immediately installed machinery to spin worsted yarn.
Worsted yarn, as a matter of fact, cannot or has not been made solely of Canadian wool. Canadian wool is not considered fine enough

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
to make the finer qualities of worsted yam. A percentage of it is used for that purpose. Some mill men tell me they use 15 per cent; others have told me they use as high as 20 per cent; but I think 15 per cent would probably be a fair average, and the rest of the raw yarn is imported, mixed with the Canadian yam and spun in the Canadian mills. Almost all the woven cloth manufacturers have established spinning plants in their own works. One or two have not done so, but in my riding a very extensive plant exists which does not make cloth, which exists only upon the spinning of worsted yams which it sells to manufacturers of cloth, ladies' garments, carpets, automobile interiors, plushes and the like. It is absolutely dependent upon that trade. It employs over 200 hands. It uses, say, 15 per cent of Canadian wool and 85 per cent of imported wool. All the preliminary processes are gone through in the Canadian mill-the scouring, the picking, the carding, the gilling, the spinning and the twisting-and while it is not altogether male labour that is employed in that work, the largest proportion of the employees are heads of families. This mill has been in operation since about the year 1907 or 1908, and it has gradually worked up a satisfactory and extensive business in Canada. It was started when the Liberal tariff of 1907 was passed by this house, giving a 12,1 per cent protection as against the importation of yarns from Great Britain. Why cannot this industry exist without that protection, may be asked, and what does the protection amount to? It cannot exist without protection because of the difference between the wages paid in Bradford, England, and the wages paid in Guelph, Canada, where this mill is situated. I notice that there is a difference between the statements made in regard to wages by the representatives of the Bradford and Huddersfield mills and the representatives of the Canadian mills. If you will read the statements that were made before the tariff board, you will note that the Canadian mill men say that the difference is as between sixty cents and one dollar; that is, that when sixty cents is paid in Bradford for wages, one dollar is paid in Canada. Some of them put it at fifty-nine cents, others at sixty cents. But the representatives from Yorkshire, who desire to gain the Canadian market for their own goods, say that the difference is as between $1 and $1.37. But whoever may be 'correct, the duty is only 12j per cent-not very much protection is it, Mr. Minister?
Now what does that duty amount to in regard to the cloth manufactured from worsted yams? To-day one pound of worsted yam
sells in Bradford at $1.25 and a 12-J per cent duty on that would make a duty of about sixteen cents a pound. One pound of that yarn goes to a yard of cloth. One manufacturer said you can average it at one and one-eighth pounds to the yard, but for my purposes one pound is easier to figure. Taking three and one-half yards of woven cloth to one suit of clothes, the protection amounts to about 56 cents on the yam that goes into a suit of clothes. That suit will retail at forty or fifty or sixty dollars, and 56 cents is the amount of protection on the yam in that suit. Yet that protection keeps hundreds and hundreds of men, and women too, working in the Dominion of Canada. The amount of duty involved is so small, so negligible, that it has no effect whatever upon the ultimate price which is charged for that suit of clothes. In the letter read by my hon. leader to-night a manufacturer states that if he could get a profit of one dollar a suit he would be satisfied. I know manufacturers in the county of Waterloo who say that if they could get fifty cents a suit they would be satisfied. Ten or twelve cents a yard they count as their profit on many lines of materials. Now is the duty of 56 cents on a forty or fifty or sixty dollar suit of clothes a burden on the people? I will tell the minister that it is not nearly as great a burden as is the sales tax. He has kept the three per cent sales tax on the sixty dollar suit. That is about three times as much as the customs duty, if the duty is to be considered a tax. This is the proposal of the Finance minister who succeeded Mr. Fielding, who established the worsted spinning industry in Canada by his tariff. These men were encouraged to invest their money in this industry in Canada, and they have invested tremendous amounts. I do not know whether there are other mills exclusively engaged in manufacturing worsted yarns as is the mill in Guelph, but I know that it has received a blow from which it is doubtful if it can recover. Already orders are being cancelled, and where are they being placed? They are being placed in Bradford. One-third of the output of the Guelph factory goes where? .To the Oriental Company in Oshawa, for plush for automobiles. They will not buy Canadian worsted yam in the future. They are going to buy it in Bradford now that it has been placed on the free list. I grant that the Oriental Company are going to be directly benefited to some extent by this proposal of the minister, but on the other hand it is a tremendous injury to the worsted spinning industry, which was established under the Liberal tariff of 1907.

Ways and Means*-Customs Tariff
I am not as hopeless of changing the minister's opinion on this matter as is my hon. leader. He seemed to think there was no chance of doing so, but I think that when the facts are fairly placed before the minister he will appreciate the difficulty and provide a remedy.
There are only one or two cloth mills in this country that are going to be benfited. I am told there is only one cloth mill that does not make worsted yarns. It has no machinery for making worsted yarns, and no doubt it will be directly benefited. They are also going to get a benefit in another respect under this tariff, because they have machinery there for making dry spun yams or French yarns, and French yarns are to have a duty of 10 per cent to which I offer no objection whereas the worsted yams are to be put on the free list. The manufacturers of worsted yams are being most unfairly treated in this matter. The minister by his proposal is penalizing some fifty or sixty factories in Canada which have been built up under a 12J per cent protection. With one stroke of the pen he has wiped out their only protection.
Mr. Chairman, I for one resent what I call the direct interference of the Yorkshire woollen mill men in this tariff application. I have no objection to their filing a brief, nor even to their appearing and making representations, particularly if they are asked to do so by the board, but when we have practically the whole woollen trade of the north of England coming here and demanding a hearing, filing their briefs, making their statements and examining witnesses, I think it is time to make a change in the procedure. In addition to that, as recently as to-day or yesterday, we find these same Yorkshire yam manufacturers cabling the Finance department objecting to this tariff item or approving of the other item, and I see in part of the despatch which my hon. leader read to this committee to-night these significant words which he omitted to read:
Dress goods manufacturers are very pleased indeed with the reduction made in the scale applicable to piece goods.
Then follows the sentence to which I particularly wish to draw attention:
Spinners are none the less satisfied that woollen and worsted yarns excepting for carpets are now free of duty.
I ask my hon. friend the Minister of Finance whether his present proposal is made in the interests of the Yorkshire mill owners or of the Canadian industry. For my part I adopt the language of my hon. leader in this regard. When it comes to a question as between Cana-

