1928-05-30

[Stage Direction]
Tenth report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Jacobs (for Mr. Hay).
Eighth report of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization.-Mr. Kay.

Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works) :: I desire to lay on the table information asked for by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) in regard to the sidewalks on parliament hill.



NEW EDINBURGH MILLS PROPERTY

John Campbell Elliott: I desire to lay on the table the

additional information regarding the Sussex street property which was asked for by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens).



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved, seconded foy Mr. Thompson:
That on Friday, June 1, Bill No. 63, to amend the Railway Act (Investigation of subsidiary of telephone or telegraph companies) now under public bills and orders, be given precedence over all (a) private bills; (b) public bills and orders; (1) during the hour devoted to private bills and (2) over all other business until disposed of on that evening.
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not in his seat at the present time, but I have to take the stand which he has already taken with regard to similar matters. I think it would be unfair to other measures which have precedence over this to accept the motion of my hon. friend. If the bill comes up in due course at its proper stage, it will certainly be considered, but we cannot agree to give it precedence over other measures.


Mr. CHURCH:: It is not being unfair to
other members to give precedence to this bill which has been on the order paper since February. I have a bill which has been standing on the order paper since early in February. This is not a free parliament unless we can bring these questions before it.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The motion is out of
order. The other day I ruled that according to May and Bourinot any motion concerning the order of business of the house should be made by the Prime Minister or the leader of the house.


Thomas Langton Church: I rise to a point of
order. I gave due notice of the motion.


Hewitt Bostock: It matters not whether
the hon. gentleman gave notice or not. The question is: Is the motion in order? I contend, and May supports my contention, that any motion concerning the order of business of the house must be moved by the leader of the house. I have so decided and I now so rule.



INDUSTRIAL AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS


Mr. C. R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):: Mr. Spaaker, in accordance with your ruling of yesterday which took place when I was unavoidably absent from the house, and for the purpose of giving the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) another

International Relations
portion of a week intellectually to grasp the numerical section of the report presented to the house two weeks ago-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: If you have any more
to say, go on. I have the floor at the present time.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I would ask the
hon. gentleman to make the motion properly.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am just about to make it. I made the preliminary part of it and this is the latter part. I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Neill:
That the third report of the select standing committee on industrial and international relations, presented to the house on May 16th instant, be referred back to the said committee with instructions that they have power to amend the same by substituting the following for paragraph 8 thereof:
Your committee further recommend that 750 copies in English and 250 copies in French of this report, and the evidence upon which it is based, be printed in blue book form, and that standing order No. 64 be suspended in relation thereto.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: Just on a point of order, I understand that this committee has made its final report and has presented it to the house. The committee has ceased to exist for the present session if it has made a final report. In Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, at paragraph 664, I read:
If a committee at the conclusion of their inquiry, make a final report to the house, the sittings of the committee are assumed to have been closed, and if further proceedings were desired, it would be necessary to revive the committee.
There has been no motion to revive the committee, and there is no committee, practically, to which to refer the matter.


Hewitt Bostock: Does anyone else desire
to speak to the point of order?


Mr. SHORT:: What about the intellect
now?


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: I
would point out, Mr. Speaker, that this is a standing committee, and therefore it does not need to be revived. Also the committee is not trying to do anything at the present time; it is the house that is asked to recommend that the report foe sent back to the committee.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: The rule distinctly says that the committee having made its final report, if further proceedings are desired, it is necessary to revive the committee. In other words, the committee
is dead, and I do not know how we can possibly send something back to a committee that does not exist.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I submit that the point of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) is not well taken. The committee that has made its report is a standing committee of the house, and I would like to ask my hon. friend from Fort William how it is that a standing committee should need to be revived. That is great logic.


Robert James Manion: As the hon. gentleman
asks me a question, I would say that I prefer to take Beauchesne's ruling rather than that of the hon. gentleman.


Hewitt Bostock: I will take the point of
order into consideration and give my ruling later.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. GOTT:: 1.	What was the cash subsidy paid to the steamer Pelee for the year 1927?
2.	When was the contract drawn for the 1928 season of navigation?
3.	What subsidy is proposed for 1928?
4.	On whose recommendation was it passed?
5.	Has the company any other revenue from the government?
6.	If so, from what source?
7.	What amount?
8.	What dividends did the company pay for the season of 1927?
9.	Will the minister make any attempt to reduce or increase the subsidy?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1. $11,000.
2.	On February 25, 1927 (for three years).
3.	$11,000.
4.	On the application of the company in 1927.
5.	No information.
6.	No information.
7.	No information.
8.	No information.
9.	The present contract does not expire until March 31, 1930.


UNIFORMS FOR CREWS ON GOVERNMENT VESSELS
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	Were certain regulations adopted by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, to become effective in June, 1914, regarding the issuing of uniforms, for crews on board government vessels?
2.	Did regulation No. D.S. 17 provide for the issuance of two suits a year to officers, and chief and petty officers on government ships which are in commission the year round, and that the
Questions

winter issue was to take place on the 10th October in each year, and was so issued since that date?
3.	Was the issue of the winter suits discontinued last October without any previous notice having been given, and if so, why, and under what order in council or authority?
4.	Why was the remuneration of these men reduced in this way?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes. The requisition for winter uniforms was to reach department 10th October.
3.	Yes; by department authority.
4.	The supplying of uniforms was at no time regarded as remuneration.


COLCHESTER-SACKVILLE WHARF
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	What did it cost 'the country to build a wharf or pier at Colchester-Sackville, Colchester south township, Essex county. Ontario?
2.	Was the wharf ever used?
3.	Under whose recommendation was the work instituted?
4.	How many loads of stone, gravel or earth were used in construction?
5.	From whom was same purchased?
6.	By whom hauled?
7.	How many people were engaged in the work from the beginning to the end?
8.	Who were they?
9.	How much did each receive?
10.	Was a request ever made to the Department of Public Works, or any other department, for assistance to preserve the banks at Colchester?
11.	Was same granted?
12.	If refused, why, and what was the nature and reason for refusal?
13.	Has the government taken any part in the recent construction work there to preserve the graves of Canadian veterans?
14.	If so, how much has been appropriated?
15.	Will the government lend any further assistance ?
16.	If so, how much?
17.	If not, why?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	$23,388.55.
2.	Yes.
3.	On the report of the department engineer.
4 to 9. Information not available.
10.	Yes, for the prevention of erosion of the bank at the edge of cemetery.
[DOT]11. No.
12, It was not considered that any responsibility in connection with the prevention of such erosion devolved on this department.
13 to 17. No information.


CANADA WEEKLY PRINTING COMPANY
Mr. EVANS:: 1.	How much money was paid to the Canada Weekly Printing Company, 325 Logan avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba, and the Norwegian Publishing Company of the same address, during IMr. Neill.]
the fiscal years ending March 31st, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1920, and 1927?
2.	Are these payments continued for the present fiscal year to the said companies?


Mr. RINFRET:: Department of the Interior
1.
1922-	23-Nil.
1923-	24-Nil.
1924-	25-Canada Weekly Printing Co., $15.68.
1924-	25-Norwegian Publishing Co., $18.
1925-	26-Nil.
1926-	27-Canada Weekly Printing Co., $15.68.
1926-	27-Norwegian Publishing Co., $18.
1927-	28-Nil.
2.	1928-29-Yes.
Department of Immigration and Colonization
1.
Canada Weekly Printing Company Year	' Amount
1922-	23.
1923-	24
1924-	25
1925-	26
1926-	27.

Norwegian Publishing Company
1922-	23	
1923-	24	
$6,688	161924-	25	
8,403	281925-	26	
3,380	001926-	27	
3,180	002.	An order has been placed with these companies covering the fiscal year 1928-29, the order to amount to $3,500 in each ease.



VIOLATIONS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE ACT

Mr. QUINN:: 1.	Of the twenty-seven firms charged with
violations of the Customs and Excise Act recommended for prosecution by the parliamentary committee of 1926, how many have since been prosecuted?	...
2.	In each case who was the prosecuting attorney representing the interests of the department?
3.	How many of the cases have actually come to trial?
4.	How many of the cases have been settled by mutual agreement out of court, and if any, what are the names of the firms or persons with whom settlement was so made?
5.	What are the total legal fees paid by the department in each case?


Mr. EULER:: See statement attached.
1.	The parliamentary committee of 1926 did not recommend for prosecution 27 firms charged with violations of the Customs and Excise Acts.
Said committee recommended that certain firms and companies, 25 in number, be pro'

Questions
ceeded against in the proper forum to recover the sums, if any, then owing by them to the crown.
The following are the names of the said firms and companies: John Gaunt Company; Dominion Distillery Products and Associated Enterprises; B. B. Glove Co.; Jas. A. Gilmore Co.; Globe Suspender Co.; Perfecto Garment Co.; Peerless Overall Co.; R. & G. Manufacturing Co.; Reliable Garment Co.; Stanstead Manufacturing Co.; W. M. Pike & Sons. Standard Manufacturing Co., William Flint Pike; Telford Bros. Garment Co.; Telford & Chapman; Jenkins Overall Co. Ltd.; Snag Proof Ltd.; Rock Island Overall Co.; Alco Drees Co.;
0.	B. Earle Co.; Royal Cloak Co.; Miracle Dress Co.; Hollinger and Packer; Klover Dress Co.; Poyaner Group of Companies; Woollens Limited. 17 of these oases are in the courts. Two of them have been settled, and for status of balance see explanation.
2.	The following is a list of the cases with the name of the solicitor representing the department in each:
Dominion Distillery Products and Dominion Distillers Ltd., Jenkins Overall Co. Ltd. Departmental agent, R. L. Calder, ICC.
B. B. Glove Co., W. A. Gilmore et al (carrying on business as Jas. A. Gilmore Co.), C. J. Marois (carrying on business under firm names Globe Suspender and Eastern Apparel Co.), H. S. Pooock (Perfecto Mfg Co.), Alfred J. Bissonnetite (Peerless Overall Co.), J. H. Gauthier & H. G. Duncalfe (R. & G. Manufacturing Co.), Reliable Garments Ltd., Stanstead Manufacturing Co., W. M. Pike & Sons and Standard Manufacturing Co., (William Flint Pike), S. B. Telford (Telford Bros. Garment Co.). Telford & Chapman Ltd., Snag Proof Co. Ltd., Mrs. H. Fregeau (Rock Island Overall Co.). Departmental agent, Emile Mareotte, ICC.
Woollens Ltd. Departmental agent, Paul Ranger. Since the issue of the writ this company has made an assignment under the Bankruptcy Act. Claim has been filed with the trustee.
3.	Judgment has been obtained by default against C. J. Marois for $59,836.29 with interest from 10th October, 1927, but it has not been possible to realize upon the same, the judgment debtor having left the jurisdiction and no assets being found.
4.	Two cases have been settled by mutual agreement out of court on the advice of Messrs. Clarkson, Gordon and Dilworth, the solicitor for the crown, the departmental solicitor and the commissioner. The names of the firms with whom settlement was so made are as follows:
Alco Dress Co. and Royal Cloak Co. Departmental agent, James H. Spence, ICC.
The status of the remaining oases is as follows:
0.	B. Earle Co. Agent reported no person could be found to serve with process. Departmental agent, James H. Spence, ICC
Miracle Dress Co. First placed m hands Arthur Geoffrion, K.C. Agent reports this firm wound up its business in 1925. Hollinger & Packer. Agent reports this firm defunct. Klover Dress Co. This firm liquidated in 1926 and all its assets disposed of. Poyaner Group of Companies. No claim established against these companies by Clarkson, Gordon and Dilworth with the exception of a possible claim of approximately $1,000 against Dominion Dress Co. Ltd., a subsidiary cf Poyaner Ltd. The Limited Company is in liquidation and the agent reports that he is awaiting result of liquidation proceedings before Instituting action. Departmental agent, Paul Ranger.
John Gaunt Company. Firm wound up and John Gaunt personally insolvent and beyond the jurisdiction. Departmental agent, R. L. Calder, K.C.
N.B.-The reports upon Miracle Dress Co., Hollinger and Packer, Klover DresS Co., Poyaner Group of Companies and Woollens Limited were originally placed in the hands of Arthur Geoffrion, K.C., of Montreal, who finally reported that he could see no prospect of establishing any claims against any of the firms concerned. The' cases were then placed in the hands of Mr. Paul Ranger.
5.	Nil.



MAJOR A. L. NORMANDIN

Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: 1.	Is Major A. L. Normandin employed in the Printing Bureau?
2.	If so, how long has he been so employed and what is his present salary?
3.	How many days sick leave has he had during the last two fiscal years?
4.	How many days of statutory leave has he had during the last two fiscal years?
5.	Is he the owner and publisher of "The Parliamentary Guide"?
6.	How many copies of such book were bought by the Government during the last two years, and what was paid for same?
7.	How much was paid by the government during the last two years for advertising in the Parliamentary Guide?
8.	Does the said Major A. L. Normandin come under the Civil Service Act?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Since January 2, 1917; (b) $2,520.
3.	Continuous illness January 20 to June 30 1927, 120J days; casual 6 days.
Questions

4.	36 days.
5.	No knowledge.
6.	(a) 2.485 copies; (b) $7,696.38.
7.	No department of the government has advertised in Parliamentary Guide during the last two years.
8.	Yes.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-TORONTO HOTEL

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Did the Canadian National Railways enter into negotiations with anyone, and whom, to acquire land or to build a hotel on Queen street, south side, opposite University avenue, Toronto, as announced some time ago?
2.	What were the terms and conditions and basis of said action by the Canadian National Railways, and what is the present situation?
3.	Were any protests received from the Ontario government, or any member thereof, by the Canadian National Railways, protesting against the use of these lands for hotel purposes, and what w-as the nature of this protest, if any?
4.	Has or had the Canadian National Railways any interest in these lands and of what nature, directly or indirectly, or through any lawfully authorized agent?
5.	Did the Canadian National Railways acquire any interest in these lands from the former owner, the Sir William MacKenzie estate, and what was that interest?
6.	Has the Canadian National Railways any interest now in these lands, and what is it?
7.	Has the Canadian National Railways, directly or indirectly, or through any agent, an interest in the Amulet Realty Company, the present owners, and who compose the Amulet Realty Company?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	No.
4.	No.
5.	No.
6.	No.
7.	No.



MR. F. G. BRONSKILL

Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: 1.	What are the duties of Mr. F. G. Bronskill, accountant, Department of Public Printing and Stationery, as provided by chap. 162 of the revised statutes, 1927, Public Printing and Stationery Act?
2.	On whose authority does Mr. Bird of the civil service commission deal with Mr. F. G. Bronskill in arranging for all promotions, employment and transfers in connection with the clerical staff of the printing bureau?
3.	Has the king's printer made recommendation to the civil service commission to have the position of accountant changed to that of financial controller?
4.	If so, has this proposed change in title received the approval of the Secretary of State?
[Mr_ Rinfret.)


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	The duties of the accountant of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery as provided by chapter 162, section 25, R.S.C. 1927, are as follows: The accountant shall, under direction of the minister and the king's printer, audit all accounts for any of the services under the control of the department, keep the accounts of the department, receive and deposit all cash paid in, and render statements of accounts to the clerks of the two houses of parliament, and the deputy heads of the several departments, as and when the same are required by this act or by regulations made by, or instructions received from the minister.
2.	All departmental dealings with the civil service commission are under the control of Mr. F. A. Acland, King's Printer, with whom Mr. Bird deals direct.
3.	In January, 1927, the king's printer requested the civil service commission to review the duties and compensation of all officers from the director and superintendent of printing down to foreman, with suggested changes of title in some cases, and the title of financial controller was suggested in substitution for that of accountant.
4.	The usual procedure was followed-the minister being made aware of the action taken.



PUBLIC PRINTING AND STATIONERY-EMPLOYEES

Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: 1.	On page 99, civil government estimates,
1928-29-Department of Public Printing and Stationery-the number of officials and clerks is given as 32 and total salaries as $80,190 annually. As there are over 250 officials and clerks employed, permanently, with annual salaries aggregating $450,000, what reason exists for not placing these salaries and positions in the estimates so that they may be voted by parliament?
2.	On whose authority does the stationery branch add a tax of 15 per cent and 20 per cent to the actual cost of all stationery supplied to other departments of government?
3.	What amounts were the Post Office, National Defence, National Revenue and Public Works departments called upon to pay for the year ended December 31, 1927, as a result of this method of managing the stationery branch?
4.	Does the Secretary of State propose to have this practice discontinued?
5.	If not, why not?
6.	Are moneys which are paid to the king's printer's advance account being used to increase or affect the salaries of new permanent clerks, or paid to them on any basis whatever?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1. Under the accounting system of the department as confirmed at the reorganization effected under P.C. 562, March, 1918, the

Questions
salaries of officers and clerks in question are in effect charged back to other departments in the accounts rendered, and it has not been deemed proper to include such salaries in the civil government appropriation; the question whether or not these salaries should be placed in the estimates and voted in civil government or other appropriation has been for some time under consideration but no conclusion has been reached.
2.	The regulations framed for the government of the department by the authority appointed under P.C. 562, March, 1918, contain the following instructions on this point:
(3)-stationery supplies:	The price
charged departments for stationery supplies shall include the original cost of the supplies, the freight and transportation charges and an added percentage to cover the cost of operating the stationery supplies divison.
The tax is not 15 iper cent and 20 per cent, as stated, anpl is collected, not on all stationery supplies, but on certain classes, and ranges from 5 per cent upward, the principle followed being to grade the tax in proportion to thef margin secured at purchase; when supplies are purchased in large quantities an ample margin is usually obtained, and an addition may be made to the selling price for small quantities without increasing the cost above the level of the retail charge for similar quantities.	i
3.	The cost of maintainng a record which would show the difference between the selling prices of an infinite number and variety of articles in a turnover of between two and three million dollars and the purchase or cost price of the same in bulk would be disproportionate to its value. Such a record is not kept and the information is not available.
4.	The practice is related to points raised in question No. 1 and is similarly receiving consideration,
5.	Answered by reply to No. 4.
6.	All moneys paid to the king's printer by the house of parliament or government departments for services performed or goods supplied, or by the public for official documents sold, are deposited to the credit of the Receiver General. The kings printer's advance account consists of advances authorized by the Minster of Finance, under Chap. 162, Sec. 38. R.S.C. 1927. All officials of the department, whether paid from civil government or king's printer's advance account or otherwise, are under the jurisdiction of the civil service commission and the pre-audit of
the Auditor General as ito increases and salaries, and the salary of any official paid out of king's printer's advance account is not increased or affected except by the civil service commission and the acceptance of such by the Auditor General.



MR. G. FRED PEARSON

Mr. MACDOUGALL:: How much did the government pay Mr. G. Fred Pearson for his legal services m connection with the recent fishery commission.


Mr. CARDIN:: Amount paid for legal services to Mr. G. Fred Pearson, $16,300.



PORT HOOD HARBOUR

Mr. MACDOUGALL:: 1.	When did the federal government commence work on what is locally known as "The closing of the northern entrance of Port Hood harbour"?
2.	How much money was spent on this work?
3.	When was it commenced?
4.	When was it abandoned?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	1904.
2.	$133,653.68.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	Work discontinued 1912.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. ARTHURS:: 1.	How many contracts were made for the conveyance of mails in Ontario during the calendar year 1927?
2.	How many renewals were made:	(a) at
suggestion of department; (b) by the contractor ?	_
3.	In how many cases were tenders advertised
for?	[DOT]
4.	In how many cases was the lowest tender, as originally received, accepted?
5.	Did the department decide that in certain cases the tenders were not satisfactory?
0. If so, in how many cases?
7.	Were new tenders called for when those received were not considered satisfactory?
8.	If not, why?
9.	Have contracts been concluded in some of such cases, and if so, how many?