dian workmen and Yorkshire workmen, I am for the Canadian workmen every time. But the direct interference by the Yorkshire mill owners in the Canadian customs tariff, their continued interference in this respect, their cabling of their approval or disapproval of this, that, or the other item, leads one to believe that they have had too much to say in fixing the woollen tariff schedules for the Dominion of Canada. I believe that the case of our worsted spinners is so strong that the government will remedy it. It will cause no hardship to the people of Canada, no burden will have to be -borne. I remember the words which the minister used in introducing his budget, that one of the considerations which weighed on his mind was that in this country the people must have warm clothing. Give them warm clothing, plenty of it; give them the relief I am asking him to give, the $1.50 off a suit of clothes in the sales tax, but allow those good work people in this country -who for ten, fifteen or twenty years have been brought up to this trade and know no other-to continue in this employment as heretofore.
Mr. WOOD'SWORTH:	Mr. Chairman, I
want to join in a word of protest against the rather loose statements of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). He declared very strongly against the use in this house of slogans and shibboleths, but I fancy no one is guilty of their use more frequently than he himself. That phrase, economic independence for Canada, may sound very well with regard to this woollen manufacture. The picture was drawn of our producing all our own sheep, [DOT]manufacturing the wool, finding a home market for the mutton, then wearing the woollen cloth, and so on. But I ask: Is that principle capable of being generally applied? What about the cotton industry-does the leader of the opposition intend to grow cotton in Canada? iSurely his arguments for economic independence mean that we would have to develop a cotton-growing industry. Does he mean to establish rubber plantations in Canada? We have a very considerable rubber manufacture in this country. No, no; I would suggest to my hon. friends that they do a little clear thinking. I cannot use words more apt than those employed by the leader of the opposition, directing them to himself and his followers: Do not let us get carried away by these things. What about financial independence? We are begging to get financial assistance from outside,-and yet we are told that we ought to try to secure economic independence. We are trying our very best to

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
establish American factories or turn over our existing factories to international trusts. Again I ask, what about economic independence? I suggest that in considering affairs of this kind we keep a little bit nearer to the realities, and not talk quite so much for the gallery- as some are inclined to do.


An hon. MEMBER:: iSit down.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, I am not going to sit down. I should just like to repeat some words that are very freely used by certain hon. gentlemen who undertake to censure all the other members of the house, and adopt a very superior attitude in doing so. I could not but think, for example, of the curious situation of the one Conservative member in the three prairie provinces undertaking to interpret the spirit of the west! If one of us did anything of that kind you can imagine the ridicule that would be poured upon us; but the hon. gentleman who leads the opposition presumes to be in a class by himself.
He says dramatically, "is it a fact?" And so on. He has read us a letter-an anonymous letter, although I have no doubt of the good faith of the writer-in which we are told that he, the writer, would be satisfied with only one cent profit for a pair of socks, and with one dollar profit for a suit. Now, I would ask: Is it a fact that the manufacturers of this country have received a profit of only one cent a pair for socks? Is it a fact that they have received a profit of only one dollar for a suit? If that is so, where have the big profits come from in the last five or ten years?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can answer my hon.
friend. The manufacturer whom I quoted received a profit of less than a cent for a pair of socks and a profit of less than one dollar for a suit of clothes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is an individual case, and surely the leader of the opposition with his long training in the law would not put forth an individual instance of that kind as evidence concerning the whole manufacturing industry. I hope not. However, I rose to my feet to call attention to an altogether different aspect of this question-one that has not yet been touched upon. Every once in a while we hear one of these phrases "protecting the Canadian working man", and the idea has been assiduously propagated across Canada that protection to the manufacturer means "protection" to the man who is employed in his factory.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: It does.


James Shaver Woodsworth: All right, I am
glad I do not have to argue the point; those gentlemen admit that is their position. I look at the wages and the hours of labour of those engaged in the textile industry in Canada, and I find that in this very industry we are considering fifty-five hours a week is a very common working period. I turn to other industries that are not protected, to the building trade for example, and I find that the hours run around forty-eight, or even forty-four a week. I wonder whether the workman is "protected" in his working conditions. That is something that is not very often considered, except when in a general sort of way we are told that "protection" means help for the working man.


An hon. MEMBER:: The unions protect
the working men.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I tell the hon.
gentleman that in a great many of these factories there are no unions whatever, none are permitted, and there is no legislation that will help us in the matter.


Peter McGibbon: Is there not a union
in the building trade?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, and that is
the reason there are better conditions in that trade.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Is there a union in the moulding trade?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Then why
talk of protection not protecting the working man?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The moulding
trade is not nearly so highly protected as the textile trade. My thesis is this that protection to the manufacturer does not necessarily mean protection to the workmen engaged in the factory.


An hon. MEMBER:: It should.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It should, but it
does not. That is what I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance before I get through.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the
workmen in the United States?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The workmen in
the textile industries are amongst the poorest paid in the great American republic, and that is the most highly protected industry over there. I am glad that was mentioned,

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
because it simply emphasizes the condition here in Canada, and it corroborates the position which I am trying to take, that protection to the industry does not necessarily involve protection to the working man.


An hon. MEMBER:: Don't they grow
cotton in the United States?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, but I do not know what that has to do with the matter. I find these are some of the wages paid. I am reading from the last report on wages and hours in Canada, published by the Labour department here. I notice that a common weekly wage in this woollen manufacture is around $20 a week for mule spinners. There are a number here-$21.50, $11, $19.50, $22 and $25. I take one example of female workers in the woollen factories, warpers: the weekly wages are $18, $9, $12.65, $20. Now I turn from these to other types of work in Canada and I find the wages considerably higher-laundry workers in the cities or girls engaged in book binding. These would afford a fair comparison, and I find that the wages in these other industries, which are not protected, are higher than those in the textile industries. These are matters of fact, and basing my question on these facts, I would ask whether it is not possible for the Minister of Finance so to arrange that if protection is given to any industry that industry should be forced to pay a fair wage, a decent living wage.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: We will agree
with you on that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have no doubt
that the bon. member for Hamilton will agree with that, and if the workers across the country were definitely assured that the protection which is extended to industry meant protection for them in respect of their wages and working conditions generally, a great many more would be inclined1 to favour that protection.
* Mr. BELL (Hamilton):	Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: At the present time, however, they are not definitely assured of that; they are not guaranteed it. The figures I have read show that in practice they have not received that protection. I appeal, therefore, to the Minister of Finance, if he continues the policy of protection, to make sure that the workers will receive some share of that protection. No doubt there are certain peculiar conditions that might make some protection necessary for a time in special
TMr Wnorlsworth.l
industries, but the minister should first lay down the condition, in granting favours along this line, that a fair wage for all employees of these concerns Shall be guaranteed.


Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: I am surprised at the narrow vision of hon. members to my left with regard to the future of this country. I cannot conceive how anyone can think it impossible for Canada to become economically independent. If there is any country in the world-any young country especially-that ought to become economically independent that country is Canada. We have everything to enable us to attain that independence. We have a large extent of territory, great natural resources of all kinds, a climate that produces the best type of people, and a people who can make the best use of the resources at their command. There is no reason, therefore, why this Dominion should not become one of the greatest nations of the world. I do not say that we can be independent on every score; there are certain things which we must necessarily obtain from outside, just as every other country must depend upon foreign sources for some of its requirements. The United States is economically independent, but the United States draws some of its supplies from without. If my hon. friend from Rosetown (Mr. Evans) had his way he would grow nothing but wheat in Canada, selling it in the markets of the world and getting his manufactured products from abroad. The result would be that he would turn Canada into nothing but an agricultural country. But we know that no country which was purely agricultural ever became great. Industry and agriculture must go hand in hand and develop together.
I have only a few remarks to make in regard to the woollen industry. I have previously stated that in my opinion the Minister of Finance was pointing his tariff revisions at industry in Ontario, and in support of this statement I have a few figures to submit. In the woollen industry in Canada in the year 1925 there were 119 plants as against 127 in 1924. Of these 119 plants producing in 1925, eighty-six were located in Ontario and they produced 80 per cent of the goods manufactured by the industry in the whole country. In 1923 the Right Hon. Mr. Fielding increased the British preference by 10 per cent. In 1922 we imported $196,000 worth of blankets and in 1926, as a result of that 10 per cent increase in the British preference, those blanket imports had risen to $601,000. In knitted goods we imported in 1922, $403,000, and in 1926, $769,000, the in-

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
crease being attributable to the increase in the British preference. In socks and stockings, we imported in 1922, $1,371,000 and in 1926, $2,555,000-a considerable increase in that period. Taking our total wool products, our imports both dutiable and free amounted in 1922 to $35,000,000 and in 1926 to $46,000,000. This increase was due to the increase of 10 per cent in the British preference, which is a comparatively slight addition.
Now I turn to different sections of the woollen industry and I find similar conditions existing in Canada. Let us take the woollen cloth mills. In 1924 there were sixty of these mills in Canada, of which forty-five operated in Ontario. In 1925 there were fifty-seven. The capital invested in Canada in 1924 amounted to $22,551,000 and in 1925, $21,342,000. The wages in 1925 amounted to $3,913,000, Of the fifty-seven mills operating in Canada in 1925, forty-two were located in Ontario, and the capital in Ontario was $18,128,132 out of a total for the whole country of $21,342,000. The number of employees in Ontario in that year was 3,582 out of a total in all Canada of 4,426; and the wages paid in Ontario amounted to $3,331,000 out of a total I have already mentioned of $3,913,000. This shows the extent to which the woollen industry operates in Ontario in comparison with the rest of the country. Yet these are the industries which are being hit by the Minister of Finance in his budget.
Next I take woollen yarn mills in Canada. I am particularly interested in the woollen yarn business inasmuch as the industry operates in my county. In 1923 we had nineteen mills and in 1925 sixteen. The capital invested in 1923 was $9,279,416, and in 1925, $9,041,892. The greater part of these mills are in the province of Ontario, the capital invested in that province being $8,117,891. The number of employees in woollen yarn mills in all Canada in 1925 was 1,434, and of this number 1,100 employees were engaged in the mills of Ontario; while out of a total wage bill for the same year of $1,171,000 Ontario paid $899,946. Ontario furnished 80 per cent of the employees and 82 per cent of the production of woollen yam mills in 1925. But this particular industry is being severely attacked by the minister, and in one particular instance a mill in my own town will be practically put out of business. It is in the same position as the mill in the constituency of South Wellington. The effect of this budget will be severely felt, and the mill has already suffered a considerable loss in orders for the present year by reason of this tariff. They failed to meet the competition from the old country, and the manager is of the opinion that they will be unable to carry on. In a letter to me he states;
The entire problem is based purely on labour costs. We are led to understand that manufacturers in England can obtain experienced spinners for equivalent to $5 per week, whereas in this town under the minimum wage schedule, we are compelled to pay at least $10 per week.
If I recollect correctly, when the textile industry placed their case before the tariff board last year, the difference in labour costs between the industry in Canada and in England was around 70 per cent. It is a strange fact that with such a tremendous difference in producing costs, the price quoted by the English spinners to the Canadian knitter is only around 10 per cent below our price, which leads one to believe that the consumer in Canada is not reaping any benefit, equal in any way to the difference in the cost of production.
Although these mills will be almost put out of business because yarn is placed on the free list, the English spinners make a difference of only 10 per cent in their prices to the Canadian people, and if our mills cease production altogether the English spinners will control the market here and charge any price they wish. So we can reap no benefit from a reduction in these duties.
In connection with carpets, mats and rugs, in 1923 we had twenty-three factories producing these articles while in- 1925 there were only sixteen, a reduction of seven mills through the 10 per cent reduction in the British preference. Of this industry 99 per cent is in Ontario; the total production in 1925 for all Canada was $2,905,251, of w'hich the Ontario mills produced $2,874,967, leaving something over $26,000 produced in the rest of Canada. The capital invested in this industry throughout Canada amounts to $4,080,925, of which $4,059,837 is in Ontario, leaving $21,058 for the rest of Canada. These are the industries which are being injured under the present budget.
In 1925 we had thirty woollen cloth mills in Canada as against thirty-one in 1924; the capital decreased in 1925 as against 1924 by $127,942, while the number of employees decreased from 1,024 to 983. The province of Ontario supplied 64 per cent of the employees and paid 67 per cent of the wages, yet the Minister of Finance in presenting his budget fails entirely to grasp these conditions as far as this Dominion is concerned.
I wish to make a plea to the Minister of Finance that he reconsider his decision to place these yarns on the free list, and that he take into consideration the necessity that the spinning mills in this country receive the protection they need. I cannot see where these
1622	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
reductions will lower the cost of the goods in Canada. If our industries can be kept working at high pressure, employing all their machinery, they will be able to have a larger production with a consequent reduction in price. Again I ask the minister to reconsider this decision with regard to placing yams on the free list.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I think we all agree that in Canada we want to maintain a reasonable standard of living for everyone. We do not want this to be a cheap country; we want good wages paid which will enable the worker to maintain his family in a proper manner. With that end in view we put legislation into effect many years ago for the purpose of keeping out certain cheap workers who could live very much cheaper than our own working peopie could live, and in so doing we felt that we were protecting our Canadian workmen. We adopted that many years ago and I quite agree with it, but if it is reasonable to do that is it not reasonable to protect our people against the products of cheap labour, manufactured in other countries? If it is reasonable to protect our own working people from the inroads of certain classes from across the Pacific, who work and live more cheaply than we do, what right have we to ask the producers of wool in this country to compete on a free trade basis with wool from South America, Mexico and other countries where labour is very much cheaper and living conditions are not to be compared with those in Canada?
I was very much interested in the comparison drawn by an hon. gentleman opposite between the conditions affecting sheep production in Australia and those which obtain in Canada. The hon. gentleman also referred to the area available in this country for the production of sheep and wool. It is true that in Australia, taken as a whole, they have a better climate for the production of sheep so far as cold is concerned, but on the other hand they have terrible droughts during which sheep die by the million. That condition prevailed during the past year in Queensland, so one condition is easily balanced by the other, and I think in the long run, taken over a period of years, we would probably have a slight advantage.