SEVEN SISTERS FALLS

Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, orders in council, between the government of Canada or any member thereof, or officials and any other person or persons in reference to the development of water-power on the Seven Sisters site and Slave Falls, including all correspondence with the government
3550	COMMONS
Fishing Licenses in British Columbia
of Manitoba, the city of Winnipeg and all other private companies seeking to control power sites on the Winnipeg river in Manitoba.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: A great deal of correspondence would have to be 'brought down if the motion was passed as it stands, and I am informed that a great deal of the .correspondence is not material to anyone. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would let the motion stand until I have had an opportunity of discussing it with him. I think we can reduce the order very materially.
Motion stands.



UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond-West Cape Breton):: For a return showing a detailed statement of expenditures on Black Point breakwater, Richmond county, together with a copy of all correspondence relating thereto, from March 15, 1927, to March 15, 1928.



FISHING LICENSES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alan Webster Neill: I
would like to call the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin), or possibly the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), to the decision recently given by the Supreme Court of Canada on a question that was referred to it some months ago regarding the jurisdiction of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries under the Fisheries Act, in relation to the issuance of certain fishing licenses in British Columbia. In view of that decision, I would ask if it is the intention of the government to amend the Fisheries Act to meet the situation'that has arisen, or how is it proposed to deal with the situation, because this is a matter of very great importance to British Columbia.


Ernest Lapointe: I may say that the judgment is of very recent occurrence. As a matter of fact,
I have not yet had the opportunity of seeing a copy of it; I do not think that an official copy has been received by the department, but it may have been. In view of the importance of the matter, we shall certainly consider the advisability of appealing this judgment to the Privy Council.


Alan Webster Neill: And in the meantime continuing to enforce the law as it stood prior to the decision?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: As hon. members are
aware, the house will not sit on Monday of next week. My attention has been drawn to the fact that a number of hon. members will desire to leave the city early on Saturday afternoon or evening for the week end. Before the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) left for the west, I had a word with him with respect to having morning sittings begin next Saturday, and I understood the hon. gentleman was agreeable to that. I have just learned from my friend the acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) that he understands .that will be satisfactory to the members of his party. If it is agreeable to hon. members generally, I should like to move the necessary motion at once, so that hon. members may arrange their plans accordingly; if ther.e is any desire to debate the motion, I would let it stand as a notice. If J;he house is agreeable, I move that we return to Notices of Motion.


Hewitt Bostock: By leave of the house.
Motion agreed to and the house reverted to the order "Notices of Motion."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That on and after Saturday, the 2nd of June instant, until the end of the present session, the house shall meet at eleven o'clock in the morning of each day, except Sundays, and that in addition to the usual intermission at six o'clock p.m., there shall be also an intermission from one to three o'clock p.m.


Hugh Guthrie: Do I understand there is a sitting arranged for Saturday of this week?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, Saturday morning.


Hugh Guthrie: And Saturday afternoon? Mr. MACKENZIE KING: Yes.


Mr. BOURASSA:: Does it mean that we
shall adjourn from one to three, or from one to two on Saturday?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: From one to
three.


Mr. GEARY:: Does the house sit Saturday evening?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it may be understood that the house will not sit Saturday evening. We may adjourn early in the afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Chicago Drainage Canal


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. K. ESLING (West Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) stated that council would act on the advice of the Minister of National Revenue the very moment that the minister gave to council reasonable grounds for restricting importation-referring probably to natural products. Now, I am in receipt of a telegram from Preston stating that the 1928 strawberry crop to the value of 865,000 will be ready for the market in a few days, and that the growers will foe subject to serious loss if they are compelled to market this crop in competition with surplus berries from the United States. May I ask the Prime Minister if this will be considered a reasonable ground for passing an order in council to restrict the importation of surplus berries?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say to my hon. friend, Mr. Speaker, that while I might have one view of what is a reasonable ground, some of my colleagues might have another. I would not be able to say what view council as a whole would take until the matter comes before us there.



STRUCTURAL STEEL WORKERS' STRIKE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask the Acting Minister of Labour (Mr. Elliott) what has been done or will be done to adjust the very serious strike of structural steel workers employed on an important public work in Toronto. A week ago the minister stated he would have a reply ready. What is the situation?


John Campbell Elliott: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am aware, there has been no change in the situation since my hon. friend asked the question the other day. At that time he seemed to be under the impression that a request had been made by the steel workers of the city of Toronto for action by the Department of Labour. I have made inquiries, and I find that while there was a communication from the mayor of the city, there has been no such request for intervention as the act contemplates. I shall be glad to make inquiries as to what is the situation this afternoon, but that was my information this morning.



CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the
attention of the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) to Hansard of Monday, April 30, 1928, when he presented a motion for the printing of a portion of a return tabled on April 19, being documents respecting the Chicago drainage canal. On that occasion the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) urged upon the minister that the report should be printed as a whole, and the latter said he would take it under consideration. Subsequently, on May 2, 1928, page 2596 of Hansard, the minister made a motion with regard to the printing. When he was reading it I found it difficult to understand the purport of what was a rather complicated statement, and I asked him this question:
Mr. Cahan:	May I ask what is included in
*this present motion? For instance, the earlier documents brought down have been printed, but they are not available; it is impossible to obtain copies of them although I have applied to the printing bureau and to the distribution office.
To which he replied:
Mr. Stewart (Edmonton):	This covers the
reprint of all those documents, so we will have everything together.
I think the minister's statement has not been carried out, because the documents which have been printed and placed at the disposal of members contain simply a list of the recent correspondence between Canada and the United States. I would ask the minister to consider whether this promise of his-may I call it?-will be carried out.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I may tell my
hon. friend' that the previous documents were simply out of print, and we have ordered that they be reprinted for distribution.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is satisfactory.



SUPPLY-SALARIES OF PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL OFFICIALS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
["No. The practice is that grievances are aired before the house goes into committee of supply,'but I thought that when the Minister of Finance spoke the particular grievance which had been brought up was disposed of; when I saw the hon. member for Qu'Appelle rising I thought he was going to bring up' some other question. Hon. gentlemen may bring up other points, however."]
Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to bring to the attention of the house apd the government a matter which is of supreme importance to the basic indus-


Hewitt Bostock: The Ohair cannot hear.


George Gibson Coote: I cannot hear you very well, either, Mr. Speaker; I thank you for asking for better order. As I say, the Dominion cerealist may receive a maximum of $3,480 and house allowance of possibly $30 or $40 a month. I want to say a few words regarding the work of the cereal division.

Technical Officials-Mr. Coote


Hewitt Bostock: I would ask hon. members kindly to be silent; I cannot hear the hon. gentleman at all.
Mr. C'OOTE: One of the most important activities of the cereal division is that of evolving and developing varieties of wheat capable of producing maximum yields of high quality throughout the various wheat growing districts of western Canada. The world famous marquis wheat is the most outstanding-ing contribution of this division to date. According to conservative estimates we now realize in Canada at least $100,000,000 more from our wheat crop annually than would have been possible had we still to depend on the varieties of wheat grown prior to the introduction of marquis. Many districts however require varieties that have earlier maturing qualities than marquis, and the introduction of garnet wheat in 1920 and reward wheat this year seems to have filled that want. Both these wheats are the work of men engaged in the cereal branch. The breeding of rust-resistant varieties, which is largely concentrated at the rust research laboratory in Winnipeg, where it is being prosecuted by officials of the cereal division co-operating with Dominion plant pathologists, is an immensely important undertaking. As is well known, rust has exacted a toll of as high as $100,000,000 in a single year. Indeed, many farmers in Manitoba and parts of Saskatchewan have almost been compelled to abandon their farms as the result of the frequent occurence of this dread disease. The solution of this problem, would appear to be possible, providing the personnel of the staff be held intact. Unfortunately a serious depletion in the staff has already taken place -through the resignation of one of the most outstanding officials, and I understand that other resignations are pending unless salaries are adjusted.
I wish to quote a few sentences from the Grain Growers' Guide in regard to the discrimination which seems to exist so far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned. The statement is made:
As for younger men the situation is well illustrated by an incident referred to in the March issue of Scientific Agriculture. Recently the commission advertised for two men. For an assistant superintendent for an experimental farm, who must be an agricultural college graduate, with a post graduate degree and special training in histology, genetics and physiology, it offered a salary range of $1,620 to $1,920. For an assistant chief of the narcotics division, who is required to have only a high school education and two years' clerical experience, preferably police experience, with some knowledge of drugs, it offers a salary range of from $2,400 to $2,880. It is little wonder in these circumstances that Canada is losing some of her best scientific agriculturists.



[Stage Direction]
We cannot afford to lose these men. I think it is generally admitted that agriculture is the basic industry of Canada, and wheat is certainly the greatest item in our agricultural economy. I want to quote briefly from an article entitled Wheat is King, published in MacLean's Magazine of April 1st:
The stupendous Canadian wheat industry totally eclipses all other Dominion enterprises in the number of men employed, in the amount of machinery utilized and in the quantity of money involved. When talking of Canadian wheat we now speak in terms of billions. . . . Wheat, and wheat alone, augments the national treasury annually by $100,000,000 more than the total annual income from our forests. It brings into Canada twice as much money as our mines, and ten times as much as our fisheries. No other single commodity produced in the Dominion has a chance in the race for national importance. It is so far ahead of all others that it has no competitors.
The greatest enemy of our wheat producers to-day is rust. In this connection I want t-o quote from an editorial which appeared in the Alberta Farmer:
Because the future success of western Canada's wheat harvests is seriously threatened the Dominion government, under pressure of public opinion, organized two years ago a Dominion rust research laboratory. It is not necessary to explain to prairie farmers the seriousness of the rust menace. A year ago 55 per cent of the wheat crop of the west graded No. 3 northern or better; this year only 35 per cent of the crop graded that high. The cause for the most part was rust. Thus far this year only one and one-half per cent of the wheat graded in western Canada has been classed No. 1 northern and only 10 per cent No. 2 northern. The cause for the most part has been rust. Rust is responsible for the fact that in 1927 Manitoba, which was at one time an exclusive bread wheat area produced oyer 50 per cent of durum wheat. 'Rust was almost entirely responsible for the reduction of 20,000,000 bushels in Manitoba's wheat crop last year from the year before. Absence of rust in Alberta during 1927 made it possible for this province to raise as much wheat on six and one-half million acres as Saskatchewan, where rust was rampant, raised on thirteen million acres. Stem rust caused a loss of approximately two hundred million dollars to prairie farmers in 1916.
Even if that statement is exaggerated it should cause some concern to this house. It seems to me that this is the proper time to place before the house a resolution passed by the Canadian Council of Agriculture at its annual meeting, which was held in Winnipeg last March:
Whereas grain rust is costing the country millions of dollars annually, which loss can only be prevented through the agency of scientific research, which demands the services of the most highly trained experts;
And whereas Canada is losing many agricultural scientists to other countries where the scale of remuneration is considerably higher than prevails here;
[Stage Direction]


Technical Officials-Mr. Coote
And whereas the civil service salary classification sharply discriminates against scientific men engaged in agricultural research work as compared with men requiring no higher standard of training engaged in other branches of the civil service;
And whereas the future prosperity of Canada depends in a large measure upon scientific research in the various branches of agricultural development;	,
Therefore the Canadian Council of Agriculture recommends to the federal government that immediate steps be taken to remove the discrimination against agricultural scientists now existing in the civil service salary classification;
And further that nothing be allowed to stand in the way of prosecuting rust research work as rapidly as possible to a successful conclusion.
At present the obstacle in the way is the insufficient salaries which are being paid to men engaged in this work; according to the press we have been losing quite a number of men who were formerly actively engaged in this work at Winnipeg. The first of these of whom mention is made is Doctor D. L. Bailey, who had charge of the laboratory; he has been asked by the university of Toronto to accept a position as head of the department of pathology. Next is Mr. J. R. Craigie, who has accepted invitations from the United States Botanical Society at Washington and from Harvard university to present his paper and to consider opportunities they have to offer. I understand that he has accepted one of the offers. After nine years of intensive training, he started work at the rust laboratory for $2,400 per year, and his maximum salary under the present 'classification would be $2,880. The next is Doctor Margaret Newton, who has a standing offer from the university of Saskatchewan. Doctor C. H Goulding also has received offers from the United States. It is unfortunate but true that during the last few years many highly trained scientific officers have left our service to go to the United States or other countries because they have been offered higher salaries; our Department of Agriculture alone has lost over 75 professional officers in the last five years. Many of these men go to the United States and enter either the federal service or one of the various state services, and unless these salaries are increased we will lose many more of these trained investigators and professional officers. When these men leave the sendee they take with them a wealth of knowledge and experience which in many cases cannot be replaced.
Among those who have left the service within the last few years are two highly trained scientific officers, each holding a doctor's degree. These men resigned from the entomological branch of the Department of Agri-
IMr. Coote.]
culture three years ago, one to accept a position in the United States federal service at $4,500 per year and the other to accept a position in the Fiji islands at $7,500. It does , seem a strange thing to me that this country cannot afford to pay our men salaries equal to what they can get in the Fiji islands. These men were each receiving $2,760 in Canada, and the maximum of that class since has been raised to $2,880. One of these positions is still vacant; it has been advertised several times but no suitable person has applied. These gentlemen were investigating the injury done by the spruce bud worm in the forests of eastern Canada, with a view to devising methods of preventing similar outbreaks. It' is stated that in our eastern forests the spruce bud worm has killed fir, balsam and spruce within the last twenty years to the amount of from 150,000,000 to 200,000,000 cords, worth between one and two billion dollars before being manufactured into pulp.
A few months ago we were informed that a highly trained technical officer in charge of the tobacco division at the experimental farm had resigned from our service to accept a much higher salary under the Australian council for scientific research. Our scientific branches are just as important as those of the United States, Australia, or the Fiji islands; our problems are quite as difficult to solve. _ It is necessary that our scientific investigations be maintained at a standard of efficiency equal to that of any other country, and this can be done only by retaining these highly trained men in our service. Doctor Charles Saunders, through his discovery of marquis wheat, is credited with having increased the value of our wheat crop to the extent of $100,000,000 annually; this parliament has seen fit to grant Doctor Saunders a pension in recognition of his services, but who knows whether by losing men of this character to other countries because of the inadequate salaries we are paying, we may not have lost men who could have rendered to agriculture in Canada services equally valuable to those rendered by Doctor Saunders?
Mr. ADSHEAD:: Would my hon. friend
tell me the pension given Doctor Saunders?
Mr. COOTE; I am sorry, but I cannot give that; I do not expect that it is^ equal to the pension given some of our judges, however.
I do not wish to take up the time of the house unnecessarily to-day, Mr. Speaker. In closing I wish to say that I have brought this matter up for discussion because I believe it to be very' important in a truly national sense that the salaries of these men should be put on a more satisfactory basis before

Technical Officials-Mr. Steedsman
this parliament prorogues. I hope we may have a promise from the government that this will be done and that the supplementary estimates will provide for such increases in these salaries.


Mr. JAMES STEEDSMAN (Souris):: I
feel grateful to my hon. friend for having introduced this subject. I was under the impression that it might be discussed on another occasion, but now that it has been introduced I would like to say a few words with reference to it. I am not going into a comparison of the salaries paid in the different branches here with those paid in other countries for services of a scientific character; my hon. friend has done that already, and in presenting what I have to say I wish to be as brief as possible.
We have been alarmed by the fact that we have lost many of our best scientists because we have been unable to offer them salaries sufficiently large to induce them to stay here. The question introduced to-day by my hon. friend is one of the most important which will come before this parliament this session. We realize that the prosperity of this country depends to a very great degree upon the success of agriculture, and the invasion of the grain fields of western Canada by rust is threatening the whole prosperity of the country. We find the area affected spreading from year to year; a few years ago the ravages of this disease were confined to Manitoba, but now we find it spreading considerably farther afield. It is almost certain, unless some means are found to control or combat this menace, that the whole area of western Canada will be more or less affected. I will be pardoned if I confine my remarks chiefly to the effect it has had in Manitoba, the province from which I come.
As the hon. gentleman has just said, the wheat crop in Manitoba last year amounted to only 30,000,000 bushels, and of that amount 15,000,000 bushels were durum wheat. The remainder was of a very poor quality, so low in fact that much of it was almost unsalable, being little better than feed wheat. The introduction of new varieties and the propagation of rust-resistant varieties has done something to relieve the situation. Great areas in southwestern Manitoba, from which I come, have had to change from marquis to durum wheat. While this has proven very satisfactory for that particular locality, at the same time we can readily understand that it is out of the question that any one variety of wheat will be satisfactory for the whole of western Canada. Climatic and soil
conditions make that impossible, and the question of markets has also been mentioned by my hon. friend. While there are those who suggest that the introduction of new varieties and the propagation of rust-resistant varieties may be the solution, I am not prepared to go that far, for the reason that no one or two varieties of wheat can be suitable for such an extensive area as we have in western Canada to-day.
. Other kinds of grain are being affected as well. Not only was the wheat crop of Manitoba affected last year by rust, but the oat crop also suffered, and to a greater degree. The oat crop of Manitoba last year was cut down by two-thirds from the previous year, due largely to rust, aggravated, of course, by weather conditions. The balance of the crop was of very poor quality, scarcely any of it fit for feed. Great quantities of feed and seed oats have had to be imported into Manitoba this year as a result of the attacks of rust on the oat crop last year.
So you will see that it extends ever farther than wheat. When it comes to affect the feed grains of our province or our country, you will see that our whole agriculture is affected. As a result of the condition I have outlined with regard to oats, you will find that very few cattle were fed in Manitoba this last winter. A great number of stock which would otherwise have stayed there has been shipped out as the result of the failure of that crop, owing to rust.
I do not wish to detatin the house but I want to point out to the government the importance of securing the very best men available, the most highly trained scientific men that it is possible to find anywhere, to take on this. work. And having secured them we should pay them such remuneration as will induce them to stay with the job. At the present time Canada cannot afford to lose one man who can do anything towards the solution of this problem, by not paying him sufficient money to keep him at his post. Therefore I would suggest to the Minister of Agriculture and to the government not only the advisability but the necessity of paying sufficient wages to induce these men to carry on this work which means so much to the prosperity of this country..


Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Victoria, B.C.):: 
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: My hon. friend' from Victoria closed his remarks with the statement that the responsibility was the government's. I beg to submit on behalf of the government that we realize the importance of this question, and we are sympathetic to the idea of retaining within the service the very best men and women obtainable at the salaries provided. But may I point out at once to you, Mr. Speaker, and

Technical Officials-Mr. Robl
to the house that it is the Civil Service Commission. that fixes the salaries for the employees of the Dominion of Canada. We have in the Dominion of Canada many departments of public service, and the Civil Service Commission, like the government, must always keep in mind when adjusting salaries, how any proposed increases or decreases in one department will affect other departments. I believe that all parties entrusted with the responsibility of office have always endeavoured to keep in the public service competent and industrious employees who were interested in the affairs of the country. But we have lost excellent civil servants. I can recall that we have lost from the public service of Canada two or three men who left many years ago to go into private business, and I admit frankly that one or two of the three I have in mind are much better off, in a monetary sense, to-day than if they had remained in the public service. But as I said a moment ago, it is not the government that fixes the salaries generally all along the line in the departments. In the first place, recommendations come from the Civil Service Commission to the treasury board. It may interest the house to know that we did receive from the Civil Service Commission on the 23rd day of May last, just seven days ago, just three days before the supplementary estimates were tabled, certain recommendations regarding the technical and professional men and women in the public service. I have read that recommendation carefully, and I observe that even the Civil Service Commission, having given considerable study to this question, and realizing, as I believe they do realize, the importance of an increase in the salaries of the technical and professional staff, but realizing also the difficulties, are not yet quite clear in their own minds what should be done. For the information of the house I will just read a summary of the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission:
The recommendation is that the minimum and maximum salary rates for professional and scientific classes and for other classes with a maximum salary of $4,000 or more he revised, and increases according to a general plan, subject to such modifications as the committee consider warranted-
That was the view presented to the government by the Civil Service Commission only seven days ago, and as I said, they are not yet quite clear in their own minds, because to summarize:
The commission is as yet none too clear what classes should get increases. In one paragraph they comment on the fact that if increases are given to the scientific men only, it may result
in cases where the heads of branches might be receiving less than their assistants, so that increases would have to be made not only in the salaries of the scientific men, but also like increases for all positions where the salary is over $4,000.
But if the commission had any doubt in their own minds as to what classes should be increased, they had no doubt as to what the cost would be to the taxpayers of the Dominion, because in this memorandum they state that on the basis of the estimated increases which they are now considering it would involve an additional outlay of $750,000 a year. I am not sure that that would be sufficient to keep in the service the scientific men that have been referred to this afternoon, because the Civil Service Commission say that upon this basis the increases vary from $240 for classes with maximum salary rates of less than $2,400 per annum, to $420 for classes with maximum rates greater than $4,000.
Those increases might be considered by some of these officials who have been offered other positions insufficient to retain them in the service. When my hon. friend says that the responsibility is the government's, I say that we are willing to take all the responsibility that is coming to us, but we have a Civil Service Commission that revises and recommends the salaries to be paid to civil servants, and if we increase the salaries and come back next session with an increased vote of $750,000 for carrying on the business of the country, I wonder if we shall be attacked.
The government welcome this discussion and the co-operation of all classes to assist us in retaining in the service those who are most useful to the country.	But before going
further may I say this? Taking them generally, the Dominion of Canada has a pretty good staff of civil servants. The men and women are devoted to the national service, and the Dominion provides very well for them. The civil service-and I am speaking generally now-receive in remuneration a return that compares most favourably with their brothers' and sisters' who are paying the taxes and paying their salaries. Not only do they receive pretty good salaries, but once a man or woman is on a permanent basis he or she has the assurance of continuing a civil servant, no matter what government may be in power, so long as the service rendered is loyal and efficient. And civil servants have the further advantage of being entitled to a pension when they reach a certain age limit, and in case of death a certain proportion of the pension is continued to their widows. So those who have the responsibilities of bringing up a family are fairly well provided for.

Technical Officials-Mr. Rohb
It will be found that the salaries of our professional and technical civil servants compare very favourably with the salaries earned by other technical and professional men outside the service.


George Gibson Coote: Would the minister permit
this question:	In regard to the duty of the
Civil Sendee Commission to revise salaries, have the commission authority to revise any salaries until the matter is referred to them by the government or by the heads of departments?


James Alexander Robb: I am speaking from memory, and subject to correction, but my understanding is that the head of a department suggests to the Civil Service Commission the desirability of reclassifying certain employees. The Civil Service Commission pass on that suggestion. They have to endeavour to maintain uniformity throughout the service, always keeping in mind that when they increase the salaries in one department, the next day the head of another department will ask for a similar increase for his staff.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: May I ask this question:
If the number of able veterinarians continues to reduce at the rate of 25 per cent, as it has done since 1919, where in the future are we going to get our supply of professional men for the health of animals branch?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is better
posted on that than I am, but my principal difficulty with veterinarians is to find them government jobs. If any vacancies occur I think I could find a few veterinarians ready to fill them. Allow me to read part of paragraph 2 of the recommendations of the Civil Service Commission to council, so it may be on record for the information of the house: The Civil Service Commission find that the distinction between the professional and scientific positions and other positions of the service is that for all professional and scientific positions the basic qualification requirement is education equivalent to graduation from a university or college of recognized standing. Therefore, in determing what classes should be included in this revision, the controlling factor considered has been whether or not the work of an employee, to enable him to carry on properly the duties of his position, requires university graduation or its equivalent. It therefore follows that it is those classes for which university graduation or its equivalent are essential qualifications, which will now be subject to revision.
That brings up another question of possible difficulty. There are men and women who have been many years in the service, and their long experience makes them peculiarly useful in attending to the country's affairs. Is it fair that they should be discriminated against because they did not have the advan-
tage of a college education? They have been through what is perhaps the best of all universities-the university of experience within the service.
I do not wish to detain the house any longer. I repeat, the government is sympathetic in its attitude to the civil service, and is just as desirous as any former government to retain the services of those who are useful in carrying on the business of the country. But I ask the house:	The government having
received this memorandum from the Civil Service Commission just seven days ago, and three days before the supplementary estimates were tabled, is it reasonable to expect that ministers-who work as long hours as many civil servants, that is, about eighteen hours a day-could give this matter in the closing days of the session the consideration which it deserves. The government will go carefully into the question of salaries, not only of those engaged in the Department of Agriculture but in all departments. May I say in passing that the Civil Service Commission recognize the importance of the Department of Agriculture, for I notice in their memorandum this statement is made:
There is urgent need for an immediate special review of all scientific and professional classes in the Department of Agriculture. Such review should be supplementary to any increase granted to such classes hereby and will be reported to His Excellency the Governor General in council at the earliest possible date.
We have not had that yet, but when it does come to us We will look into it carefully.
Only one word more in conclusion. My hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Tolmie) made a comparision between salaries paid to our civil servants and those paid in the United States. I submit that, generally speaking, our civil service is remunerated just about as well as that of the United States. But if my hon. friend is going to compare salaries in the United States and Canada, perhaps it would be interesting to some of hs own friends, from whom I have heard *whispers in this regard, if he would compare the salaries of congressmen and senators in the United States with indemnities paid members of parliament and senators in Canada. He might compare the salaries of the judiciary in the United States with salaries paid judges in this Dominion.
The government are charged with the responsibility which my hon. friend has just indicated. But we have a responsibility not only in taking care of our professional and scentific men in the service but, as well, in seeing to it that there shall be such uniformity throughout the service as will be satisfactory

Technical Officials-Mr. Millar
to all classes. I repeat, we are sympathetic to increases in salaries where they are deserved by those doing useful scientific work, and we welcome this discussion, which will be carefully considered during the recess.


Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'appelle):: The
hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie) and the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Steedsman) well said that no more important matter has been brought to the attention of .the house this session than the question introduced by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote). I am not going to cover the ground already covered so well by the hon. member for Macleod and others who have spoken, but I want to add a word in support of what they have said.
The losses which Canada is sustaining at the present time through the lack of research are so enormous that this matter must be looked upon very seriously. The hon. member for Macleod spoke of rust. I want to stress this because it is one of the greatest enemies which the western wheat grower has to face to-day. In Manitoba, a province already referred to by the hon. member for Souris, the acreage under wheat in 1925 or 1926 was only the same as the acreage of 1903. That is a rather remarkable statement. The greatest factor in bringing about that state of affairs, forcing Manitoba into the growing of course grains and compelling that province very largely to go out of wheat production, has been rust. That disease has spread over Saskatchewan also, permeating almost the entire province. Last year it was pitiable to see crops of wheat which ordinarily should thresh forty bushels to the acre reduced by rust alone to such a condition as to yield only about seventeen or eighteen bushels. There was a heavy crop of straw to Ibe handled and tied with twine and yet the yield was very low. And not only was there a low yield, but the quality of grain was not as high.
It is no good exaggerating the losses sustained in this regard, but it is a very conservative estimate indeed that the loss annually from rust is $100,000,000. That is putting it low indeed. We have had some very excellent scientific men at work on the rust question. Until a few years ago scientists believed there was only one variety of rust; about the year 1916, however-I am speaking from memory-it was discovered that there was not one variety but there were forty. Twenty of these are found in western Canada. The little spores we see on wheat and other grain plants, falling on the plant work their way into it, cutting off the supply of food,
and they develop in such large numbers that they break out on the plant much the same as a rash on the human body. Then they go through a process whereby they multiply by hundreds of millions. The fact that there are twenty different varieties in western Canada makes it most difficult to find a remedy. Scientists tell us that the different spores- the different varieties-cannot be distinguished except by means of research, to discover the kind of plant on which they will feed. One will feed on one variety and another on some other variety, and that is the only way to distinguish them. So that now instead of having to fight, as formerly it was believed, merely one enemy, there are twenty to cope with. You can see therefore how difficult the problem becomes.
In the course of the session there has been considerable discussion about the loss to Canada through the importation of strawberries from the United States as well as other fruits from various places and eggs from China. I assure you that in the rust disease you have an importation infinitely worse. It comes from the United States, from the south, and it is a million times more harmful than any strawberries that come into this country. These spores travel in the air at a rapid pace, finding their way into the extreme north as far as Norway House and York Factory. They travel high as well as low in the air, two or three miles. To build a fence to keep them from coming up from the south is an impossibility. They must be fought by other mean*.
These research men in the service of Canada have made splendid headway, having found out a great deal about rust during the last ten or fifteen years, and it does seem to be most unfortunate that we should lose their sendees which means so much to the country. The evil is worse now than it was five or ten years ago and to lose these men because of insufficient remuneration, allowing them to go elsewhere, is a very grave mistake.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) suggests that the result of an increase in the salaries paid these men-at least I inferred as much from his remarks-would be something like $750,000, for the reason that if the salaries of the scientific men were increased this would have its effect all along the line. I agree with the minister that generally speaking our civil servants are very well paid. But when we have in our employ a man whose efforts mean not hundreds of thousands but millions of dollars to Canada, I contend that he is in a class that should be taken entirely out of
3562	COMMONS
Technical Officials-Mr. Millar
the civil service. Such a man should not be in the civil service but should be paid according to the service he is rendering to the state. And this should have no effect on the various classes in the civil service. I do not see any reason why scientific men such as those referred to by the hon. member for Macleod should not have their remuneration increased in order that we may retain their services, without that affecting the men who run elevators in our public buildings or elsewhere.
We have had a committee working for some months on the question of immigration; I think immigration is linked up with this matter, although very few of our students of immigration seem to realize that the reason we cannot get immigrants as easily as we would like is because conditions on the farm are not as attractive as they should be. I remember that on one occasion the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) remarked that these same hard conditions obtained thirty or forty years ago. The farmer has seen hard conditions; he has managed to weather them successfully, but that hardly applies at present. Now the farmer has more of class consciousness; he realizes that during the years gone by he has not enjoyed that share of the good things to which he was entitled. If he is going to work long hours and spend . his time in an employment which is very risky, which might be called almost a gamble, then he wants some remuneration to compensate him for that hard work and the lack of an opportunity to enjoy the good things which our city friends enjoy. We have arrived at a time when farmers' sons are not going to stay on the land unless conditions are made more attractive. If the amount of money we lose through rust alone could be saved, farming would pay so much better than is the case at present that it would become attractive, and some of the millions of dollars we are spending to bring immigrants into Canada could be saved.
I am very glad the hon. member for Macleod brought up this question; this may or may not be the best time for it, but I am not worrying about that. There is no wrong time to bring up a matter of such vital importance as this question of retaining the services of our scientific workers. Perhaps the government may not be altogether to blame for the situation, but I hope that something may be done, either by taking these men out from under the Civil Service Commission or in some other way, to retain their services which we so greatly need. The best are none too good for us, and I do not
IMr. Millar.]
want to see good men lost to us after they have spent years at their work which means that new and untried men must be employed, who require years to reach the same point in their work. This is a matter of very great importance, and I hope the government will give it the most serious consideration.


Hewitt Bostock: The motion that I do
now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply was made by the Minister of Finance. Before the motion was carried one hon. member brought u,p a question, under the old practice of airing grievances before going into supply. He was followed by two or three other hon. members, after which the Minister of Finance rose to reply. Under our rules the mover of a Substantive motion has the reply, and when that reply is made the debate is closed. I should have stopped the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar), but I thought he was bringing up another matter. Under the rules of the house the debate is now closed and I should leave the chair.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: It is usual for the Speaker to call attention to the fact that when the mover of a motion replies the debate is closed. On this occasion Your Honour did not do so, and under these circumstances I submit that the debate should be allowed to continue.


Hewitt Bostock: I am in the hands of
the house, if hon. members desire to continue the debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: On the point of order, I would like to know if there is anything to prevent me, as a private member, from airing any grievance I may have before the motion is carried?


Hewitt Bostock: No. The practice is that grievances are aired before the house goes into committee of supply,'but I thought that when the Minister of Finance spoke the particular grievance which had been brought up was disposed of; when I saw the hon. member for Qu'Appelle rising I thought he was going to bring up' some other question. Hon. gentlemen may bring up other points, however.



SUPPLY-HIGH COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE

['I will do so.\nItem stands.\nProgress reported.']
Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I wish to say a
few words in connection with the discussion yesterday regarding the High Commissioner's

International Relations
office. I regret to say that a statement made by the Prime Minister on that occasion escaped my notice. At page' 3507 of Hansard the fight bon. gentleman is reported as having Said:
.... at a subsequent session the government may ask parliament to approve of the appointment of a financial comptroller. . . .
I entirely disagree with the suggestion that any such officer is needed; I should have noticed the statement yesterday and spoken about it at the time. Ordinarily the High Commissioner's office in London is simply a spending office, although it is quite true that at present there are accounts still open with foreign governments. During the war the High Commissioner's office had to deal with a great many large and important financial questions; these we had to talk over and settle with the British treasury and the British war office. The High Commissioner attended to these questions throughout the war, with the assistance of his office staff, without having to call in any expert assistance. That is all I have to say on the subject; I wish to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the faithful and effective service given by the whole staff of that office during the war.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hewitt Bostock: Before I leave the chair I would like to give my ruling on the point of order raised a short time ago by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), with reference to the motion presented by the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh). The point of order was to the effect that when a committee made a final report, that report could not be amended unless the committee were revived.
I think under the present circumstances the word "final" should mean that the report should be considered final only when it is adopted by the house, because the house can always refer a report back to a committee with instructions to amend it in any particular. The hon. member has cited May, page 440, but it was the twelfth edition. In May, thirteenth edition, at page 488 appears the following;
Motions also may be made that the report be recommitted; or recommitted, with minutes
of proceedings, so far as they relate to a certain paragraph; or recommitted, and the order of reference amended;
There apears to be a difference between the later and older editions of May. Bourinot
says, at page 479:
A report may he referred back to a committee for further consideration, or with instructions giving them power to amend the same in any respect. In this way a committee may regularly reconsider and even reverse a decision it has previously arrived at.
In the present instance there is no question of reversing the conclusions of the report; it is simply a technical change in the number of printed copies to be published. There is a recent and very clear case in point-the famous report of the customs committee some two years ago. A final report was brought before the house on the 18th June, 1926. The following appears on page 4694 of Hansard, June 18th, 1926:
The special committee appointed to investigate the administration of the Department of Customs and Excise, beg leave to present the following as their third and final report:
That was not a standing committee, it was a special committee. The revival of a committee should take place when it is a special committee, if lit should take place at all, but when it is a standing committee it is different. A few days afterwards, on June 22, I find that an hon. gentleman well versed in the rules of the house, Mr. Stevens, seconded by Mr. Doucet, moved:
That the report be not now adopted, but that it be referred back to the special committee with instructions to add thereto the following clauses as subclauses to paragraph 6:
So that the practice in the Canadian parliament does not prevent a report, even if it is a final report, of either a special or, better still, a standing committee, being referred back to be amended. The hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) quoted from Beauchesne. But Beauchesne, paragraph 672, says:
A report may be referred back to a committee for further consideration, or with instructions giving them power to amend the same m any respect. In this way a committee may regularly reconsider and even reverse a decision it has previously arrived at. B. 479.
Under these circumstances, my ruling is that the motion is in order, and if it is the desire of the house we will revert to motions and decide if it should be carried or not.
Is it the pleasure of the house to revert to motions, and that the motion presented by the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) be carried?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.
Supply-National Revenue

Some hoD. MEMBERS:	No.


Hewitt Bostock: There must be unanimous consent. The motion will therefore stand until to-morrow.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
National Revenue-$13,473,506.
Salaries and contingent expenses of the several ports in the Dominion, including pay for overtime of officers notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act,-and temporary buildings and rentals, $7,538,460.
Salaries and travelling expenses of inspectors of ports and of other officers on inspection, and in connection with the board of customs; the latter including $500 for the secretary and amount required to create positions, make appointments and pay salaries and expenses of Dominion appraisers, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, and the said positions and staff so appointed to be wholly excluded from said act, $1,137,725.
Miscellaneous-Printing and stationery, subscriptions to commercial papers, flags, dating stamps, locks, instruments, etc., for various ports of entry, express charges on samples, stationery and legal forms, legal expenses, premiums on guarantee bonds, and uniforms for customs officers, $600,000.
To provide for expenses of maintenance of revenue cruisers and for preventive service, including $6,000 salary F. W. Cowan and an amount required to create positions and make appointments, by the Minister of National Revenue, of officers for the prevention of smuggling, and to investigate reported frauds against the revenue, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act and the said positions and staff so appointed to be wholly excluded from said act; also to provide for expenses of such officers and for the purchase or charter of vessels and for the purchase or hire of automobiles to be used in the prevention of smuggling or other offences against the yevenue laws, $1,896,821.
Amounts to be paid to Department of Justice to be disbursed by and accounted for to it, for secret preventive service,-amount required to create positions and make appointments of officers for the prevention of smuggling and to investigate reported frauds against the revenue, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, and the said positions and staff so appointed to be wholly excluded from said act, $100,000.
To provide for the administration of the Business Profits War Tax Act, 1916, and the Income War Tax Act, 1917, and amendments thereof, and authority for this purpose to create positions and make appointments, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, and the said positions and the staff so appointed are hereby wholly excluded from the operation of the said act; and salary of $7,000 for the Commissioner of Income Tax. $2,200,000.
To pay Mrs. Turner Ingalls, widow of the late Turner Ingalls, a customs excise enforcement officer who was accidentally killed while on duty, $500.-Total, $13,473,506.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I called the attention of the Minister of National Revenue last night to a matter on which I did not have the file, and I suggested to the minister that I intended to refer to that matter again on this vote.
The minister said last night that he was not aware that any letter had been received by -him or his department from Mr. Dumoulin. You will remember the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, this being a case regarding J. W. Dumoulin of Notre Dame des Bois. Dumoulin is a French Canadian who volunteered, at the outset of the war. He served with distinction in that regiment which brought fame and honour to the province of Quebec, the 22nd regiment. On his return when he had been wounded and partly incapacitated, through the instrumentality of some friends, he was recommended for appointment as a preventive officer of customs at Notre Dame des Bois. His appointment was made on or about the 23rd of April. 1919, and he served until the 25th of November, 1926. On that date he received a letter from the Department of Customs and Excise, marked file B.2589-11, as follows:
J. W. Dumoulin, Esq.,
Customs Excise Officer,
Notre Dame des Bois, Que.
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that an order in council was passed on November 19, 1926, dispensing with your services as customs excise enforcement officer at Notre Dame des Bois for political partisanship in the last election contrary to section 32 of the Civil Service Act, and your services will therefore require to terminate immediately upon receipt of this letter.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
G. W. Taylor, Acting Deputy Minister*
Immediately on receipt of this letter Mr. Dumoulin wrote a letter to the Minister of Customs and Excise, of which letter I have a duplicate copy. It will be remembered that the present Minister of National Revenue was appointed to his office on September 25, 1926, and this letter is dated November 29, 1926. In reading this letter you will notice that there are some discrepancies in construction of language. The mother tongue of Mr. Dumoulin is French, and he has written this letter in English, but I wish that I could write French as well as he writes English. The letter is as follows:
The Hon. Minister of Customs and Excise.
Ottawa, Canada.
Sir,
I am in receipt of a letter from the Department of Customs and Excise, dispensing with my services as a customs and excise enforce-

Supply-National Revenue
ment officer at the preventive station of Notre Dame des Bois, Que., for political partisanship in the last election.
I absolutely deny the accusation; and not only as a Canadian citizen but as a disabled veteran of the great war, I should be given a chance of appeal and face my accusers.
I have been employed in the customs service for nearly eight years, and if my dismissal is carried on by your department as intended to, I will come to a conclusion that a man who is doing his duty without doing favours to nobody, creates enemies that will constantly try to ruin himself.
All I want is fair play, and that is the reason why, I anticipate your opinion on the subject, before going any further.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. W. Dumoulin.
Of that letter Mr. Dumoulin has not to this day received any acknowledgment. Not having received any acknowledgment, he wrote on December 16, 1926, to the president of his branch of the Great War Veterans' Association asking that the matter be brought to the attention of the government through the branch of the veterans at Ottawa. On the same date, December 16, 1926, he wrote the following letter from Notre Dame des Bois, Quebec;
Secretary-Treasurer, Civil Service Commission, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir:-
Enclosed please find the following copies of letters:
Departmental letter dated November 25 dispensing with my services as customs and excise enforcement officer;
Letter to Minister of Customs and Excise dated November 29 for which I have received no reply;
Letter to President of G.W.V.A. Standstead branch.
Owing to the fact that I have been discharged from the service under false accusation, I appeal to the Civil Service Commission to grant me an inquest to find out if I am not the victim of some violators of the customs laws.
Wishing that my request will meet your approval.
I remain,
Your obedient servant,
J. W. Dumoulin.
Under date of December 23, 1926, the Civil Service Commission replied as follows;
Dear Sir:
I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 16th instant enclosing copies of a letter addressed to you by the department under date of November 25, 1926, advising you that your services as customs excise enforcement officer at Notre Dame des Bois, Que., had been dispensed with by order in council; a letter which you then addressed under date of November 29 to the Honourable the Minister of Customs and Excise, and a letter dated the 16th December to the president, Stanstead branch, G.W.V.A.
I regret that the Civil Service Commission is unable to give you any assistance in this matter as removals are entirely in the hands of the heads of departments. The Civil Service Commission is not in a position to institute any inquiry, or to take any steps towards your reinstatement.
Yours very truly,
W. Foran, Secretary.
J. W. Dumoulin, Esq.,
Notre Dame des Bois, P.Q.
The matter went on. Mr. Dumoulin received no reply from the department, but as the correspondence, which I will not read in full, shows oral communications were made by representatives of the soldiers' association to some officers in the department.