James Alexander Robb: Does that apply to dairy
cattle?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I think dairy cattle are
usually kept on smaller farms. I am talking now about range sheep.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: It does not effect butter.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: In connection with the
question of wintering sheep in this country I might say that in those sections where it is necessary to feed sheep in winter, which is generally necessary because you must keep your breeding stock in good condition, it takes from two to three pounds of hay per day per head. That is when your range is covered with snow, but when you have plenty of winter range, that feeding is not necessary.
Then something was said about predatory animals. I have never heard that an English or Scotch dog would not chase a sheep. One hon. member made that statement, but although I have been identified with the stock business in this country for over half a century I never heard of that before. I have heard stories about them killing sheep in the old country, but of course I have no proof of that, 1 do know, however, that Canadian dogs will chase sheep whenever they feel like it. This gentleman also referred to a case where a sheep dog was taken before a magistrate in the state of Kentucky, I believe, but we always shoot our dogs first in British Columbia. Wo find that if we do not shoot them we take the risk that they will return some time in the early morning or during the night and destroy many sheep. Then we also have the coyote, and I must say that the coyote suffers no disadvantage on the Canadian side as compared with the United States. He knows nothing about tariffs or boundary lines; he crosses wherever sheep are to be secured.
Then I believe it was the hon. member for Bow River who said we were beginning to use rayon instead of wool. Coming from the banana belt as I do, from Victoria, British Columbia, I am not wearing rayon, and I am of the opinion that a man would have to be a trained Highlander for some length of time if he wanted to dress in rayon in this country, especially if he had to walk up parliament hill against a cold breeze in the winter time. The hon. member also said that the ladies were giving up wool and wearing rayon. I would advise him to put on his glasses on a cold day; I do not know whether they wear rayon or not, but they certainly wear wool on the outside.
I would like to refer again for a moment to the question of the limited area for the raising of sheep in Canada. I think that is a mistake. I can tell you exactly about British Columbia, where we have 160,000,000 acres of range land, 100,000,000 acres of what is known as timber range and 60,000,000 acres of open range. Of that area we are using only 6 per cent, and we buy 75 per cent of our meat outside the province. Compare that situation with the four states to our south, Oregon,

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Washington, Idaho and Montana, and we find that while their total area is only a little larger than that of British Columbia they use 69.7 per cent of their range and supply themselves with their own meat, shipping their surplus to other places. What I should like to say is that some method should be adopted; at least a thorough investigation should be made as to the possibility of utilizing these hundreds of millions of acres of grass that are going to waste every year.
My good friend the Minister of Finance has stated, or hinted in a sort of shrewd Scotch wTay, that I had selected the figures that I presented to the house a little while ago. Let me point this out so as to get it on Hansard:	The tariff was taken off wool in
the United States in 1913. Whether they anticipated the war or not I do not know. At any rate wool was shipped in there in huge quantities. There was so much of it there that on May 27, 1921 they applied the tariff again, and then they applied the Ford-ney tariff on September 21, 1922. Now the sheep population of the United States on the 1st of January, 1922, was 36,186,000 head. On January 1, 1927, the number was 41,909,000. The wool clip in 1922 amounted to 263,713,000 pounds, shorn and pulled. The production in 1927 is estimated at 328,137,000 pounds. The duty on wool entering the United States is 31 cents per pound, clean content, the clean content being bone dry scoured weight plus 12 per cent for moisture regained. Scoured wool is subject to the same duty but without allowance for vegetable matter which may be contained. Such allowance is made when wool is imported in the grease or washed. The duty on dressed mutton is 2-i cents per pound. On dressed lamb the duty is 4 cents per pound. On live sheep and lambs there is a duty of $2 per head. This information, under date of March 1, 1928, is signed by John F. Bethune, secretary of the United States Tariff Commission. I may say that later figures indicate that in 1928 the sheep population increased to 44,455,000. I just wanted to bring these points to the attention of the house and to place these figures on Hansard for the use of the committee.