William Daum Euler: I think I should correct my hon. friend there. Myi recollection is, I think, fairly accurate in this regard, that the officers in the soldiers' organization sent a letter to the department, indeed, I think, to myself. Last night I concluded that the matter was closed and I have not since looked up the file, but I think a letter was received by myself from the organization on behalf of this man and a reply was made.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not wish to go into the correspondence, but it will show, as I proceed, that J. C. G. Herwig, adjustment officer, Canadian legion of the British Empire Service League, of the service bureau at Ottawa, says that he had placed certain representations before the department. I am not, however, insisting upon that at the moment.


William Daum Euler: I have a letter from Mr. Herwig himself acknowledging receipt of a letter.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Perhaps the matter was
dealt with by correspondence. In order to show the good faith of Mr. Dumoulin, I may say that under date of January 10, 1927, he writes to the veterans' association as follows pointing out his case:
In regard to my discharge from the customs service, it looks now as if the complaint was made upon a Conservative committee sign, which was hung across the road from the Conservative committee room to the house where the customs office is only rented. It is easy to understand that this complaint is ridiculous. I cannot be held responsible for what has been done in Notre Dame des Bois, during the last election as I was on relieving duty at the ports of Beebe Junction and Rock Island, and this can be easily found in the customs records.
I accept the minister's statement unreservedly, but I had understood that that fact was further communicated to some officer of the department.

Supply-National Revenue


William Daum Euler: I have no knowledge of
that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the minster says he
has no knowledge of it, I accept his statement unreservedly. Under date of February 10, 1027, Mr. Herwig, who was the adjustment officer of the legion at Ottawa, wrote this letter:
It may not be necessary for Comrade Dumou-lin to come to Ottawa at this stage to make his representations, but in order to open the case will he please forward to the Minister of Customs immediately a statutory declaration covering all the points which he wishes to brine forward?
As far as we can ascertain the specific charges against him relate to the streamer across the street from the customs building, and to active participation in the election by canvass, as we understand that certain statements have been made affecting him in this regard.
Having received that, Dumoulin made an affidavit himself and had made by his friends some affidavits which he forwarded to the Department of Customs. I have duplicate copies of some of these and I intend to read them to show his good faith in the matter. The first affidavit is as follows:
To Whom it may concern:
I, J. W. Dumoulin, do solemnly and truly swear, that I did not attend any political meeting or taken any part whatever in the last election.
Signed J. W. Dumoulin. Province of Quebec,
District of St .Francois,
Sworn before me at Notre Dame des Bois, this seventeenth day of February, 1927.
Signed L. Lavigne, Justice of the Peace.
Another affidavit is as follows:
To Whom it may concern:
I, J. C. Goudreau, proprietor of the building in which the customs house is rented, do solemnly and truly swear that J. W. Dumoulin then customs officer, had nothing to do with the streamer that was laid across the road from my house to another, furthermore the above mention officer was not in this locality during the election campaign.
Signed J. C. Goudreau. Province of Quebec,
District of St. Francois,
Sworn before me at Notre Dame des Bois, this seventeenth day of February, 1927.
Signed L. Lavigne, Justice of the Peace.
Another. affidavit:
To Whom it may concern:
I, Edgar Dumoulin, do solemnly and truly swear that J. W. Dumoulin was not responsible for the Conservative committee sign that was laid across the road from the building in which [Mr. Cahar 1
the customs office is located as he was absent during the last election.
Signed Edgar Dumoulin. Province of Quebec,
District of St. Francois,
Sworn before me at Notre Dame des Bois, this seventeenth day of February, 1927.
Signed L. Lavigne, Justice of the Peace.
Then there is this further affidavit which I regard as most important:
To Whom it may concern:
I, the undersigned, do solemnly declare and swear, that J. W. Dumoulin was not here during the last political campaign.
That the Conservative committee for this locality was held in my house.
That the Conservative committee sign was hung across the street from my house to Mr. J. C. Goudreau's house, my neighbour.
That one end of the said sign was tied up tp my neighbour's house under my instructions after having obtained his permission.
That neither J. W. Dumoulin nor the customs department had anything to do with this committee sign.
That I have seen a document bearing the name of the Liberal leader from this locality, Mr. Ludger Lavigne, stating that he had no knowledge of political activities from the part of Mr. J. W. Dumoulin during the said political campaign; and which document is supposed to be in the Liberal member's hands for Comptop county, for his information.
Signed T. Goudreau.
Sworn before me at Notre Dame des Bois, Que., this 21st day of February, 1927.
Signed L. Lavigne, Justice of the Peace.
I thought that this had been communicated to the department, but I believe, in view of the minister's statement, that it was not. To show his good faith, Mr. J. C. Goudreau wrote also to the president of the soldiers' association under date of Februay 21, 1927, in which letter he says:
It has come to my knowledge that Mr. J. W. Dumoulin, former customs officer of this port, has lost his position on account of a streamer that I personally permitted that one end of the said streamer be tied up to my house.
He is tlhe proprietor of the house mentioned before. He goes on:
I regret very much that such an ordinary action from my part had been imposed upon the above mentioned veteran.
Here is the case: I am the proprietor of the building in which the customs office was located. I have rented to the Canadian department only three rooms of this building that contains four tenements in all. I occupy myself the first tenement, so when they call this the customs building, it's wrong! It's only the customs office in my own building in which I live constantly. This being said, whoever is the customs officer, how can he be responsible for what I may do in such occasions? It's evident, that all these reports are false as the said officer was on relieving duty at the time.

Supply-National Revenue
Then later, on April 12, 1927, Mr. Herwig wrote from Ottawa, after, as we supposed, having had communication with the department, but I withdraw that because I have not definite knowledge. He writes:
It would seem that in order to clear him it will be necessary to have the member retract.
That is the member of the House of Commons representing Compton county. He goes on to suggest that Mr. Dumoulin should see the member and have him retract. Then on April 16, 1927, Mr. Dumoulin wrote to the Department of Finance, as follows: Notre-Dame des Bois, Que.,
April 16th, 1927.
Department of Finance,
Ottawa, Canada.
Sirs:
As I have been dismissed from customs service in November last, for alleged political partisanship, (accusation I have denied and could not get inquiry), I apply to your department for refund of my superannuation funds.
Having waited five months for the said inquiry, no need to say that I expect this refund at once.
Yours truly,
(Sgd) J. W. Dumoulin.
On April 21, there is a statement which I am going to read, not because it involves the department, but because it is a matter that should be brought to the notice of the hon. member for Compton. Mr. Dumoulin writes the president of the soldiers' association under date of April 21, in which letter he says:
I have seen the member for Compton county at his home last Monday, and there before witness, he declared that he simply transferred complaints he had received from individuals to the Minister of Customs which caused my destitution without inquiry. There is the wrong! As you know, it is necessary that the member has seen personally a civil servant making politics and a declaration made to that effect, before such an employee can be dismissed without an inquiry, otherwise it is necessary to summon witnesses and give an inquiry. The member cannot fulfil that condition as he did not know me.
I am afraid that perhaps he was in error as to tlhe procedure in such cases, but I call that to the attention of the minister again because Dumoulin is, I think, a splendid example of the young men growing up in our province. He had a splendid career overseas. I was in France behind tlhe lines, where I was in perfect safety, and, time and time again, I have heard men speak in the highest words of praise of the splendid bravery of the French-Canadian corps. I have seen them in hospitals, and my heart bled for them at times. I am proud of them, and proud to represent a constituency from Quebec that was associated with such splendid bravery and valour, and therefore I take this dismissal
very much to heart; and because I believe that this young man has been wrongly treated, because I believe that he has been wrongly condemned, I think the government and parliament of this country should make tihe Utmost restitution to him that lies within theii power.


William Daum Euler: As I said yesterday, Mr. Chairman, in connection with this matter, it had already given me very considerable concern. That concern is somewhat increased by the remarks just made by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. I do not know that I can add a very great deal to what I said yesterday in connection with the matter.
The dismissal took place in exactly the way I stated yesterday, in accordance with the practice which has been observed for many years, and with which I may say now, I am not in very great sympathy.
Replying at once to a statement said to have been made, that no distinct charge was made to me by the member for the constituency that 'this man had exercised political partisanship, I want to say, as emphatically as I can, that such a charge was made on the part of the member that he had personal knowledge of the activities in a political way of Mr. Dumoulin. That letter is here. It is written in French, but my hon. friend is at perfect liberty to see it. It was following that, and in accordance with the established practice, that the dismissal was made. Perhaps where I may have been at fault, and I must accept any responsibility that fairly comes to me, was in this connection: A letter, I understand, was received by myself from Mr. Dumoulin taking exception to his dismissal and denying the charge. That no reply was sent to that letter, I must say is a matter of great surprise to me, because if there is one thing which I think I always do, it is at least to acknowledge any communication that is sent to me. La'ter on, however, another letter was sent to myself by the soldiers' association. That letter I did reply to, as is Shown on the file, agreeing to an investigation if the man asked for it. That the affidavits were later on sent to myself appears to be quite true. I was not in Ottawa at the time, as is shown by the file, and I did not even know the file was here until I saw it a moment ago. The receipt of those affidavits was acknowledged by my secretary who says that he submitted them to me later, which statement I do not for one moment doubt. If I at that time took no further notice of these affidavits, and no acknowledgment was made, it must have been,, I say quite frankly, because of the pressure of work due to my absence, and possibly supposing that the man had been dismissed in
Supply-National Revenue

the usual way and that nothing probably could be done. But this does stand, that I expressed myself as quite willing to have an investigation made, but also, as I said last night, I could not see exactly what remedy could be applied, because the man was out of the civil service and could only be reappointed by the Civil Service Commission itself. This may not be satisfactory to my hon. friends opposite, but last night I said I was quite willing to have another investigation made. Now I say to the committee that this morning I directed that such an investigation be made. I further directed that an order be prepared that the sum paid into the superannuation fund by Mr. Dumoulin should be refunded to him. Of course this repayment will depend on the action of the treasury board. I do not know, Mr. Chairman, that I can say any more. It is an unfortunate affair. If the investigation discloses that this officer was entirely innocent of the charge made against him, so far as I am concerned I shall do all I can to have him restored to some place in the service, if he cares to come back.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I may say to the minister
that, as I understand it, at the time this young man was dismissed there were, as we are all aware, all sorts of rumours and suspicions, due to the hiatus in the customs examination, and various firms who could have given him employment refused to do so unless he could produce a certificate of character from the department, to which he had no access. The impression went around that in some way he had been mixed up with the customs scandals, and he had to go across the border to get employment. I am instructed that the customs department should have in its records information to the effect that during the time of that campaign he had been taken away from his own office at Notre Dame des Bois and assigned to special service on the border, and was so engaged during ithe whole time that he was alleged to have been acting as a partisan in putting out this flag across the street. I think the minister might well examine into that fact. It is so stated in the man's affidavit, and I believe it to foe true.


William Daum Euler: This man was sent on relief duty at some time near the election, but the charge does not say that he was active just at the time of the election, but during the campaign.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I can well understand how
the minister might be misled, but at the time this banner was put out that is made the basis of the local charge he certainly was not there; I am sure of that.


William Daum Euler: At the moment I have no
real knowledge of the details. If the facts are as stated, the whole matter is regrettable, and I can only take the action that I have indicated.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Mr. Chairman, we
have a statement from the minister that if an investigation is held, and this returned man is proven innocent, the minister will do what he can to get him a position. I ask the house; should not that man be returned to his job, if this investigation proves that he was unfairly dismissed? All returned men will demand an answer to that question, because any of them might be treated similarly. The minister admits that it was an unwilling act on his part, that he was taken by the throat by some person.


William Daum Euler: No.


Arthur Edward Ross: Well, the minister must admit that he did it willingly or unwillingly. He said he did not do it willingly, so he must have been forced by some influence behind the throne to treat this man in an unfair way by dismissing him from his job. I am in sympathy with what the minister has said. I may add that I commanded a unit in the first division, and in it were at least fifty or sixty French-Canadians, who could not speak English, but I am ready to declare here or in any part of t'he Dominion that I had no more loyal and no more efficient soldiers than those men. If this investigation is held and the man is found innoceint, I am confident that the returned men from one end of the country to the other will demand that he be put back on his job.


William Daum Euler: I may say to my hon. friend that so far as I am concerned, I have absolutely no power whatever-and he knows it- to restore the man to the position he held; the Civil Service Commission has that power, fortunately or unfortunately as it may be in this case. I also want to assure him in absolute sincerity that neither he nor anybody else can take me by the throat and force me to do anything that I do not desire to do.


Arthur Edward Ross: I take your own
words.


Mr. JACOBS:: Mr. Chairman, the airing of this matter before the committee this afternoon ought to do some good. It seems to me that this vicious practice of accepting a statement from one partisan that another partisan has been guilty of taking an interest in politics ought to Stop.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.

Supply-National Revenue


Samuel William Jacobs: Dismissing a man and trying him afterwards is what is known as Jedburgh justice. We should do away with that. I do not think the government ought to fear an investigation of any kind in these matters of alleged partisanship. There is no reason to be afraid of an investigation. There is no more independent man in the house than the Minister of National Revenue, and I am sure that if at the time he felt there was an attempt to put something over on him he would have been the very first to look carefully into the matter. The trouble is he is merely a cog in the wheel. It is a vicious practice, which arose, I think under some Tory administration.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Samuel William Jacobs: I may be wrong.


Mr. STEVENS:: Don't spoil 'a really good
speech.


Samuel William Jacobs: As I said last night, we
Liberals should do better than the other fellows. Here is an opportunity of doing something to correct an aJbuse which is clogging the wheels of the administration. If the Liberal party cannot remain in power except in this particular way, the sooner it goes out of power the better. I do not like to give my adherence to any party that will knowingly agree to any such injustice as has been related by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). I think I have as much independence as the Minister of National Revenue, and I certainly would not want to agree with anything of this kind. If it is found that wrong has been done to this man, Civil Service Commission to the contrary or not, some way Should be found of giving him relief. The old saying, it is easy to find a stick if you want to beat a dog, is applicable here. If the man cannot be put back in his exact position, why, give him a better position, give him something which will compensate him for the injustice *which has been done. There are lots of positions in the departments of state, and if I were a member of the administration I would be one of the first publicly to acknowledge that a wrong has been inflicted, and to declare that we are" big enough and broad enough to correct it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not know, Mr. Chairman, whether it is desired to continue the discussion on this matter. My hon. friend (Mr. Jacobs) who has juslt taken his seat has very largely voiced my views. I have been in parliament a good many years, and I never recommended the dismissal of anyone.


Samuel William Jacobs: You were not long enough in power.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I came to parliament in
1911, when we had an excellent opportunity to do that.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: They did not
wait for your recommendation then, they did it automatically.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In my constituency at that time there were six or seven hundred government employees who had been appointed by the preceding administration. I did not recommend the dismissal of any, and none were dismissed, for partisan or any other reasons. I think we ought to bear this in mind: the different sections of the house are partisan in their views. We know that. But in 1918 we passed the Civil Service Act and erected a Civil Service Commission to administer the civil service. Personally, I am quite willing to join with hon. gentlemen opposite or in any other part of the house in an endeavour to get away from the old-fashioned partisan system. I grant it is difficult. We are all human, and undoubtedly there will be a tendency to favour recommendations presented by friends. I would make just one suggestion to the minister. Here we have an instance of an obvious error, that is, if the facts presented by my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George are borne out by a further examination by him, an obvious error has been made. That is not a question whether partisan recommendation rs good or bad; it is a question of injustice to an individual; and I would suggest to the minister that if it is shown that an error was made, and he and the government are satisfied that it was made, surely there is nothing in the Civil Service Act to prevent the rescission of that order in council which was passed, we might say, upon an improper basis so far as information is concerned. I suggest that to tihe minister as the way out of the difficulty and in order that justice might be done to this man.
Now I want to pay tribute to the Minister of Justice for the very excellent smoke screen he threw out last night over the question under discussion. I think he played his part very ably and very well. But I might call his attention and the attention of the Minister of National Revenue to this fact: I was not discussing this list or that list or the lawyers or counsel who were represented on those lists. I was reading to the minister a section of the report of the royal commission, and I wish to read it again, in order to bring the Minister of Justice and the Minister of National Revenue back to the point I was making.

Supply-National Revenue


William Daum Euler: I never got away from it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We did get a long distance away from it. The report states:
We see no reason why parties committing frauds on the revenue should not be proceeded against with the same degree of promptitude and efficiency as usually characterizes prosecutions for enforcement of the provisions of the criminal code. This, according to the evidence, has not been so in the past.


William Daum Euler: That is referring, of course, to the past.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Quite so. But the point I am coming to is that the royal commission was directing the attention of the government and of parliament-because this is a document of parliament-to the fact that the system followed in the past had not brought satisfactory results. And they make this suggestion :
For this purpose competent counsel should be retained by the department throughout the Dominion to act in such matters.
The minister may take the list he has had prepared and under which he is now acting; I am not complaining about that. Out of that list select, as the royal commission suggests, competent counsel. And, as the report states:
It is very desirable that wherever possible the legal representative should be familiar with the customs and excise act and regulations and that where one case has been handled to the satisfaction of the department it should be free to use the same legal agent in other cases.
Let the Minister of Justice take his list, about which I have not a single complaint to make so far as his personnel is concerned. Out of that list select counsel for the Department of National Revenue, and where such counsel give good service let them be continued in that particular work, because they become familiar with the technique of the customs and other laws appertaining to the department. The report, proceeds:
-and that where the outcome of one case has indicated the unsuitability of the agent the department should be able to secure promptly a more suitable representative.
In other words, if the person appointed from his list does not proceed with the cases, shows a lack of competence or energy, or inattention to business, then drop him from further cases. That is my point. I wish to make it clear that I am not complaining about the list or about the source from which the minister gets the list of names to be selected. But I do call attention to this-and the Minister of National Revenue gave us evidence of it last night-that in the past, according to the report, the results have been
[Mr. StevenaJ
unsatisfactory; 'because very frequently, if not almost entirely, these cases were farmed out to different counsel instead of oare being taken to select those who would prosecute them effectively.
We might as well face this fact also. During the last two years the act has been so amended as to provide more severe penalties; the act is a much more important statute than it was two years ago. The first amendment was made, I think, in 1925 and subsequent amendments were introduced in 1926, I think, and 1927, strengthening the act and making the penalties more severe; so that prosecution under the act is to-day a different matter from what it was prior to 1925. There again I call the attention of the Minister of Justice particularly to the necessity of selecting such counsel as will prosecute these cases vigorously. The Minister of Justice will acquit me of seeking to suggest any partisanship in the selection; that is not my point. The point is that, according to these reports, we have not had the results which we might reasonably expect; and the reports suggest that selection should be carefully made among those who are offered for appointments to this particular part of the service.


Samuel William Jacobs: Does it occur bo the hon. member that what he calls strengthening the law, with regard to penalties and so on, has defeated its own object?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will meet my hon. friend in one respect. In 1922 I think, or possibly 1923, we did increase the duties. I am glad my hon. friend 'has brought this matter to my attention because it is very important, and I am a firm believer in reducing the duties, both excise and import, on liquors.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not say that frivolously; I am sincere about it. In 1923-I am speaking from memory-we raised the tax from $2.40 to $10.


William Daum Euler: In 1920.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In 1920? It does not
matter; it was some years ago.


Mr. VENIOT:: It was $6 and then was increased to $10.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes; we increased it from $2.40 to $6 and then bo $10. Now $10 a gallon constitutes such an enormous margin of difference between the original cost and the actual selling price that, in itself, it is a most attractive profit for the bootlegger or the smuggler. My hon. friend from Maple Creek last night interjected the suggestion. " Lower the duties "-

Supply-N ational Revenue


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The member for Wey-bum (Mr. Young) said that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes; and the suggestion
was that protection was causing the difficulty. I would remind the hon. member that the two rates are about the same: $9, and import $10. In other words, in the liquor business we are following the strictly taxation-for-revenue principle. That is, we impose a duty of $10 on imports, and $9 excise. But the difficulty lies here: So high is this rate of duty that it offers a strong inducement, in the excessive profit that can be made, for both smugglers and evaders of the excise law. I therefore suggest this for the consideration of the government-and I have no hesitancy in asserting my own views on it-that we should consider the reduction of the duty on these liquors. If we reduced the duty on liquor I believe we would largely remove the incentive to bootlegging, as far as excise duty is concerned, and smuggling as far as import duty is concerned, and further I think it would be conducive to the distribution of a better quality of liquor, while the revenue would suffer very little. From that standpoint the law amendment has been an injury rather than a help. Undoubtedly my hon. friend had in mind the excessive penalties to which reference frequently has been made. I confess that I have an open mind on that subject, but I would not be prepared to support a repeal of these rather severe penalties, because when we get into that realm we are not dealing with liquor. By the way, just here I might interject, that the same argument which I applied to liquor applies equally to cigarettes, and perhaps more so. In regard to the law amendments to which my hon. friend has referred, the stiffening of the penalties, these deal largely with the smuggling of valuable merchandise such as silk goods and the cheaper forms of jewellery, such as ordinary gold-plated articles.


Mr. SMITH (Stormont):: Would not the
same argument with regard to the reduction of duty on liquor apply to these articles?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not think that is the point there. The point is that my hon. friend referred to the penalties, which I believe are a fine of $100 in certain cases, and in other cases where the value of the goods is above a certain sum it is obligatory that offenders be sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The difficulty is that there has grown up in Canada and in the United States, but I think particularly in Canada, a certain class of very adroit smugglers dealing almost exclusively in these valuable but more or less light
articles such as silk goods, dress goods, jewellery and other articles. So perplexing has become the problem of enforcement of the law against this class of smugglers that I think the officers of the department have been a unit in asking for a more severe penalty. I may tell my hon. friend at the moment I am not prepared to agree with the suggestion that those penalties should be reduced.


Mr. POULIOT:: May I ask a question?
The hon. member said he was in favour of a reduction of duty on alcohol and spirits; does he mean the excise or the customs duty?


Henry Herbert Stevens: They both go together.
At present the excise duty is $9 per gallon and the import duty is $10. I would reduce them both; I would not fix a figure, but I would not object to going balck to where we were eight or ten years ago. These liquors could stand duties of S3 and S4 per gallon, but $9 and $10 is altogether too high. I think in the interests of temperance itself, and I care not what view one may hold, it would be a very sound move and certainly would lessen the urge for immorality in the way of violations of the law.


William Daum Euler: Perhaps I might reply just
here to what my hon. friend has said in connection with the retention of lawyers for the prosecution of our cases. I am free to admit that perhaps there might be some further improvement in the method now used, but to a very considerable extent we are following the practice of using the same lawyers. For example, within the last two months in the city of Montreal, and in the city of Toronto we have arrested some seventy persons for defrauding us of sales tax. In the city of Montreal I believe the same lawyer has been retained to prosecute all these cases, and I think two lawyers are handling nearly all the cases recommended for prosecution by the parliamentary committee. In connection with the prosecutions against the brewers and distillers for sales tax-and I am sorry to say most of them are in the province of Ontario -we have retained the same solicitor in all cases, and we have been very successful. In the income tax branch we have one income tax specialist, who is known to most hon. members; I refer to Mr. Elliott, who takes all the important cases for the department. In some of the more distant towns and cities we have other lawyers who prosecute cases; that is the case in the city of Vancouver, where my hon. friend resides.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And he does very well.
Supply-National, Revenue


William Daum Euler: With regard to the securing
of convictions, I must admit that that is very difficult, even in oases dealing with self-confessed smugglers. I have in mind at the moment one case which happened not very long ago. that of a man who smuggled jewellery. He was caught in the act and confessed his guilt, but sentence has not been passed upon him as yet.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the minister pardon me if I ask what was the reason? It strikes me that this is a most appalling condition.


William Daum Euler: That is beyopd me; I do
not know, but I will give the opinion that there is an impression or an idea in certain sections of the country that smuggling is not really a serious offence; if the offender makes restitution they think that is about sufficient. So long as that idtea is prevalent among most of the judges and juries of this country we are not going to have the prevention of smuggling we should have.
Dealing with smuggling itself, however, I will say to the committee in all sincerity that at present there is not a great deal of commercial smuggling in Canada. That statemenl is borne out by the royal commission, and I believe it to be true. If I had time I could read a good many letters, particularly from merchants in Quebec, where there wias a good deal of smuggling formerly, in which they say that the smuggling of silks to which my hon. friend has just referred seems to have stopped almost entirely.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the minister agree that the law, to which reference has been made, has had a salutary effect in that regard?


William Daum Euler: I believe it has, and I will say further that representations were made by the royal commission suggesting that the penalties were so great that the judges and juries in certain parts of the country would not convict, because they would not send people to jail. However, I did: not accept that recommendation; I brought in no amendment to the act in that regard. I believe this is a deterrent to some extent, and I am going to try it for another year, to see whether or not it is the proper method. If I should then decide, in the light of experience, that we fail in our purpose and that juries will not convict people because they must go to jail, and if I am convinced that we will not attain any good result by following this method, I will be ready to consider going back to

some milder form of punishment, or providing some alternative punishment. As the law is now, in some instances when a man is found guilty by a jury the judge has no alternative but to commit him to jail.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: May I ask if any of the following lawyers are employed as counsel by the minister: Newton Wesley Rowell, R. L. Calder, R. B. Law, G. C. Lindsay or W. F. O'Connor? I presume they are not being so employed, because if they were I think the estimates of the minister would be one or two million dollars higher. I notice that the first-named gentleman, who assisted the royal commission, drew $44,060 as fees, $3,230 for living allowances-it must have cost him more for meals than it costs in the parliamentary restaurant-and $3,140.84 for travelling and other expenses. I presume the 84 cents was for tips. That makes a total of $50,430.84 paid this one gentleman for work lasting less than a year. He can wear socks the year round on that, no doubt about it. The sum of $112,535.82-they did not forget to put in the 82 cents-is what the counsel got, and the commissioners got $28,359.48, or a total of $141,095.30. I hope the minister will be wise enough to steer clear of these gentlemen as advisers or counsel. If he does not we can look for much higher estimates next year.


William Daum Euler: The hon. gentleman has asked me whether Mr. Rowell is retained by the department. He is retained by the department in the prosecution of the cases against the brewers, and he has been very successful.
Mr. EDWARDS1 (Frontenac):	He ought
to be.


William Daum Euler: I hold no brief for him, but he is receiving less in the employ of the government than he would in his private practice, or so I -am informed. He has obtained verdicts against the brewers and distillers by excellent work, which I think will pay this government in dollars and cents.
I stated last night that M-r. Calder was employed now. I hope my hon. friend does not mind my mentioning it again, but Mr. Calder was first employed while the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) was Minister of the Department of Customs, and we have retained him since that time. Mr. Lindsay is employed at the moment on a special mission of investigation in the province of British Columbia, and Messrs. Law and O'Connor are not now in the employ of ithe department.

Supply-National Revenue
Mr. MAN'ION: The tone in which the minister has mentioned Mr. Calder so often since yesterday makes one wonder if he is apologizing for him.


William Daum Euler: The question was asked by the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards).


Robert James Manion: The minister has so continually alluded to the appointment of Mr. Calder by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre that I wondered if he was apologizing for him.
I wish to mention something in a few words which was brought up by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, and I do it because, as the house knows. I have had some experience during the last year with the liquor question on the Ontario commission. Now that I am no longer associated with it I can speak, which I could not do in the past. I wish to support entirely the position taken by the member for Vancouver Centre-of course, this is more for next year than for this year-that it would be a good move on the part of the government, when they are considering the duties and excise on liquor, to take up the question of reducing both the duty and the excise in the future. If I may be permitted to take a couple of minutes, with the consent of the committee, I would like to give one or two reasons. In addition to the smuggling which was mentioned by the member for Vancouver Centre, there is the further fact that a large portion of the people in our country, and in other countries, insist on sometimes drinking liquor, and it is far batter that they drink good liquor than poor liquor. If the duties and excise are so high that these people cannot afford to buy good liquor, they are then forced to drink home made liquor, or home brew as it is called, and also alcohol. I might tell the minister that both through my experience 'in the past year, and my experience as a medical man, I do know that the use of diluted alcohol as a beverage is becoming very general among a certain class of people in this country. There is a very large consumption of diluted alcohol for beverage purposes. It is split three or four ways, as the expression is, making three or four bottles for one bottle of alcohol. I repeat that if we are going to have people drinking liquor, it is far better to have them drink good liquor. While alcohol, perhaps, is not as bad as some of the home brew that is made, at the same time it is not considered a good drink by those who are experienced in the business. I am not speaking of those who are experienced in drinking, but those who are
experienced in the business itself. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the government will be well advised to consider seriously this whole question with a view to the downward revision of the excise on liquor produced in this country, and the duty on liquor brought in. I have no desire to increase the consumption of liquor, but I believe in this way while the consumption of good liquor might be increased, the consumption of bad liquor would be materially decreased.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
M'r. POULIOT: I have just a few words to say regarding what was said in the latter part of the afternoon about the Dumoulin case. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Caham) made a very eloquent plea on behalf of Mr. Dumoulin. I do not know anything about the case, but it should not be taken for granted that the minister has made a mistake in regard to it. He has granted an investigation and the investigation will show whether or not a mistake has been made. It would be improper to decide the case before the investigation is held by stating now that the minister has made a mistake. I do not know who has bean appointed to conduct the investigation, but I will ask the minister to give to the investigator strict instructions to present the report only to the minister himself and not to give it to the members opposite as occurred when Mr. Boivin was Minister of Customs and Excise. At that time hon. members opposite were told everything that was done by the officials of the department before the minister knew a word about the matter, and I am sure the present minister, who is an energetic man, will give instructions accordingly. It is the proper way to act and no one will blame me for making this statement.
I have a word to say about commercial smuggling. It is a fake 'but it is a fake that was used to kill the predecessor of the Minister of National Revenue. During the election of 1926 we heard that there was a great deal of commercial smuggling, but afterwards the evidence was given before the commission and the report was that the smuggling was chiefly in liquor and cigarettes.
I come to the third question on which I wish to say a word, and that is the reduction in the duty on spirits. I asked the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) if he thought a reduction in the excise and cus-
Supply-National Revenue

tops duties would be proper, and he said he thought so. That tax was imposed about eight years ago by another government. I think it is a sound method of taxation. Naturally, opinions may differ in that regard but I believe, as I have already said in the house, that the excise duty should be reduced and that the customs duty should be left as it is. My reason for saying this is that it is just as well to encourage Canadian distillers. If they are encouraged, people, as the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) has very wisely said, will not drink more but they will drink better liquor. I make a distinction between wood alcohol and grain alcohol. I do not know whether the hon. member for Fort William, when he spoke of alcohol, meant wood alcohol or grain alcohol. I have seen in the drug stores wood alcohol which is used for rubbing purposes and for heating purposes.


Robert James Manion: I meant grain alcohol.
Wood alcohol is deadly poison.


Jean-François Pouliot: As for grain alcohol I am
not a medical man, but if it is well distilled it is hardly worse than any other kind of liquor, and I know that doctors very often prescribe for sick people white wheat whiskey, which is a kind of grain alcohol.


Robert James Manion: May I suggest to my hon. friend that good doctors do not?


Jean-François Pouliot: If some of my friends
ever get a prescription for white wheat whiskey I will tell them to be careful on account of what my hon. friend has just said. But to conclude, I notice with pleasure, but also with astonishment, that my hon. friends opposite advocate a reduction in duty even on alcohol, and I wonder if this is because Mr. Ferguson is doing a very good business as his friend from Quebec is doing from the sale of liquors.


Mr. McPHERSON:: Just in reference to
the remarks made in connection with the customs and excise duties on spirituous liquors and tobacco I should like to draw to the attention of the committee the fact that the matter is in a rather peculiar position. If my recollection is right, the increase from approximately $2 to $10 a gallon on spirituous liquors was imposed by a government at a time when eight out of nine provinces of the Dominion allowed it to be sold only on prescription. In other words a medicinal article was highly taxed for the purpose of revenue. I rather think that was about the proportion of the Dominion which was under the so-called Temperance Act. If it was necessary on behalf of raising revenue to tax that, then 
at the present time when the Dominion is coming back to using spirituous liquors as a beverage, it would appear to me that it would take some arguing to show a reason why what is practically an amusement should be relieved of taxation whereas a medicinal article should be highly taxed. If on the other hand the contention is that the tax is not needed now because the revenue is not needed, I would suggest that there are coming into the Dominion many necessaries on which the duty could much more readily be lowered. I have no objection to the principle of the thing, but the revenue is there; we need it yet and tobacco and liquors are logical articles to be taxed to the utmost.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: But my hon. friend is
forgetting the reason given by the Minister of National Revenue, that too high a tax defeats its own abject. Therefore, if he is considering the question of revenue, he should take into consideration the experience of every country. The moment you raise the duty to a point where the premium to fraud and smuggling is such that it induces many people, so-called honest and decent people, to trade in it, because it is the most profitable trade to engage in, from that moment your revenue goes down. That has been the experience in France, in England, everywhere; so that as regards revenue there is not the slightest doubt that the high figure at which both the excise and customs duties stand on liquor and tobaoco, especially cigarettes, as the hon. member for Vancouver Centre pointed out this afternoon, did not increase substantially the revenue of the country but increased tremendously the process of smuggling and thereby helped other kinds of smuggling Because people who make of smuggling a trade smuggle not only liquor and cigarettes, but something else besides. So it not only deprives the country of, revenue upon these very articles, but helps the smugglers to carry on their trade in other articles as well. The minister would certainly be well advised to give heed to the expressions of opinion given here this afternoon and prepare for a substantial reduction next year in the duty on these articles; then everybody will find, after a little while, and if the law is properly enforced, that the revenues will increase, and that drunkenness will certainly not increase.
An hon. member has spoken of alcohol being used for some years as a medicine. Then something very extraordinary must have happened in those virtuous provinces which adopted prohibition; there was a tremendous amount of illness in the fifteen days around

Supply-National Revenue
Christmas and New Year's in various cities in prohibition territory. The government liquor store in Montreal, near what is called Pied du Courant, received orders from Toronto alone for two or three oarloads of liquor at Christmas time to fill doctors' prescriptions.


Robert James Manion: When was that?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I think it was two or three years ago, not while my hon. friend was on the commission.


Robert James Manion: The reason I ask the question is that it has been against the law to get liquor into Toronto from Quebec.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: That did not prevent it. There was such an epidemic of sudden illness, and such a number of doctors' prescriptions required at Christmas time, that the druggists of Toronto and many other towns could not supply the demand; and they immediately applied to the liquor store in Montreal to get that very helpful medicine and fill up the drug stores at that time.


Mr. SANDERSON:: An epidemic of flu.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I presume so, and I think that is one of the Idlings which have induced Mr. Ferguson, very properly and very sensibly, to adopt a new law, upon which I take this opportunity of congratulating the Ontario government.


Mr. BROWN:: On the question of the reduction of the excise duties on liquors, I know that I hold views on liquor that are not universally held in this house. With me, liquors are not classified as good and bad but as bad and worse. If revenue were the only question to be considered, all well and good; but I hope that when we come to consider this question, it will be considered not from the standpoint of revenue only, but from the standpoint of how we can bring about a greater condition of sobriety among our people. Just at the present moment I would not like to express an opinion one way or the other as to how it would affect our revenue. To me that is not the all-important question, nor is the matter of the illegal sale the important question. Granted that the liquors are of the same kind, illegally sold liquor is no worse and no better than liquor that is legally sold. I should be very glad to consider the question from the standpoint of its influence upon the consumption of liquor, and for my part, before sanctioning the proposal to reduce the customs and excise duties, I should like to be thoroughly convinced in my own mind that such a measure would tend towards greater sobriety, and towards a reduction in the consumption of liquor rather than towards increased consumption. In reasoning on other matters we naturally feel that to make things cheaper and more accessible leads to increased consumption, and if there is any reason that can be pointed out why that seemingly natural effect would not result in this particular case, I for my part would be willing to give consideration to it. I say this, not simply to foist my views on the house at this time, but to emphasize what we know to be a very widespread sentiment throughout the country, and that is that the handling of liquors for the sake of profit is not a business we like to see our governments engaged in, whether directly through the revenue or through any measure of government control. I know that these sentiments are not popular in all comers, but they are held very widely by people in this country who would like to see our nation above everything else a nation of sober people.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: There is another matter I should like the minister to consider. What are the measures taken now by his department to prevent the entry into Canada of the filthy literature which is flooding this country in such quantities, coming from the' United States and elsewhere, but mainly from the United States?


William Daum Euler: I am not sure whether my
hon. friend has reference particularly to what enters the province of Quebec.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: No, generally.