Mr. NEILL:: I should like to say a word
with regard to the last speaker's remarks. Like a good many other members I know very little about the wool tariff and I do not want to know. But the other night my hon. friend was speaking and he spoke of the neglected possibilities of sheep raising in British Columbia. Now he says: there are 160,000,000 acres in British Columbia adapted to sheep raising. I would not question the hon.
gentleman's figures, but I think they have been prepared by an optimist; they must have taken in a great deal of the lower parts of the mountains. We have Toughly three geographical divisions there. First there is a large portion of what you might call mountain. It is rocks, it may be valuable; in a lot of it there are probably minerals, but it certainly is of no use at all for grazing purposes. Then on the lower slopes which extend along the coast we have timber, but we could not graze sheep there and even if that were possible the wet climate would prevent it. So that the available land is confined to the more or less limited area in what is called the ranges. I think the hon. gentleman would agree that a great part of the land around and behind Kamloops is an illustration of the land of which I am speaking. The hon. gentleman complained the other night that measures are not adopted by which this range country in British Columbia could be utilized for sheep, and he complained bitterly of the amount of wool we are importing. I should like to mention a curious fact. It is quite true that we do import a lot of wool, but it is equally true that we export a large portion of the wool we do grow, for the reason that it is not suitable for the manufacture of cloth in this country. We do not raise the kind of wool that is required, and a great deal of the wool that is imported ostensibly from the United States really comes from Australia and is of a quality we do not grow here. Australia and New Zealand are sheep-growing countries and New Zealand is not subject to drought. Both countries have facilities for sheep growing, partly from long practice and partly from the manner in which they go about it. They run sheep cheaply, and their facilities for dipping and making them clean in every way are much better. When a man has 115,000 sheep on one farm, as I have seen there, it is reasonable to suppose that he has every modern appliance-scientific machinery, motive power for sheep shearing, conveniences for dipping, and things of that kind.
But I was talking about the range country around Kamloops. Now this is a fact within my own knowledge. A number of years ago the grazing land was thrown open, and of course the applicants were men who wanted to run both cattle and sheep, and we all know the bitter enmity there is between sheep men and cattle men. They used to murder each other down in the states because sheep kill a cattle range. They eat the grass closely, and men who are trying to run cattle do not want sheep on a cattle range. At the time these reservations were made, apparently the

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
political pull of the cattle men was dominant. It would not do to say that nothing but cattle should run on these ranges in British Columbia, that would not look well. So they said: You can run cattle and you can run sheep; but they put a little provision in that if anybody wanted to run sheep they would have to fence in the whole area with wire netting. That country is not rich in luxurious grass. It only carries very few sheep to the acre. I would rather say a number of acres to the sheep; and the idea of having the whole range fenced in with wire netting with a 35 per cent tariff on it meant that you could not run sheep at all. The cattle men did not say so, of course it would not have been politic, but matters were so arranged ;.hat the sheep man was not in the picture at all. He was confronted with a condition that he could not possibly economically comply with. So the cattle man had it all his own way. That is why we were not running sheep on the ranges round Kamloops. Time went on, and men saw the advantages and opportunities of running sheep, and they made application again and again to the government of Canada to have this regulation altered. They made application when the Union government was in power and they were refused. It has only been since this government came into power that these regulations have been changed. Since then sheep have been run in the neighbourhood of Kamloops and the number has increased enormously. It has increased in consequence of that little joker of which I have' spoken being taken out of the regulations. These are the reasons which perhaps explain why we do not grow more sheep in British Columbia. It is not a question of the tariff.
While I am on my feet I might mention- because it is something that came within my own knowledge-the question of competing *with English wool, and that if we had a tariff we would be able to do so. In some classes of this cloth we would not be able to compete, no matter what tariff there was. I was talking with a tailor last year and he gave me the name of a man who made up his mind to go into the manufacture of clothing in Canada-I think in Ontario, within a reasonable distance of Ottawa. He brought the machinery over from England and hired two dozen weavers to work in his mill so there would be no slip-up at all. He turned out excellent suits of clothes and distributed them amongst the tailors of this city; they could be sold at a better profit and for 810 less than other suits. But the man who told me this said there were no repeat orders and he wondered why, and he made it his busi-

ness to inquire. He found that the manufacturer had the same trouble-no repeat orders. The suit did not wear like the English cloth. The manufacturer had enough money invested that he had to find out what the trouble was, so he went to England and after considerable research he found that it was due to the kind of water that was used in connection with bleaching the cloth. I am not technically expert enough to explain why that was the case. There were some particular springs they had had for a few hundred years and they bleached the cloth after this water had been used with it. It was that that made the difference. No amount of tariff would have put the Canadian stock into the same class of goods with the English made article. The man wdio wanted to buy the superior article would have bought it; and the fact that he would have to pay more for it would not have given any advantage to the Canadian cloth manufacturer.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: With regard to the
mountains in British Columbia, one of the advantages we have is that we can sell the scenery and still retain the mountains. The usual plan followed in the mountainous country is that of grazing sheep on the foothills where possible. I am not speaking of sheep confined in fences; I am speaking about one to three thousand sheep in charge of one or two men and two or three dogs. The sheep follow up immediately behind the snow on the mountain during the summer, using the succulent grasses for food, and in addition to that the sheep are fond of browsing. They eat many leaves when they can procure them. These mountains will carry many sheep.
With regard to the figures I gave a little earlier in the evening, those sheep I referred to were grown on a ranch within forty miles of Kamloops, the very country the hon. gentleman spoke about. They were raised on the Bill Roper Cherry Creek ranch and it was on that ranch the gentleman informed me that the sheep clipped ten pounds per head and the lambs in the fall weighed eighty pounds apiece. Anybody who knows anything about sheep will know that is a pretty good record under those conditions. We do not need any fences. While the cattlemen and sheepmen had a good deal of trouble in days gone by in British Columbia and south of the line, that is pretty well regulated now by grazing laws. Those figures which I have given, while they may appear optimistic, are Liberal figures, given out by the Liberal government in British Columbia, and while Liberal optimists may be rather scarce, those

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
are their figures and I am sure they are reasonably correct. I would not want to make any statement that I could not back up with figures. They will give the hon. gentleman what he wants to know.