William Daum Euler: The department has authority to prevent the entry of immoral or seditious literature, personally I am not very much attached to the office of censor. I am of opinion that a good deal of freedom, reasonable freedom, in these matters should be permitted to the people. I am not a very great advocate of paternalism, but at the same time I would say this, that where we are clearly convinced that books or papers or literature, if you can. call it literature, of an immoral character or that is seditious or indecent is coming into this country, we will take the necessary steps to prohibit its entry into Canada. I have not had any complaint for three or four months until just within the last few days with regard to such importations, and for the information of my hon. friend from Labelle, I would say that instructions have been issued by the department within the last few weeks with regard to this veTy matter. I will read a copy of a letter which has been forwarded to every
Supply-National Revenue

collector and sub-collector in the province of Quebec. It says:	'
Dear Sir:
The attention of the department has been drawn to the fact that there are many books and other publications printed in French and imported from France into the province of Quebec, which are of an undesirable character.
Four sample copies of publications have been submitted to the department recently, entitled-
I am not going to take the responsibility of pronouncing these names; they are in French; the names of these publications axe given:
These have been examined and are found to be immoral or indecent and prohibited importation by item 1201, schedule "C" of the customs tariff.
You are instructed to keep a close watch on all importations of books from France, and seizures are to be made of those which are obviously immoral or indecent. If any doubt exists, sample copies are to be sent to the department for examination.
Please give this matter your personal attention and acknowledge receipt of this letter.
These instructions are now in the hands of every collector and subcollector in the province of Quebec. If we have complaints from any other provinces, we shall take such action as may be deemed necessary.
In addition to the publications named in this circular, some fifteen or sixteen books whose names I cannot pronounce have been seized at the port of Montreal during the last year.


Mr. DUNNING:: None of the classics, I hope.


William Daum Euler: I am not sure; I am not so well acquainted with the French classics, or perhaps the classics in any language. The commissioner informs me that in the rest of the country there is an average of fifteen seizures a month. A number of seizures have been made from booksellers in the city of Montreal.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Is any person appointed
to examine the flood of literature that comes in from the United States, to discover its character?


William Daum Euler: We have a man in the
department at Ottawa to whom is committed the duty of examining any literature of that kind.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Notwithstanding that,
these very objectionable publications come in right along. I wonder what his idea is. As long as there is no absolute profanity I presume he allows the publications to circulate.
fMr. Ruler. 1
But magazines are coming in from the United States so suggestive that they should not be allowed on the bookstands where young girls and young boys can view them.


William Daum Euler: If the hon, gentleman will
send us copies of those magazines they will be dealt with. I would not entertain the practice of having a man ait every port to examine every book or publication that comes in; but if citizens will send to the department copies of any objectionable books or magazines they will be carefully examined, and if found unworthy of circulation they will not be allowed to come in to this country. It seems to me absolutely inconsistent to expect this or any other department to keep out such objectionable literature when we have in our picture shows and our theatres at least as indecent things as we find in certain magazines and books.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: With the picture shows
and theatres my hon. friend has nothing to do; with this objectionable literature he has, and he cannot evade his responsibility by calling our attention to other objectionable things.	[DOT]


William Daum Euler: I am not trying to evade
any responsibility.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I say without hesitation,
Mr. Chairman, that there is an enormous flood of literature of the most objectionable character coming in from the United States.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: Have you submitted a list of that to the department?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I do not consider it my
duty to do more than draw the attention of the department to the facts. If my hon. friend had been here the last four or five sessions he would have heard me speak on this question. Last session I brought here an armful of publications, none of which I think should be allowed to be sold in this country on the ground of their suggestiveness. Such filth should not be put within the reach of the young people of Canada. I am not exactly a puritan, Mr. Chairman, I can appreciate good literature, but when we find magazines produced for the sole purpose of appealing to the most vicious traits of humanity, I think we should exclude them. I know that in the United States magazines are published under a certain name, and when the Post Office department of the republic puts a ban upon the first issue, the publishers change the name and get out another issue so that sales may not- be interrupted. That practice is

Supply-National Revenue
carried on right along. Magazines are allowed entry here which are banned in the country where they are printed. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that a person of good judgment, and one who realizes the dangerous character of these filthy publications, should be appointed to go over them, say, once a week, and if an issue is found to be objectionable the magazine should be excluded perpetually.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Hear, hear.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: The publisher who errs
once by circulating that kind of literature should not be given another opportunity to offend. I submit to the minister that he select a person for this work with the qualifications that I have stated. If that were his whole duty the country could well afford to pay him three or four thousand dollars a year to guard the morals of our young people. Let him examine these magazines one after another, and in my opinion it would' not take him long to weed out these objectionable publications. That is the responsibility of the minister.


William Daum Euler: Perhaps my hon. friend was not present when I stated that every week we are excluding these objectionable books and magazines. If he has knowledge that others are coming in that should be excluded, and he will submit them to the department, the necessary action will be taken. The hon. gentleman says that I ought to get a suitable man, a man of judgment, to censor these publications. I think we already have such a man. He sat in the press gallery for years. I have never had any complaint as to his qualifications for the work that he is doing.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I congratulate
the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Hocken) on the stand he has taken. I remember very well the day he brought into this house a few of these objectionable magazines, and' I think at the time we had an exchange across the floor. Unfortunately he suggested then an increase of the duty on such magazines to check their entry. I was of the opinion that they should be excluded altogether, and I am glad that in this respect at least the hon. gentleman has changed his view.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Mr. Chairman, my hon.
friend is not quite accurate.


George Reginald Geary: Far from it.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: When I advocated a duty on magazines it was for an entirely different purpose. I argued then, as I am prepared to argue now, that some protection should be accorded to -Canadian publishers. I know a
large number of Canadian magazines have had to suspend publication because of the unfair competition from American magazines, there being no duty imposed on them. A little relief has been given to our publishers by a drawback on the paper they use, but -that is a mere trifle I asked the department to put into operation the item in our tariff and impose a duty of 25 per cent upon all magazines entering this country. There is such an item in the tariff, but by an arbitrary and absurd interpretation by the department that duty is not imposed. The department resolutely refuses to apply that item of the tariff.


William Daum Euler: It is being done now in
regard to a large number of so-called magazines.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That is -the aspect of the argument to which my hon. friend from Saskatoon (Mr. Young) has referred.


Milton Neil Campbell: Will the minister explain to the committee the nature of the change in the regulations under which an increased duty is imposed on many of these American magazines-not the objectionable ones at all, but such magazines as Needlecraft, for instance, which many Canadian women desire to have in their homes?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Chairman, if my
hon. f-riend (Mr. Campbell) will allow me, I do not think we should let the first question pass out of sight. Let us deal with the kind of literature that I agree entirely with the hon. members for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Hocken) and Saskatoon (Mr. Young) should be excluded. A couple of points were raised by the minister which had better be dealt with now. First, he says he is not in favour of paternalism, but of freedom. He seems to be much more in favour of freedom of filth and obscenity than freedom of trade.
M. EULER:	Mr. Chairman, I rise to a
point of order. I take objection to that remark.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: If the hon. member will permit me, there is nothing insulting-


William Daum Euler: Mr. Chairman, I object to
the statement.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: What I meant-


William Daum Euler: He stated the minister was
apparently more in favour of filth and obscenity than of something else. I object entirely, and ask that he withdraw the statement.
Supply-National Revenue.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: 
Mr. THOMPSON:: Before this item is
carried I should like the minister to give some information as to the practice pursued in his department in chartering boats for the service. I find that the steamship Vigilant formerly belonged to the government; almost their first official act after coming into power in December, 1921, was to sell this boat to a then Liberal member of parliament for $18,000. Last year, after six years of wear and tear and depreciation, I find that the Department of National Revenue chartered this boat for seven months; 'it is chattered for nine months in 1928 and for nine months in 1929, and though the boat was sold for $18,000 they are paying for it $2,250 per month. In other words, in the twenty-five months during which this boat will be in their possession the fortunate owner will receive $56,250. For the last ten or twelve years this boat has been up in the Georgian bay, lying tied up to the dock for the greater part of the time, but in 1927 dhe was sent down to the coast of Nova Scotia. Still more remarkable is the fact that in spite of this high rental, in 1927 I he department also expended $1,565.18 for repairs; what they will spend1 this year and next year no one knows. I suppose the fact that the present owner of the boat is the chief Liberal worker in my riding did not stand against him in any way when he came to make this good bargain for the charter of his boat.
I might also say that up -around Georgian bay, where this boat was formerly kept, the marine men, who know what they are talking about, regard this as a gross example of political favoritism, but until I heard the speech made by the minister this afternoon I was under the impression that he personally had been very loath to make this bargain. I had understood that the very strongest pressure had to be brought to bear upon him, but he said this afternoon that no man could bulldoze him into making a bad bargain, so I understand he will take the responsibility for this charter. To my mind the whole thing savours of graft; it cannot be defended or justified, but I would like the minister kindly to explain- it to the house, if he will.


Thomas Langton Church: Now we will hear from
the admiral of the fleet.


William Daum Euler: I want to say to my hon. friend that he is in error at the very outset; this boat was originally owned by the Defiart-ment of Marine and Fisheries and was not sold by the Liberal government. That makes no particular difference, but it was sold by

the Union government for $18,000. As I say, I do not attach any particular importance to that. I understand that at that time, shortly after the war, boats were pretty much of a drug on the market, and this boat passed into the hands of Mr. Chew of Midland. Later it was sold to a gentleman named Payette, from whom we chartered the boat after he spent about $30,000 on it. I am not a seafaring man myself, but I am assured by the chief of the preventive service, in whom I think everyone has confidence-I know I have-and upon whose recommendation the boat was -chartered, that it was extremely difficult to get boats of a character suitable for this service. They are not very plentiful, and since we chartered the boat we have .paid for it at the rate of $2,250 per month. I am assured that there are other -boats in the government service which are paid for at an even higher rate. The boat will be used nine months this year and nine months next year, when the charter will expire.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does the department pay $2,250 per month?


William Daum Euler: Yes. I might also add, for
the information of the committee, that the policy of the department, is to dispense with all privately owned vessels.


Hugh Guthrie: AVho owns the Vigilant?


William Daum Euler: Mr. J. T. Payette, of Penetang. I was merely going to -add that parliament itself, and the -country also, were very anxious that immediate steps be taken to cope with the smuggling which was going on; it was necessary to organize a preventive service more or less hurriedly and more or less imperfect, and in that service was included a number o-f vessels. It was absolutely necessary either to purchase or to charter vessels; we did purchase some -and we are building others. We have a few under charter, and this is one of them. That is the whole story.


Alfred Burke Thompson: The minister has said
that this boat was sold by the Union government. It was sold on December 29, 1921, immediately -after the Liberal government took office.


William Daum Euler: On what date?


Alfred Burke Thompson: December 29, 1921.


William Daum Euler: I have not the facts before me, -but I do not think it -makes any difference who sold it.


Hugh Guthrie: Now that we are on the subject of a vote for the preventive service,

Supply-National Revenue
I would ask the minister a question. I understand that some boats are being built at Gravenhurst at the present time for the Customs department; is that correct?


William Daum Euler: They are finished and delivered.


Hugh Guthrie: And some were either
built or overhauled at St. John, N.B.?


William Daum Euler: No.


Hugh Guthrie: Does the minister know of the boat Bay Hound?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: That is in the Customs service?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: Was she not overhauled at St. John?


William Daum Euler: I am informed that the boat was purchased at Montreal and a power plant was put in at St. John this winter.


Hugh Guthrie: What power plant was
put in?


William Daum Euler: Diesel engines.
M. GUTHRIE:	Where were they procured?


William Daum Euler: The Union Foundry &
Machine Company.


Hugh Guthrie: Where is that?


William Daum Euler: This sounds like a pretty categorical examination by a lawyer.


Hugh Guthrie: It is information I desire.


William Daum Euler: The Union Foundry &
Machine Company of St. John were the lowest tenderers, I am informed.


Hugh Guthrie: About the fifteenth or
sixteenth of March it was stated in the house by the minister that no patrol boats were being built by the department outside of Canada, and the inference was that all parts of the boats would be of Canadian construction.


William Daum Euler: Diesel engines are not made in Canada.


Hugh Guthrie: No, but they are made in Great Britain and they can be procured there cheaper than from the United States.


William Daum Euler: I understand that the smaller sizes cannot be obtained in Great Britain. These were purchased from the Canadian' Fairbanks Morse Company.


Hugh Guthrie: The minister informs the committee that the size used in these boats cannot be purchased in Great Britain. I am satisfied if that is the fact.


William Daum Euler: The chief of the preventive service so informs me.


Mr. CANTLEY:: That is not correct.


Hugh Guthrie: May I ask the minister whether any effort was made to secure these engines in Great Britain? Were tenders asked for there?


William Daum Euler: No.


Hugh Guthrie: Were Diesel engines used in those built at Gravenhurst?


William Daum Euler: Those were small gasoline patrol boats.


Hugh Guthrie: And not Diesel engines?


William Daum Euler: No.


Harry Bernard Short: I was speaking last night
about the appointment of an assistant at the customs house in Digby, and the minister made the statement that serious charges had been made to the department against the young man recommended by the Civil Service Commission for that appointment. In justice to that young man, and in fairness to this house, when the minister makes a statement like that the information should be given. Was there anything against the morals of this young man? Was there any charge against his honesty? Or was he not of the right political faith? I should like an answer to that question, and then when I get that I have another matter to bring up. But I want an answer before we go any further.


An hon. MEMBER:: The resolution is
carried.


Harry Bernard Short: It is not carried; don't be in such a hurry.


William Daum Euler: I am quite willing to give the hon. gentleman all the information he asks for if I have it at my disposal. I have some information regarding this matter. On the 6th of May of last year a requisition was made by the department to the commission for the appointment of a customs etxcise examiner at this point. On the 16th of May, 1927, the position was advertised by the Civil Service Commission. On the 4th of June examinations were held and the oral rating sheets were forwarded to the department by 'Inspector Lovett on the 5th of June. On the 22nd of June the oral ratings were forwarded to the Civil Service Commission,
Supply-National Revenue

and-observe there is a lapse of time here for which neither the department nor myself is responsible-on September 1, 1927, no appointment having been made by the Civil Service Commission and the summer season being almost over, the commission was requested that no assignment be made for the winter. Information then reached the department that the two candidates who were in first and second places at the examination would not make suitable officers for the department, in consequence of which the inspector for the district was requested to assign a relieving officer temporarily to duty at Digby. On the 10th of May directions were given to have a suitable officer make careful investigation into the charges preferred against the two candidates. As I said last night, if these charges are groundless I shall have nothing more to say.


Harry Bernard Short: What is the nature of the charges? You have stated in this house that there were charges and you have done these two men a serious injury.


William Daum Euler: If they are innocent I would be doing them more serious injury by stating the charges in the house. If my hon. friend will come to me I will give him the nature of the charges.


Harry Bernard Short: You can tell us who made the charges-that is public property.


William Daum Euler: I will give you the name at the same time.


Harry Bernard Short: I have another matter I
want to bring to the attention of the minister. Last evening when this matter was under discussion the minister stated that dismissals were made on a charge being laid by a memlber, and he was asked if it was not done on the advice of defeated candidates, and he said, absolutely no. In my constituency there is a subcollector of customs who was discharged, and an investigation was held. The minister says that he does not take the advice of defeated candidates, but this is what happened. A man by the name of P. A. Saulnier, subcollector of customs at Church Point, in Digby county, was dismissed after a small investigation held by and presided over by one of the most partisan Liberal lawyers in the province of Nova Scotia. The evidence was most flimsy, and I am going to read it to the house. The newspapers all over the country credit the minister with being absolutely nonpartisan; they say that he has tried to make the Department of Customs absolutely free of politics, that everything he has done has been in the public interest and that he is getting the

very best officers he can. First we have a letter from the defeated candidate in my constituency, Doctor Lovett, who was a member of this house from 1921 until 1925. That is the only time he ever sat in the house. As I said last night, he has contested the constituency four times and he won it once when the solid sixteen came back. The advice of this man is taken by both the Department of National Revenue and the Post Office department. I have not come into contact with any other department, but if I do I will bring the matter up in the house. This is a letter which reads as follows:
Bear River, N.S., Aug. 8, 1927. Hon. W. D. Euler,
Minister of National Revenue,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir:
_ I am asking that an investigation be held in the case of Philip Saulnier subcollector of customs at Little Brook, Digby Co., N.S.,-
The man lives in Little Brook but the customs house is at Church Point.
-on the ground that he is an active Tory partisan having attended Tory committee meetings during the campaigns of both 1925 and 1926.
Yours respectfully,
L. J. Lovett,
Ex-M.P., Digby-Annapolis.
The next letter is from C. B. Patten, for Commissioner of Customs, Ottawa, September 17, 1927, to J. F. Outhit, Esq., Barrister, Kent-ville, N.S.:
Sir,
I have the honour to refer to departmental letter of the 15th ultimo, on which you are requested to have the charges of political partisanship against Mr. Philip Raulnier. subcollector of customs and excise at Church Point, N.S. investigated, and your full report submitted to the department.
No reply appears to have been received in this connection, and it is requested that your report be furnished as soon as possible.
C. B. Patten,
For Commissioner of Customs.
Then comes a letter from Mr. J. Frank Outhit:
Kentville, N.S. Sept. 19, 1927. Commissioner of Customs,
Ottawa.
Re Philip Saulnier. B. 1507-54-1 Dear Sir:
In reply to your letter of the 17th inst., I beg to say that the delay in this matter has been wholly due to the difficulty that I have experienced in getting names of witnesses and other information from Dr. Lovett, ex-M.P. and others interested in this matter.
It even became necessary for me, at the suggestion ofTthe Honourable J. L. Ralston, Minister of National Defence, to make a special trip to Digby concerning this matter. I succeeded on Friday last in getting certain infor-

Supply-National Revenue
mation and on that day issued the necessary notices for the investigation to be held at Little Brook on Thursday, the 22nd instant.
As soon as I can complete the investigation my official report will be immediately made.
Yours very respectfully,
J. Frank Outhit,
Commissioner.
The next is a notice to Mr. Philip Saulnier as follows:
To Philip Saulnier of Little Brook in the county of Digby, Nova Scotia, sub-collector of customs and excise at Church Point, N.S.
Whereas a charge has been made before the Minister of National Revenue of Canada alleging against you a charge of political partisanship contrary to the Civil Service Act 1918 and amendments thereto.
And whereas I, the undersigned, have been duly appointed a commissioner under the great seal of Canada, and have been duly designated to hold an enquiry concerning said charge.
Therefore take notice that I hereby appoint Thursday, the 22nd day of September A.D., 1927 at the hour of four o'clock in the afternoon at the hall at Little Brook in the county of Digby, in the province of Nova Scotia, to be the time and place of such enquiry, at which said enquiry you will be allowed full opportunity to be heard.
Dated at Kentville, N.S., this 16th day of September A.D., 1927.
(Sgd) J. Frank Outhit.
Commissioner duly appointed under the provisions of the Inquiries Act of Canada.
Then comes ,the evidence and I want the committee to listen to this:
Enquiry opened at four o'clock p.m., pursuant to notice duly given, copy of which is hereunto annexed marked "A" "J.F.O."
Present: Philip Saulnier, subcollector of customs, the accused; William LeBlanc, sworn:
I live at Church Point. Know Philip Saulnier for forty years or more. He is subcollector of customs and excise at Church Point for last fifteen years. I know Peter Doucett, postmaster at Concession, and he Doucette told me in the presence of others that Philip Saulnier the accused came to him and told him that if he voted Liberal he would lose the post office of which he was postmaster. He did not tell me just when this was. Mr. Saulnier has the reputation of being a strong Tory. No Crossexamination.
Vincent Genette, sworn:
I live at Little Brook. Know Mr. Saulnier, have known him since I was a boy. I know of there being Conservative meetings held at John Fournier's at Little Brook. I know of Mr. Saulnier being there. Both at the 1925 local and Dominion and 1926 Dominion elections. 1 was there when they appointed delegates to go to the Conservative nominating convention. This was in 1925 when the local elections were on. They held meeting there at the Dominion elections 1925 and also 1926, at this same place. It was the general place to meet for such political purposes. At this election (local) 1925 I was working for Mr. Robicheau, Conservative candidate. After the polls closed on the night of election we were celebrating the Conservative
victory at my house. Mr. Saulnier said "We have won" and he took part in the celebration with the rest of us.
No cross-examination.
Omar Comeau sworn:
Mr. Saulnier is my brother-in-law. I am not in good health. I have been at John Fournier's often. Philip Saulnier was there with me often. We often talked politics. Have heard him talk politics there, the same as in a private assembly. These were not meetings called especially for political purposes. Fournier's house was a general meeting place for the village. Fournier was a Conservative. Mr. Saulnier was also a Conservative. When Mr. Saulnier talked he talked on the side of the Conservatives.
No cross-examination.
Prosecution closed.
The commissioner stated to the accused Mr. Saulnier that he had the privilege of calling witnesses or of being sworn to give evidence on his own behalf.
Mr. Saulnier declined to be sworn but wished to make the statement that he admitted that he had said to Mr. Peter Doucett, postmaster at Concession, that he would lose his position as postmaster if he voted Liberal but that so far as he could remember this statement to Mr. Doucett was before he (Saulnier) was appointed to the office of subcollector.
Hon. J. W. Comeau, being present-
He was a member of the legislative council of Nova Scotia.
Hon. J. W. Comeau, being present, questioned Mr. Saulnier:
Question: Did you not say that at the last local election that Premier Armstrong had stated in Boston that a head tax would be put on persons going to the United States?
Answer: I do not remember of saying anything of the kind.
Question: Did you drive Mr. Robicheau, Conservative candidate, from Little Brock to the-railway station and stop at Philip Doucett's and other places to canvass?
Answer: When I drove Mr. Robicheau to the station I do not remember of stopping at. Doucett's. I stayed in my team, I do not remember of being in the store. I do not remember whether or not it was after the nomination of Mr. Robicheau as a candidate or whether it was before that. I have been to Mr. Robicheau's house since his election, have been there and stayed all night.


Milton Neil Campbell: Does the record show that any witnesses were called?


Harry Bernard Short: None whatever. Now I wish to read the report of the commissioner, James Francis Outhit, in connection with the investigation. His report reads:
In the matter of the Enquiries Act and amendments thereto.
In the matter of the Civil Service Act, 1918, and amendments thereto.
In the matter of an enquiry under said Acts into the conduct of Philip Saulnier of Little Brook, in the county of Digby, Nova Scotia, subcollector of customs and excise at Church Point, N.S.
Supply-National Revenue

Report of Commissioner To His Excellency the Governor General in Council:
I, James Francis Outhit, K.C., of Kentville in the county of Kings, a commissioner duly appointed herein by commission under the great seal of Canada, dated March 3rd, A.I). 1927, and designated to hold an enquiry herein, beg to report as follows:
Under the powers vested in me under said commission and at the request of L. J. Lovett, Esq., Ex-M.P. for the county of Digby, and under instructions from the Honourable J. L. Ralston, Minister of National Defence of Canada, I proceeded on August 3rd, 1927, to Weymouth in the county of Digby to take instructions with regard to this matter and to confer with the Honourable J. W. Comeau and Dr. L. J. Lovett, and Dr. Fred Hogan.
All three prominent Liberals.
I met these gentlemen at Weymouth and had a consultation with them regarding procedure-
Here is a lawyer, a member of the bar of Nova Scotia, who had to go and consult laymen regarding procedure:
-and other matters relative to the prosecution of Philip Saulnier and others in the district.
Consequent on said interview and consultation the information and complaint herein was laid and the necessary notice and supboenas issued herein as referred to in the evidence herein submitted, and at the time and place mentioned in the said notice, namely, on September 22, 1927, I proceeded to Little Brook for the purpose of this inquiry.
The accused Philip Saulnier appeared at the time and place mentioned in this notice and the evidence was taken in this matter in his presence, and I enclose a certified copy of the said evidence.
The evidence of Vincent Guenette, who was himself a Conservative worker, clearly establishes partizanship in behalf of Philip Saulnier as charged, in relation to the local election in 1925 and at other times while Mr. Saulnier held the office of subcollector at Church Point.
The evidence of Omar Comeau, who reluctantly gave evidence and who is a brother-in-law of the accused, establishes beyond doubt that the accused Philip Saulnier attended gatherings at the house of one John Fournier and openly talked politics in the interests of the Conservative party while holding office of subcollector at Church Point.
The evidence of William Leblanc as to the activities of Philip Saulnier is direct, and the only answer thereto is given by Mr. Saulnier in saying that so far as he can remember this instance took place before his appointment as subcollector.
It is worthy of notice that Philip Saulnier' subcollector, charged herein would not allow himself to be sworn but preferred to make his statements without the sanction of an oath; and that even under these circumstances his statement was evasive rather than direct.
From the evidence taken and the attitude of the accused and the whole circumstances surrounding the inquiry, I have no hesitation in finding the accused Philip Saulnier guilty of

the offence of political partisanship as charged, and that lie did engage in partisan work within the meaning of section 32 of the Civil Service Act of Canada.
Dated at Kentville, N.S., this 24th day of September A.D., 1927.
(Signed) James Francis Cuthit.
Commissioner.
Here is the commissioner's bill. This inquiry has cost the country $124.75. Then follows a letter from Philip A. Saulnier to the Minister of National Revenue, Ottawa, reading:
Dear Sir:
In regard to a charge alleging against me, a charge of political partisanship before J. F. Outhit, commissioner by commission at Little Brook, Digby county, N.S., on September 22nd, 1927, I wish to ask you a fair chance to defend myself against the accusations made against me and of which I am not guilty.
The notice was given me on the evening of September 20th at the same time that the inspector of national revenue was inspecting my office.
So evidently they expected to discharge him, and they sent an inspector to inspect the office before the trial took place. The letter continues:
The following day the inspector was again at my office so that it left me a very short time to prepare myself to meet my accusers, and defend myself then.
I am therefore enclosing my contradictions and hope it will be considered.
Yours respectfully,
(Sgd) Philip A. Saulnier, Subcollector of Customs and Excise.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Louder I


Harry Bernard Short: Oh, take the cotton wool
out of your ears.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I think that on a matter of such supreme importance to the country, the hon. gentleman should speak loud enough for us to hear.


Harry Bernard Short: Will the hon. member sit
down? It does not become him to be funny, not a bit.	'
Then here is the declaration made by P. A. Saulnier before E. Stehelin, J.P.:
To the'Commissioners of Civil Service,
Ottawa.
In the matter of inquiry held at the Hall at Little-Brook, in the County of Digby, N.S., alleging against me a charge of political partisanship, I hereby declare:
1st re Mr. Vincent Gennet's charge-that he saw me at Mr. John Fournier's place, the night that a political meeting was held there.
I do not deny that Mr. Gennet saw me there that night, I went in that night on my way home from the post office but after the meeting was closed.
2nd. re Mr. Omer Comeau's charge:-viz. that he heard me talk politics at Mr. Fournier's house.

Supply-National Revenue
I do also hereby declare that I did not wish at the time to contradict Mr. Comeau's statement on account of his very weak condition due to heart trouble, inasmuch the doctor told us that the least excitement would cause his sudden death, and Mr. Comeau is my brother in law, but I do solemnly declare that Mr. Comeau never heard me talk politics since the Civil Service Act and amendments thereto, 1919.
(Sgd) P. A. Saulnier,
Sworn before me at Church Point, this 24th day of September, 1927.
(Sgd) E. Stehelin.
J. P. in and for county of Digby.


An hon. MEMBER:: Was my hon. friend
at that meeting?


Harry Bernard Short: When hon. gentlemen are
through laughing, I will proceed. I have all the time in the world. It does not make any difference to me if I do not get home until July. I can stay here as long as you can.


An hon. MEMBER:: Time!


Harry Bernard Short: Mr. Chairman, have you
any authority over this committee? If you have not any authority, get the Sergeant at Arms to work.
That, Mr. Chairman, is all the evidence they had against this man, that somebody told somebody else that he told a postmaster he would be discharged if he voted Tory in a local election. The next charge is that he attended a public meeting. He denies that in toto, that it was not a .public meeting, but a gathering in a home in the village where everybody met and talked over matters of all kinds. Is a man who has held a Little position as subcollector in an outport, drawing a salary of $200 a year, not to be allowed to open his mouth on questions of the day simply because he is an employee of this government? The thing is ridiculous. The most serious charge against him was in connection with the provincial election of 1925. I think we have come to a pretty pass if a collector of customs or a postmaster cannot go to the polls and vote 'without being pulled up before a most partisan commissioner, and on such flimsy evidence as that discharged. We are told by the minister that he is keeping politics out, that he does not take the advice of defeated candidates. There was no other advice could come to him than from the defeated candidate in my constituency. I say that this man has been most unfairly dealt with; he has been discharged on the most flimsy evidence. You can get evidence like that against every officer in your department if you are small enough to go and dig it up. It is about time 56103-227
this country knew what was taking place in the small offices occupied by these underpaid officials. This man was getting $200 a year. If he was getting $250 a year you could not touch him.


William Daum Euler: The salary paid to this man was $560 a year, I am informed.


Harry Bernard Short: That makes it so much the worse. Some friend must have wanted a job. A friend of Doctor Lovett was afterwards promised the position, and I presume he has been appointed. I should like to know whether the minister read the evidence that was submitted to him, and if he is as fair as I think he is, does he believe this man was fairly dealt with?


Mr. BOYS:: If the minister wishes to reply to my hon. friend from Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short) I will wait.


William Daum Euler: I quite appreciate my hon. friend's assumption that I would not care to reply to what has been said.


William Alves Boys: That is up to you.


William Daum Euler: It seems to me to be hardly necessary. I think the committee is in a position to judge from the evidence submitted by my hon. friend himself (Mr. Short) that the action of the government was justified in this case. I should not like the impression to go abroad, as apparently suggested by my hon. friend, that in this case there was any departure from the practice followed. No one is ever dismissed except on the statement of a member. Otherwise a commissioner may be appointed on the complaint of a defeated candidate, or any person, and when that commissioner finds the offence has been committed dismissal takes place.


William Alves Boys: The minister stated that the Vigilant was sold to Mr. Manley Chew by the Union government. He did intimate he might be mistaken. I do not think the matter should rest there. I take it for granted the minister never made that statement without being told by the officer who sits beside him that that is the fact. I ask if the officer will tell the minister that it is the fact. I should also like to know whether tenders were advertised before the order in council was passed in connection with the sale to Mr. Manley Chew.


William Daum Euler: Is the hon. gentleman referring to tenders that were asked for at the time of the sale by the government in 1921?

Supply-National Revenue


William Alves Boys: I am referring to any tenders whatsoever which led to the sale of the Vigilant to Mr. Manley Chew, as referred to a moment ago by the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Thompson).


William Daum Euler: I should be very glad to
give my hon. friend the information, but we were not particularly concerned with that. We were merely dealing with the boat last year. The sale took place away back in 1921. It is not at all material to the case Whether the sale of that boat was made by the Union government or the Liberal government.


William Alves Boys: The minister now is making
a speech upon something else. My question was: whether an order in council was passed, and on what date; and were tenders asked for or not? When I get the minister's answer I wish to make another observation or two.


William Daum Euler: I do not know.


William Alves Boys: Then the minister was not
joking, I suppose. He seemed to think he was scoring a point, and his supporters all applauded him when he said the hon. member for East Simcoe was wrong, and the Vigilant was sold by the Union government to Manley Chew. Let us have that confirmed or taken back.


William Daum Euler: I still think I am entirely
correct, but I am perfectly willing to verify my statement. My hon. friend speaks of his fairness. I credit him with a good deal of fairness, and surely he hardly expects a minister can be absolutely familiar with the thousand and one different matters that come before him in the course of his departmental duties. I am perfectly willing to look up the information if he thinks it is material. I tell him frankly I do not know. I am still of the opinion the sale was made as I said in the beginning, but I do not think it makes a particle of difference whether it was or not.


William Alves Boys: Then I think the minister
would be pretty sure of his ground before making such a statement.


William Daum Euler: If you have proof that I
am wrong I wish you would produce it.


William Alves Boys: I am asking the minister to
substantiate his statement. He has wavered a little, but he does not yet take it back. I will give him a fact which I think will enable the house to judge whether this boat was sold by the Union government to Mr. Manley Chew. The parliamentary guide indicates that the government of the Right Hon. Mackenzie
I Mr. Euler.]
King took office on December 29, 1921. We are told by the hon. member for East Simcoe that the sale of this boat took place on that date. There is the further fact that the elections were on December 6, 1921, and upon December 29, 1921, Mr. Manley Chew was member-elect for the riding of East Simcoe. Does the minister think under those conditions the Union government sold the Vigilant to Mr. Manley Chew for the price named or any other price?


William Daum Euler: The boats were available
for anybody.


William Alves Boys: What surprises me is the
rapidity with which this transaction was completed. Apparently the member for East Simcoe was right. On the very day the Liberal government took office, December 29, 1921, the sale took place to Mr. Manley Chew, the member-elect for East Simcoe. I do not think the matter should stop at that point. Let us get the facts. If the Union government made the sale to the newly elected Liberal member who had been elected four weeks before, let us know.


Charles Avery Dunning: It was not the Union
government, anyway.


William Daum Euler: I am willing to say I was
in error; it was not the Union government. It was the Meighen government.


Charles Avery Dunning: It was the National
Liberal and Conservative government.


William Alves Boys: If that will help either the
Minister of Railways or the Minister of Customs I will read from the Parliamentary Guide-the National Liberal and Conservative party.


Charles Avery Dunning: Where has it got to?


William Alves Boys: Up to December 29, 1921, it
had been in office. I should like to know whether the National Liberal and Conservative party on December 29, 1921, sold this boat to Mr. Manley Chew, member-elect on December 6, for the riding of East Simcoe. I think in view of what the minister said we should get that information. If we cannot get it now, I ask the minister to allow this or some other item to stand. After all, there is something in what the minister said, it is not so vital as to which government was in power. The point of the story is, the price at which the boat was sold to Mr. Manley Chew, and the price at which it was subsequently rented to Mr. J. T. Payette of Pene-tanguishene, just across from where Mr. Manley Chew lives.

Supply-National Revenue


William Daum Euler: I certainly have no objection to letting any item stand; I am not trying to suppress information. I must say however, that I cannot for the life of me see the bearing of this particular bit of information on this particular question.


William Alves Boys: Why did you introduce it?


William Daum Euler: If the point is that we are paying too much for the charter of the boat, that is fairly debatable. But I may say, on that particular point, that this boat at the moment is insured for 875,000, which is only 70 per cent of her value. I submit in all commonsense that it does not make any difference what that boat was sold for five or six years ago. As I stated before, $30,000 was expended on her. To-day, under different conditions altogether, she is worth more than $75,000. We have chartered that boat at $2,250 a month. If the committee thinks that is too much to pay then there is fair ground for argument. But beyond that I cannot see why it should make any difference whether a government of Canada, headed by a Liberal or a Conservative, sold that boat to whoever purchased it.


William Alves Boys: One of the reasons is that it was sold a little too cheap, and sold to a supporter of the government at the time, which in itself invites criticism. The hon. member for East Simcoe has gone so far as to suggest that the whole transaction savours of graft.


William Daum Euler: If the hon. gentleman desires to make a charge of that kind it would not rest with me; I had nothing to do with the boat six or eight years ago.


William Alves Boys: I am not trying to make a charge of graft against the minister.


William Daum Euler: Why insinuate?


William Alves Boys: I have not insinuated it.


William Daum Euler: The hon. gentleman also knows that immediately after the war, boats were a drug on the market. The United States government were willing to give theirs away and could not. The mere fact that this boat was sold for $18,000 at that time is no indication of its value at the present time, especially when you consider that large sums have been expended on the boat in the meantime.


William Alves Boys: Will the minister give us the information so that we shall know who put through the sale, when the order in council was passed, and whether or not tenders were invited.
56103-227i


Alfred Burke Thompson: How do you know $30,000 was expended on it?


William Daum Euler: Because the alterations were made under our supervision.


Hugh Guthrie: I think the matter is of sufficient consequence to entitle us to get the papers. The item might stand over until a subsequent occasion. My suggestion would be that if the present item has been sufficiently discussed we might pass it and allow the question of the Vigilant to be discussed when the papers are brought down later on; we could discuss it on another item in the supplementary estimates.


William Daum Euler: All right.


Hugh Guthrie: No. 516, if the minister is agreeable, and if he would bring all the papers, the order in council, and so forth, we could have a full discussion then. It looks rather a serious thing that on the very day when the King administration is sworn in a boat should be sold to a member of parliament. I am not sure that the law prohibits such a transaction when the member has not actually been sworn in, but it is a pretty narrow point and will require some examination. The minister will oblige the committee by bringing all the papers, the contract, the tenders, the order in council and so forth. I have a distinct recollection that a few days after the general election of 1921, the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen, who had been defeated on that occasion, announced his willingness to resign immediately -and the request was -made by the incoming prime minister that , he continue to hold office until the -cabinet had been officially named and arranged. I am satisfied -I was a member of the defeated government at that time-that little or no business w-as transacted by that government after the general election in question.


William Daum Euler: I do not desire for a moment to evade any responsibility in the matter, but this boat was not sold by the Department of Customs; it was sold by the Marine department.


Hugh Guthrie: It does not matter.


William Daum Euler: It was sold by the naval
department, and it seems to me, while I do not wish to throw any unnecessary work on one of my colleagues, that this information should more properly be obtained from the department which made the sale, and not from the Department of National Revenue, which was not in any way concerned with the matter.

Supply-National Revenue


Hugh Guthrie: The Department of
National Revenue is now concerned because it is renting the identical boat and is paying a handsome rental for it. In that way the question of the sale price and all the circumstances may now be inquired into.


William Daum Euler: In an emergency we have
paid as much as $4,500 a month for similar boats. If the charge or the suspicion is that we are now paying too much, that is fairly debatable; otherwise it seems to me that something going back a matter of seven or eight years is hardly to be charged to this' department at the present time. It does not seem to me to be fair.


Robert James Manion: Nothing is charged at
all; the only thing is that the committee wants the information. Perhaps I might point out something that has escaped other hon. gentlemen. When a government takes charge on a certain day it usually does so in the morning; the other party goes out the night before. The party of my right hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) took charge on the 29th December and without a doubt the previous government went out on the 28th. At any rate the question is of sufficient importance that the committee should have the information. No charges are made against anyone.


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: Did I understand
the minister to say that that boat was sold for SIS,000 and that she is now worth over $100,000?


William Daum Euler: I did not say over $100,-
000; I said she was insured for $75,000.


William Anderson Black: You said she was insured for $75,000 and I am perfectly satisfied that she was valued at $100,000, because she could not get full insurance. The minister also said that at that time boats were cheap. I want to tell him that boats are no more expensive now-they are just as cheap today-than they were when she was sold for $18,000.


William Daum Euler: We have not purchased the boat.


William Anderson Black: That transaction
savours of graft and wrongdoing and someone has put money in his pocket. I do not hesitate to say it.


William Daum Euler: Do you suggest that we
are paying too high a rental?


William Anderson Black: Yes, absolutely.


William Daum Euler: Could you suggest where
you could get boats at a lower figure? I will say frankly that I am not a seafaring man and I do not know what the prices should be I am entirely dependent on those who know, and I am assured that the price is low and reasonable. Some hon. gentleman on the opposite side could bear me out.


Hugh Guthrie: Some gentlemen on your
own side can tell you otherwise.


Thomas Cantley: Will the minister give us the terms of the contract?


William Anderson Black: Let us see a
copy of the charter.


Thomas Cantley: What does the department supply and what does the owner supply?


William Daum Euler: It was a three-year contract, seven months the first year and nine months each of the succeeding years. We supply whatever is needed on the boat.


Thomas Cantley: The rate per month?


William Daum Euler: $2,250.


Thomas Cantley: What do you supply and what does the owner supply?


William Daum Euler: The owner pays the ordinary insurance and we pay the extra rate of one per cent which is necessary in such cases; and we supply the boat otherwise.


Thomas Cantley: Do you supply fuel?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


William Anderson Black: Crew?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Thomas Cantley: Keep?


William Daum Euler: Yes, everything.