Malcolm McLean: What is the
breed of sheep to which the hon. gentleman referred?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Rambouillet crossed with
Hampshire.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I am a little at a loss
to know what the point is in some of the debate that has been going on because, on examining the wool schedules, I find that as regards raw material our manufacturers are not any worse off, though possibly not any better off than they were before, except that there seems to be a discrimination against the manufacturers of yarn and in favour of the users of yam. I notice in item 555, woollen cloth and wearing apparel, there seems to be
a distinct increase.		The three	duties were
previously:			
British			
preferential	Intermediate	Generaltariff	tarif	tariff27J per cent	35	per cent	35 per cent20 per cent	27	per cent	30 per cent224 per cent	30	per cent	35 per centBecoming: 274 per cent	35	per cent	35 per cent
So that it appears we are not raising the cost of the raw material but rather decreasing it, if anything, though the decrease is very small, and we are increasing the protection on the finished product so far as the whole industry is concerned.
A good deal has been said in the last few weeks by hon. gentlemen to my right with regard to the possibility of protecting our manufacturers without on the other hand letting them take advantage of it, that is, protecting them as regards the Canadian market, but not allowing them to increase the cost to the Canadian consumer. In view of the fact that notwithstanding all the debates in the House of Commons and the promises in the country, there has not been apparently any possibility of getting away from this policy of protection, I should like very much to see this matter explored. I think the most radical suggestion ever made by the farmers in the west was that people asking for protection should come before a committee of parliament and demonstrate to it their need for protection. I am quite sure that if the manufacturers of yam have a case against this revision of the tariff because they are losing some of the protection they had, we cannot
expect the people of western Canada, who are competing in the sale of their product in the markets of the world with cheap labour from all over the world, are readily going to waive their objections to the protective principle that they at least think has brought about dearer machinery, dearer clothing and higher costs of operations for them while not giving them any advantage as regards the sale of their finished product. But I believe they will be reasonable enough, if there is any possibility of protecting them against exploitation in the quality of the goods they must buy and the price they must pay, so that there is a basis there for doing what has so often been suggested should be done, namely, taking the tariff out of politics, taking away the disputes and the eternal arguments regarding it. But if that is done, it will have to be done in a thorough fashion and made so plain to the so-called free traders of the country that he who runs may read. I do not believe it should be beyond the capacity of our Canadian people and statesmen to ascertain whether it is possible to do that or not. A good many people have said something about a deal that I suggested between the people of the west and the Conservatives. I hope when hon. gentlemen refer to that, they will quote my speech on it, because I will stand back of it anywhere.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: That was the
most radical suggestion made by the farmers of the west.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I will stand by that
speech in Saskatoon or any other place in Saskatchewan or Alberta-but it will have to be on a basis where we can provide protection for the farmers-and I cannot see so far how this can be done-and where the protected industries, in selling their goods, cannot take advantage of the farmers in price and in quality. But if there is a basis there, hon. gentlemen to my right and hon. gentlemen over there, who are supporting a protective tariff in the woollen schedules that is higher as far as my analysis goes than anything we have had before, ought to be anxious to explore that basis and to see if it is not possible to work out some scheme.


James Alexander Robb: Earlier in the debate the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bancroft) inquired what were the duties on wool in the United States. I might put that' on the record so that hon. members will have it. Paragraph 1102 of the Tariff Act of 1922 of the United States reads:
Wools, not specially provided for, and hair of the Angora goat, Cashmere goat, alpaca, and other like animals, imported in the grease or

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
washed, 31 cents per pound of clean content; imported in the scoured state, 31 cents per pound; imported on the skin, 30 cents per pound of clean content.
That is on wool. Paragraph 1109 of the United States tariff deals with woven fabrics, and reads:
Woven fabrics, weighing more than four ounces per square yard, wholly or in chief value of wool, valued at not more than 60 cents per pound. 24 cents per pound and 40 per centum ad valorem; valued at more than 60 cents but not more than 80 cents per pound, 37 cents per pound and 50 per centum ad valorem; valued at more than 80 cents but not more than $1.50 per pound, 45 cents per pound upon the wool Content thereof and 50 per centum ad valorem; valued at more than $1.50 per pound, 45 cents per pound upon the wool content thereof, and 50 per centum ad valorem.
That is the tariff of the United States, and I take it that hon. gentlemen directly opposite, of the official opposition, are arguing that Canada should approach that.


Hugh Guthrie: Not at all. Nobody suggested that.


James Alexander Robb: Well, that we should have a higher tariff.


Hugh Guthrie: Nobody suggested any
approach to the United States tariff.


James Alexander Robb: I am glad to have that statement from my hon. friend, who I admit is as well posted as any hon. gentleman opposite on this question. It has been argued here that we would improve the condition of the woollen industry in Canada by putting a duty on wool. The figures show that in round numbers there are about 3,000,000 sheep in Canada with a population of about 10,000,000 people, while dn the United States the figures I have for 1926 show 40,000,000 sheep to a population of about 120,000,000 people. My hon. friend from Victoria gave figures for 192S which indicated a greater number of sheep, but hon. gentlemen will observe that relative to population there is just about the same number of sheep in each country, notwithstanding a duty of 31 cents a pound in the United States.
The woollen industry in the United States is not dn such a flourishing condition, for I observe that last year 58 woollen mills closed in the United States; nor is the woollen industry prosperous in Australia, where they grow the very best wool in the world. If any hon. gentleman feels that this is a good venture to go into in Australia, I might mention that the Australia Woollen Company's mills at Geelong have been advertised for sale for some years and according to the latest advices I have they have not yet found

a buyer. They were started by the government of Australia. It is true that in Australia they make excellent rugs and very good knitted wear, but they import tweeds just the same as we do in Canada. I will admit at once in regard to the piece goods branch of the woollen industry in Canada that it does seem to me that it should have a little more of the business. I observe in regard to piece goods that Canadian mills have just about 34 per cent of the business, but in knitted goods the Canadian mills have practically the whole business. If I had time before adjournment-


Hugh Guthrie: Can the minister give us the figures of the knitted goods importations?


James Alexander Robb: I shall be glad to give that as we come to it. We have had a very interesting debate this evening, and if it has established one outstanding fact more than another it is the difficulty of making a tariff in this country that will suit everybody. If we had only to make a tariff to suit my hon. friend from Rosetown, that would be very easy, or if we had only to make a tariff in regard to knitted goods, in which my hon. friend from South Wellington is interested, that, too, would be very easy.


Hugh Guthrie: I am interested in woven goods.


James Alexander Robb: There is in the constituency of my hon. friend from South Wellington the only mill in Canada, I believe, that does exclusively custom work for yarn, and I will admit that the changes in the tariff may not be as helpful as they might be to that industry. But I want to put on record the statements that were made by the men in the industry in their application before the tariff board. They were asking for an upward revision of the tariff on behalf of the woollen industry, and I quote from a summary of their brief as presented regarding the decline of the industry:
The brief of the applicants as presented to the minister of February 1, 1927, stressed the prosperous condition of the industry and cited certain statistics compiled by the Department of Trade and Commerce, together with certain tariff changes made by parliament, with the expressed object of showing that less protection led to more depression. Inasmuch as the inquiry largely focussed upon the relation of the tariff to the apparent reduction in plants, the following paragraph from the brief is cited:
Then, what follows is from the brief presented by the manufacturers:
Between 1899 and 1907, 88 woollen and worsted mills, many of considerable size, closed their doors, the equipment including 129 cards and 559 looms. In 1907 the Canadian customs

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
tariff was divided into three classes, the British preferential tariff, which gave the lowest duty l ates, the intermediate tariff, which gave lower duty rates than before to countries making trade treaties with Canada, and the general tariff rates. Under this schedule by 1910 there were only 78 woollen and worsted mills in operation in Canada, operating 224 cards and 1,154 looms. This was 223 cards and 996 looms less than in 1899, or in other words, the industry had been practically cut in half in eleven years. This decline in the industry can only be attributed to the direct effect of reducing the duties.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What date is that?


James Alexander Robb: I am quoting from the brief presented by the manufacturers, February 1, 1927. Now I continue with the argument in answer to their brief:
Comparison of changes within the woollen and worsted industries of the United States, where tariff legislation has not run at all parallel to that of Canada, at once suggest itself as pertinent. For years the United States has followed what may perhaps be described not unfairly as a policy of high protection for its woollen manufacturers, although the benefits have been offset to a certain extent by the duties on wool.
And yet the course of the wollen and worsted industries in the United States has not been that of uninterrupted prosperity. The census of 1870 reported 2,891 woollen mills (as distinct from worsted mills) in operation, producing over $155,000,000 worth of fabrics. From that time until 1914, the census figures show a decrease each decade in the number of mills, and since 1879 a decrease in the value of products, except for the year 1904, when fashion temporarily gave a new impetus to woollen manufacture.
The census of 1914 reported 501 woollen mills with a product value of $103,815,905. The census of 1919 reported, according to the United States tariff commission, the first increase in the number of woollen mills in fifty years. 560 mills reporting a total output valued at $364,896,590. The census of 1921, however, again showed a decline in the number of plants and the value of products. After reviewing these figures, the United States tariff board comes to the following conclusions:
A review of the quantity of woven goods produced in the wollen mills in the last few decades is not encouraging to woollen manufacture. It is an industry that is on the decline if the per capita consumption is considered. When the production figures are studied it will be found that the number of establishments were reduced by more than one-half from 1900 to 1923. With the possible exception of overcoatings and certain types of cloakings, practically all other standard woollens have become somewhat less popular than formerly.
That is the statement of the tariff board in the United States where they do enjoy high protection. They continue:
Prior to 1925 the greatest volume of production was actually attained in 1909, and the successive censuses of 1914, 1919 and 1921 showed a trend downward. In 1923 there was a recovery of part of the ground lost. Omitting 56103-104
figures for partially manufactured articles, and for by-products and wastes, the production of woven goods by the worsted industry has been recorded by the bureau of the census as follows:
1909, 355,070,392 square yards.
1925, 275,105,188 square yards.
My hon. friend from Bow River must have been reading the report of the tariff commission of the United States, because they give practically the same reason that he advanced a few moments ago, that there is less woollen worn. I will come to that in a moment.
The per capita production, which is not materially different from the per capita consumption of domestic worsteds, was 3.92 square yards in 1909 and 2.38 in 1935, or a decrease of 39 per cent
That is the reason for some of the mills closing down. I am not going into the figures, as presented before the board, of the difference in costs. It was established that wages in Canada are higher than in the United Kingdom, and that they vary even in Canada in the different provinces. The relation of wages in Canada to those in the United Kingdom are as 160 to 100, the higher figure applying to Canada. In France and Italy the wages are as 40 to 50 of those in the United Kingdom. That is all I have to say in that regard.
During this debate we have had some criticism of the tariff board and of the representatives of the English mills appearing before the board.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Before the minister leaves that subject, was there at that time presented to the tariff board a comparison of the increase or decrease of the cotton business during the time that the wool business was decreasing?


James Alexander Robb: I will look up that information and supply it to my hon. friend to-morrow. We have had some criticism of the tariff board, and also of the representatives of the English manufacturers coming before the board. I inquired carefully as to whether the trade agents of the British government had taken any active part before the tariff board, and I am told they had not. I made this inquiry because the instructions to our trade agents in different parts of the world, from this government and from the preceding government, is that they must be very careful not in any way to interfere with the making of tariffs in the countries where they are located. But that does not prevent individual Canadians, interested in manufacturing or selling, from time to time making representations to other governments.


James Dew Chaplin: Do they ever do it?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Alexander Robb: Yes. I have a case in mind where representatives of certain Canadian manufacturing industries made representations to the British government through the Canadian board of trade in London, England. I recall certain Canadian manufacturers making representations to the government of South Africa, the government of Australia and the government of New Zealand, in an effort to secure certain privileges for Canadian goods which they thought they should enjoy in that market. At this very moment there are representatives of the agricultural industry in Washington. They recently appeared before the tariff board there. I do not find any fault with them. So we in Canada are not in a very good position to criticize the representatives of other countries for coming before our tariff board.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Are representatives of Canadian agriculture before the tariff board at Washington examining witnesses and in other ways taking an active part, or are they just watching the proceedings?


James Alexander Robb: I could not say as to that. I know they are there looking after their interests in the hope that Canadian milk and cream will not be discriminated against in the United States market.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I do not think they are taking an active part.


James Alexander Robb: Now, may I place on record these comments by the press of the country after the textile application had been heard by the tariff board? First, I quote from the Montreal Daily Star of January 6, 1928:
The respect for the tariff advisory board shown by the manufacturers and producers during the active life of that body within the past two years is an attitude which parliament and the government should emulate. The deliberate consideration of the merits of oases brought before the board has been in commendable contrast with the former hearings under pressure before the Minister of Finance or parliamentary committees. It is true the board is advisory and that adoption of policy still remains with the government of the day.
Now I quote from the Grain Growers' Guide of November 1, 1927:
The Canadian Maufacturers' Association maintains experts generally in support of tariff increases, and the Canadian Council of Agriculture and the Consumers' League generally represent the low tariff sentiment of the country. By thorough study of the problems before the board the representatives of these bodies are able to bring out all phases of the situation. The meetings are all public and open to the press and stenographic reports are taken of all evidence and cross-examination.
IMr. Chaplin.]
Next I read from the Toronto Financial Post of January 20, 1928:
It is undoubtedly a considerable improvement upon the former system, under which the Finance minister wasted most of his time listening to isolated and prejudiced pleas for tariff changes, and succeeded only in getting a superficial view of the problems before him.
Then the Winnipeg Free Press of January 10, 1928:
The value of this work canot easily be overestimated. In each case the position of the industry is examined in minute detail. Facts in regard to past financing, costs of production, efficiency of equipment, domestic and export prices, are revealed. Invariably the applications have been opposed, and opposition lias aided in laying bare prevailing conditions in each industry.
The Toronto Globe of January 14, 1928, has this comment, on the tariff advisory board:
It has held nearly one hundred hearings, has heard 41 pleas for upward revision of the tariff, others for lower tariff and sales tax adjustment; and those who have appeared before it testify to the thoroughness of its inquiries. It is not satisfied with less than a full presentation of both sides of every question, reinforced in many cases by independent investigations. Its disposition to be fair to all interested parties is conspicuous.
Then I have some comments upon the conduct of the woollen inquiry by some of those who appeared before the board. Mr. J. A. Bums, former president of the Canadian Woollen and Knit Goods Association, Toronto, said:
On behalf of the woollen manufacturers I would like to express our deep appreciation of the fair manner in which this investigation has been conducted.
From Mr. J. H. Shaw, manufacturers' agent in Montreal-and Mr. Shaw, by the way, not only represents the Canadian industry but is an importer-there comes the following:
Might I associate myself and my confreres with the expression of appreciation just given by Mr. Burns?
Then we have Mr. Hodgson of the Bradford Chamber of Commerce, Bradford, England :
May I be permitted to thank you and the board on behalf of Mr. Wood and myself for the very kind way in which you have received us and for your courteous consideration to us throughout a most intricate hearing.
I put this on record in justice to the board to show that there has been a full and fair enquiry. I am not sure that we can make much progress to-night but we have had a pretty full debate. I should like to meet my hon. friend from South Wellington, whose position I can appreciate. I fancy that if I had a woollen industry in my county

Ways arid Means-Customs Tariff
which was the only one in Canada I should feel pretty much as he does. Unfortunately, however, parliament must look to the country as a whole and consider every phase of industry, and while the Guelph Worsted Spinning Mill may not be helped it is believed, after a full inquiry, that the industry generally will benefit. It is true, as my hon. friend has said, that the company is selling most of its products to Oriental Textiles-


Hugh Guthrie: Not most; about a
third.


James Alexander Robb: Well, they sell a good deal
to Oriental Textiles, and if there is a mill in Canada that might complain of Britishers coming before our tariff board it is not the Guelph mill, because I am advised that the owner of that mill is a gentleman who resides in England, coming here occasionally to look after the concern.


Hugh Guthrie: He is part owner.


James Alexander Robb: Yes. I have great sympathy
with my hon. friend's argument, but this gentleman lives in England all the time and he is not in a position to attack others who appear before the board.


Alexander McKay Edwards: That is not
the only mill.


James Alexander Robb: There may be other mills.


Alexander McKay Edwards: The mills
altogether are affected to the extent of 40 per cent.


James Alexander Robb: Many of the other mills are
equipped with spinning machinery for their own mills; they will not be in a worse position.


Alexander McKay Edwards: They not
only spin for their own mills but they sell to other concerns such as the York mills.


James Alexander Robb: The importations have been
considerable-


Mr. CANTLEY:: Does not the minister
think that it would be better to have one hundred English gentlemen rather than one invest here?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, and that is what we are trying to do. The press this morning states that a mill will be established in Victoria, British Columbia, not only because of the change in the tariff but because of reduction of taxation in Canada.


James Dew Chaplin: Will that gentleman live in the old country?


James Alexander Robb: I do not know, but his own statement is that he is moving out. As regards the statement that the spinning departments of Canadian mills will be closed down, it is possible that they may get a slight assistance in buying yams that they do not make.


Alexander McKay Edwards: I would point out that the dyeing department will also be affected, as many of these yarns are two strand, of different colours.


James Alexander Robb: As regards the worsted cloth mills, there are nine without spinning plants, including plush and haircloth. These plants are: Oriental Textiles, La France Textiles, Canada Haircloth, Dominion Haircloth, Demetre Sault Ciriez, Dupont Textiles, Lockwoods Limited, Roxborough Textiles, Sykes & Taylor. I am told that these mills are unanimously in favour of the change. Those mills equipped with spinning plants are Paton, Canada Woollens, Rosamond and Forbes. Those who have gone carefully into the matter inform me that for every dollar in loss-if there is any loss-and every man put out of employment, there will be two dollars in profit and two men employed. The argument has been advanced to-night that the woollen industry has not been over prosperous. My hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Anderson) quoted figures to show that in recent years there has been an increase in imports of woollen manufactured fabrics; but when you compare that statement with the statement I put on Hansard a few days ago, showing a considerable increase in the imports of wool, it seems to me that there is not very good ground for the allegation that Canada is not growing. If the country is not growing then the people living here are wearing more and better clothes, because there are more imports coming in both in wool and in finished products.
The tariff board, in considering how they could best help the industry-and everyone desires to help it-had two ways open to them: they could either put up the duty on the finished product or give a concession on the raw material required for the industry. They took the latter course and I believe it is sound. The people of Canada will be more inclined to endorse a policy of reducing the cost of production, making the goods for our people cheaper and better, than to adopt the policy of the United States of raising the tariff as high as Haman's gallows. We have the experience of the United States before us. Within recent years, since their high tariff has been put up, fifty-eight mills have
National Parks

closed down there, and we know of one of the largest and best woollen mills in that country which has not paid dividends for the last two years.


Hugh Guthrie: There is one phase of the matter that has not been discussed. The mills will now obtain free machinery?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: Has the minister considered the question of compensation to those mills that have paid large sums in duty into the treasury? I ask this question having regard to the elaborate statement of the Prime Minister, in speaking on the budget, with reference to the sales tax; he could not remove it because it would be unfair to those who had paid. Will the same principle apply to these mills in respect of their machinery on which they have paid duty?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend has been a long time in parliament and he knows that duties that have been paid have never been refunded. This government is not yet through trying to settle the claim made by the automobile dealers in connection with the reduction of taxes made by a government of which my hon. friend was a supporter. That, I think, should satisfy him.


Hugh Guthrie: You should have had that cleaned up long ago.
Progress reported.
Friday, March 23, 1928