Thomas Cantley: Port charges? Pilotage?


William Daum Euler: Yes, everything.


Thomas Cantley: Everything except the
hire of the boat? What about repairs?


William Daum Euler: I am informed that we repair the ordinary wear and tear, and I suppose accidents are covered by insurance.


Thomas Cantley: Wiho pays the insurance?


William Daum Euler: I explained that a moment ago; the owners pay the ordinary insurance.


Thomas Cantley: I think you are paying a pretty stiff price.


William Daum Euler: Too high?

Supply-National Revenue


Thomas Cantley: Much too high. How old is the boat?


William Daum Euler: She was 'built in. 1904.


Thomas Cantley: Then she is twenty-four years old. I understand the minister to say that she was sold for $18,000 and that $30,000 was spent for repairs, making a total of $48,000. Does he not think that is a pretty good return on the money invested, when the department pays for repairs?


William Daum Euler: As I said before, necessarily I am dependent upon the opinions of those who know more about these things than I do, but I am informed .that high officials of the naval department stated that that was a very fair rental.


Robert James Manion: Does my hon. friend think the officials who chartered that boat know more about it -than he does?


William Daum Euler: Certainly; with regard to the rentals I do not profess to have a technical knowledge, and I do not think my hon. friend would expect it.


William Alves Boys: Would my hon. friend give us an idea, perhaps from his officers, of a fair rental for a boat sold for $18,000 and on which $30,000 has been spent for repairs? In one year alone the department pays over half that total cost. Does my hon. friend think that is a reasonable rental, and did he not go into that point before he approved of the transaction?


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend knows very well' that he may buy a property cheaply, but he will not give the benefit of that fortunate purchase to anyone else; he will charge exactly what the market will allow and that is the case here.


William Alves Boys: Then supposing it is worth $75,000, to take the figures given by the minister, what would be a fair rental to pay for the use of such a boat for nine months?


William Daum Euler: I am informed that very careful examination of the whole situation was made; we tried to get boats and we could not get anything like that. I am told that even to-day if any hon. members opposite have any suggestions bo make, we would be glad to get similar boats at a similar figure. Some of our marine friends on the other side of the house may have something to offer.


Hugh Guthrie: We will allow this item to pass on condition that when the item in the supplementary estimates comes up we will have the papers in connection with the Vigilant, and the discussion will be re-opened then.


William Daum Euler: That is quite satisfactory to me with this provision, that I will obtain all the papers I possibly can.


Hugh Guthrie: Is there any doubt about our getting the papers?


William Daum Euler: I think not; I see no reason why there should be.


Mr. QUINN:: Under this item I want to bring to the attention of the house the case of-


An hon. MEMBER:: McConachie?


Felix Patrick Quinn: . arranged for the accommodation of a number of men, and was therefore an ideal craft for a cruising or scientific party. This man goes on to say:
.... in fact I purchased her for the express purpose of reselling her to a party of American scientists who were going on a professional expedition to Greenland. She arrived in Halifax from Chatham May 24th after having been on fire at sea and badly damaged. It took a few weeks to repair the damage and by the time she was again in commission the prospective purchasers had proceeded on another ship.
I then tried advertising her for sale, and this brought a French citizen, Camille de la Combe, into the foreground, who wanted to charter her with the privilege of purchasing.
To make a long story short, Mr. Longley Chartered this vessel to Mr. de la Combe for the purpose of carrying a cargo of liquor to the West Indies. He points out that this is a perfectly legitimate business, notwithstanding the opinions of the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Revenue; that the Canadian National Railways are carrying liquor every day, so it must be a legitimate business. Longley chartered his boat for the same purpose, and a series of accidents happened to it. She then sailed away and a few miles from Halifax overtook a small schcnomelr La-comfoe which had proved unseaworthy, and some 1,100 cases of liquor were taken on board.	She then proceeded on her Voyage but sprung a leak and had to return to Halifax. She went on the marine slip, was repaired and sailed again, but did not get very far when the leak began again. She had to put back to Halifax and it turned out that the rudder post had been broken. They had not discovered this on the first visit to the slip, but on the second visit they had the repairs made. She then sailed away on her voyage and after proceeding 150 miles or so her engines became disabled, and idle made for the nearest port, which happened to be Shelburne, to which he refers as a good port to keep away from. Shelburne is in the constituency of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston). She put into Shelburne but the repairs could not be effected and the defective parts of the engine had to be shipped to Liverpool, some fifty miles away. Overtime work was carried on at the foundry in order to rush the vessel away, time being a prime factor of this trip. The parts arrived back at Shelburne early Friday morning, and the engineer wanted to start at once and he would set up the engine as they went along. There was, however, a local holiday that day, and the offending members of the crew persuaded the captain to stay for a day to see the show. They were for the first time strik-[Mr_ Quinn.]
ing the high lights of civilization. Being off a liquor laden ship they became the lions of the village with a certain class. Among the latter were two of Yarmouth's worst characters, one taken from gaol for the purpose and brought to Shelburne as a stool pigeon by the local officials. They induced those three men to go back aboard the vessel to bring some liquor ashore, which they promised to buy. The appointment was made and the trap carefully laid. The customs and local dry officials carefully hid themselves and waited, filled with the hopeful joy of the expected spoils, which would be divided between them if they got the ship. Oaptain Nickerson's report to Ottawa, making a proud boast of the scheme, is interesting reading.
The next morning they were haled into court and the mate was charged with having liquor in his possession and fined $200 and costs or six mouths in gaol, and the other two men were fined $400 and costs each, for having liquor in their possession and offering it for sale-a total of nearly $1,100, and the goods involved consisted of five flasks of liqour, about thirty ounces.
They seized the ship on the grounds that there were eleven cases short in the cargo. This can be easily explained, for in transferring the cargo to the Admiral Beatty, which was done during very heavy weather lying some fifty or sixty miles from shore, it would be very easy for some of the cargo to slip overboard or be broken. The supercargo was making his first trip to sea on a sailing ship, and he was very sick and could not check up the cargo.
This vessel was seized in July, 1926, and was handed back to her owner in October, 1927. The case was brought to trial before Mr. Justice A. K. Miaclean of the Exchequer Court of Canada, and this was his decision:
I am therefore of the opinion that the seizure of the^ Admiral Beatty and her cargo had not been justified, and they should be discharged from the custody of the crown, and delivered to their owners, and free of any charges or expense incident to the detention.
Thus, after seizing and holding the vessel at Shelburne from July 30, 1926, against the reiterated protests of her owner, made continually from the moment she was detained, and of her absolute innocence of all wrongdoing, it was finally upheld as one of the most extraordinary and astounding cases that has occurred in Canada.
In justice to the minister I would say that in the few dealings I have had with him I have always found him to be very fair. He told me quite frankly that there was no fund out of which restitution could be made to Charles F. Longley, and that is why I am

Supply-National Revenue
bringing it before this committee. If a man's property is seized by the government, and after being held for fourteen months is returned to him in a disgraceful condition, there should be some restitution made. He suffered the loss, during that detention for fourteen months, of the thing to which he had looked as a means to pay off some of his liabilities, such as the fitting up of the vessel, supplies bought from different merchants in Halifax, the money borrowed for those purchases, and so on. The vessel was finally returned and she is lying there simply a wreck in the harbour of Halifax. He cannot realize a dollar on her and his creditors are looking to him for payment for their goods supplied to this ship.
As a result of this action by the government Mr. Longley is to-day reduced to the position of a pauper, and in view of the judgment handed down by Mr. Justice Maclean, in which he says he is of the opinion that the seizure of the Admiral' Beatty and her cargo was not justified and that they should be discharged from the custoday of the crown, delivered to their owners, and free of any charges or expense incident to the detention, I would ask the minister if this is not a case where he should extend himself to see that fairness and justice is done. I believe an appeal should be made to the treasury board of the Dominion of Canada, or the matter placed before the Prime Minister. The minister is a fair minded man, and I ask him if, in all fairness, restitution should not be made to Charles F. Longley.


William Daum Euler: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman has me somewhat at a disadvantage, as I did not know he was going to bring up this matter, and I have not a very clear recollection of it. This seizure took place prior to my coming into the department, in the summer of 1926. The boat was engaged in the rum business, and it was seized by our officers because the crew were suspected of having sold liquor to Canadians in Canada; I think that was the charge. They were prosecuted, and finally the case went to the exchequer court under Justice Maclean and a decision was given out that the boat should be returned to the owner, but costs were not assessed against either party, each side paying their own.


Felix Patrick Quinn: The judgment handed down by Justice Maclean, which I read, was to the effect that the cargo and boat were to be delivered free of any charges or expense incident to the detention. I am not a lawyer and so I cannot interpret that decision.


William Daum Euler: I have not the judgment before me, so my hon. friend has that advantage over me. He could perhaps tell me this, whether the judge expressed the opinion that there was sufficient reason for the officers making the seizure.


Felix Patrick Quinn: He used the word "probable."


William Daum Euler: I suppose that was the reason he did not assess cost against the department. The boat, after all, was engaged in that business, and its crew were suspected of doing an illegal business in Canada. Because of that, we were justified in seizing the boat, although the decision says that the property should be returned.


Felix Patrick Quinn: This boat was engaged in a legal business just as the Canadian National Railways are engaged in a legal business in transporting liquor from one end of Canada to the other.


William Daum Euler: If the crew of that boat were engaged in an illegal business while they were members of the crew, that would put a little different complexion on the matter.


Mr. HANSON:: That would have nothing to do with the owner at all. There must have been a separate charge against the ship or it would not have been in the exchequer court. The gravamen of the charge is not only the detention of the ship but the return of the ship in a dilapidated condition. What has the minister to say about that?


William Daum Euler: The minister has really
nothing to say about that. It may be an unfortunate situation, but so far as the minister is concerned there is no provision anywhere for making a refund on a score of that kind. My lawyer friends know very well that many instances occur where supposedly in the interest of the general public the crown brings a man to trial. I am giving this by way of example. A man spends probably all his money in defending himself and he is declared not guilty, but he has no recourse for the money he lost. It does not seem quite fair to me, I admit.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: I should like to call the minister's attention to what seems to be an unnecessary limitation of the authority of local steamboat inspectors. They can make no alterations-


William Daum Euler: That does not come under
this department.


George Black: I think this item includes the salaries of steamboat inspectors.
Supply-National Revenue


William Daum Euler: That is under the Marine and Fisheries department.


George Black: Notwithstanding the assurance of the minister I am sure that the inspection of hulls and boilers of steamers comes under the Department of National Revenue, formerly the Department of Customs-


William Daum Euler: Not at all.


George Black: -and that the inspectors are in that department.


William Daum Euler: I am assured by my officials that they are not. I can say no more. There is nothing in this item for that.


George Black: Salaries of inspectors of ports and of other officers on inspection, and in connection with the board of customs, are included in this item. The minister can convey the information to the government that inspectors of hulls, boilers and machinery on steamboats have not the slightest authority of themselves. If it is necessary to make even a trivial alteration in the arrangement of a steamer, the matter has to be referred to the department at Ottawa. Notwithstanding the fact that ultimately the local inspector's recommendation is accepted, a great deal of time has to be taken up in correspondence concerning an unimportant transaction. There is no necessity for this. The local inspectors are probably better qualified in regard to the matter than the authorities at Ottawa.


William Daum Euler: I do not like to interrupt the hon. gentleman and I would be willing to do almost anything to oblige him, but after all what he is speaking of is entirely within the estimates of the Department of Marine and Fisheries and I do not think the debate should take place on this item.


George Reginald Geary: May I give the minister a little more information in regard to the matter which the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn) has just brought to the attention of the committee? The case came before the exchequer court and it was finally disposed of in this way. The last paragraph of the judgment reads:
While perhaps not altogether free from doubt,
I certify there was probable cause for the seizure. There will be no order as to the costs' of this proceeding.
It was with a good deal of doubt that his lordship determined that there was probable cause for the seizure. There was no order made as to the costs of the proceeding, but

the order that was made is as follows. I think I am reading correctly from the judgment, but the minister will see it:
The decision of the court was that the vessel was to be returned to her owner free of all charges and expense incident to the detention.
That order still stands. The claim for damages is dismissed because there was reasonable cause for the seizure and no costs of the proceeding in the court are awarded. But the order as to payment of charges and expenses incident to the detention, I take it, still stands. If that be the case, would the minister listen to what the owner has to say in regard to the matter? I do not know the man, but his letters have been sent to me and they all have the ring of truth and sincerity in them. I do not think this is a misplaced claim, a matter that is not without some justification at least in the mind of the man who makes it. It is not a trumped-up thing. He states:
This vessel left Halifax in July 1926 in perfect condition, a regular little yacht that was affectionately referred to by the waterfront fraternity as the Little Queen. I received her back in October 1927, a complete wreck, her sides smashed in, her hull rotten and covered with the fungus of rot, her decks rotten, her foremast and main completely gone, her anchor chains eaten up with rust and her big lot of stores eaten up and gone completely.
Those are damages that attach to the detention and if the department will consider the matter from that standpoint, I think it will find it is justified in paying under the judgment something on that account. It seems a case of hardship and I know the minister will interest himself in the matter and get the file and the correspondence. I am sure the hon. junior member for Halifax will assist him in any of the matters that he has under his advisement, and what I have are, I expect, copies of what my hon. friend has. This communication from the man sounds right and if all that damage were incurred between the date of the seizure and the date the ship was returned to its owner some eighteen months afterwards, then under the judgment I have read I think the department is responsible for the cost of the detention.


William Daum Euler: I agree with a good deal of
what my hon. friend has said. I have not an absolutely clear recollection of the matter, but I seem to recall that following the receipt of a letter similar to the one in the hands of my hon. friend, I ordered an investigation with a view of discovering whether during the detention the damage was caused by reason of any negligence on the part of our

Supply-National Revenue
own officials. If that could be established, I am quite free to say to the committee I think the man has a moral claim for some recompense. I am going to make some inquiries with regard to the matter.


George Reginald Geary: Will the minister consider
whether he is right in that interpretation? It would not necessarily be negligence; if the department took and kept the ship and the damage arose during that time, it would seem prima facie that the department was responsible for what occurred to the ship.


William Daum Euler: There might be deterioration or depreciation of which I would not feel like taking so much cognizance as I would of damage resulting from negligence, not looking after the vessel properly. Perhaps persons would go on the boat and destroy the property in one way or another. If we were in charge of that boat, as I suppose we would be during seizure, then I think we should have some sort of duty to see that it was not unnecessarily damaged. If the damage took place in that way, then I admit we would have some responsibility.


George Reginald Geary: I know from the correspondence the minister will be satisfied after careful investigation.


Thomas Cantley: This is the situation.
You seize the vessel. You allege that the crew have been in correspondence with the shore and have been smuggling. The case goes to trial. You are defeated. You are not able to prove your claim. You have kept the vessel for a year and a half. You have deprived the owner of her services. Is it not incumbent upon you to protect the property that you have seized, particularly when you are proven by your own court to have had no case?


William Daum Euler: The judge said our officers
had sufficient reason for making a seizure.


Thomas Cantley: No.


William Daum Euler: I regret if I am wrong, but
I think that is what he stated.


Thomas Cantley: Then why was the case
dismissed?


George Reginald Geary: The court held that you had probable cause for making the seizure.


Thomas Cantley: That does not relieve
the department of taking proper care of the property after it is seized. You keep the vessel for nearly a year and a half. There is no question as to the facts of the case. The facts are that you acted in a very high-handed
way. You suspected parties of doing what you were not able to prove they did do, and now you say that the man will obtain no redress whatever. That is not fair. That is not British justice. That is not what we expect from any government in this country.


William Daum Euler: The hon. member knows
very well that the crown is in a peculiar position, in an entirely different position from that of a private individual.


Thomas Cantley: I understand that it is
said that the crown can do no wrong, but we expect to get justice from the crown, and always have done so hitherto.


William Anderson Black: The officials of
your department, took that vessel from a safe mooring and put her at a wharf that was unfit to moor anything alongside of. A breeze came uip and the wharf was knocked to pieces, and the vessel very, very badly damaged. That was done by your officials. The owner had nothing whatever to do with it, and then you return the vessel to the owners and say, "There she is. You can take her." If there is justice in that, I want to know where it is. I feel that this man has been most wrongfully treated by the department, and the department will make no recompense and refuses to consider the case at all.


William Daum Euler: I can add nothing further.
I shall make inquiries, and if I find that the officials of the department did not exercise due and ordinary care, I think the man would have a claim against the government, a moral claim that could not be enforced, but I think in that case there should be some compensation given. As for a storm, that is an act of Providence for which we cannot be held responsible.


Thomas Cantley: That is not a fair answer. The vessel was taken from her owner, and she was moored, as the hon. member for Halifax has said, at a wharf that was in no condition of repair at all, a place where it was not possible for any vessel to lie safely, and when there was any bit of sea running at all she was damaged. This case was disposed of by the judge a year ago or more.


William Daum Euler: No, last October, I am
informed.


Felix Patrick Quinn: In August,, 1927.


Thomas Cantley: That is nine months ago. Has the minister made any inquiry or made
Supply-National Revenue

any effort to obtain the facts and see that justice is done to the man? Because injustice has been done and some recompense ought to be made.


William Daum Euler: I stated some months ago- I am speaking from memory-that I was under the impression that I had some sort of inquiry made, and I will inquire further when I get back to the office in the morning. There must be something on file in regard to it. I can say no more at the moment.


Thomas Cantley: I do not think the minister disposes of the matter simply by saying that he will make some sort of inquiry. Injustice has been done, and it becomes the government to see that it is rectified.


William Daum Euler: That has not yet been admitted.


Thomas Cantley: I am saying that injustice was done, ad I say that the government must make some recompense.


William Daum Euler: "Must" is a strong word.


Thomas Cantley: Must is not one bit too strong a word to use when injustice is perpetrated by any officer of this government


William Daum Euler: Once you have established the injustice, I quite admit that, but it has not yet been established to my satisfaction.


Thomas Cantley: You failed to establish your charge, and it is incumbent upon you to put the man back in as good a position as he was in before you made the charge.


William Daum Euler: I made no charge.


Thomas Cantley: Your officers made a charge. What is the use of quibbling?


William Daum Euler: This boat was seized before I came into the department.


Thomas Cantley: That does not make any difference. The office is hereditary. I am not holding the minister personally, but the government, responsible.


William Daum Euler: Be reasonable.


Mr. FRASER:: I would like to ask the minister what he is doing in the matter of carrying out the recommendations of the several committees and other bodies that were appointed to investigate the customs department a year or so ago, and which recommended reducing the number of customs offices throughout the Dominion. What line can the minister give us on the policy that he proposes to follow in closing up a number of the ports throughout Canada?


William Daum Euler: There were some four ot five different reports made by various organizations and committees with regard to customs, and I think almost all of them recommended the closing of some of the ports in Canada. We have nominally something over seven hundred ports, that is including outports and preventive stations. The word "port" is a misnomer in connection with some of these offices. In seventy-three of them no revenue whatever is collected, absolutely none, and in something like two hundred and sixty of them less than S500 is collected. Some capital was made out of the fact that in comparison with the United States we were away out of proportion in the number of ports throughout the country. We are; that is perfectly true, but the conditions are not exactly parallel. In the United States they have a number of stations, as they call them, in which they do make collection of revenue, but which are not classified as ports at all.
The reasons given for closing the ports are two: One is in order to save expense; the other is in order to obtain proper appraisals. It is represented, and quite rightly so, I think, that in the smaller ports it is quite impossible to have appraisers who are sufficiently skilled to make proper appraisals. The answer to that is that the frauds that were exposed during the various investigations invariably occurred in the larger ports, ports which we would not close in any case, and the remedy there is that we should have a better system of appraisals and a better staff of appraisers in these large ports. That is one of the difficulties with which we have to contend now, and that was one of the reasons why the bill was passed in the House of Commons this session, which I think will enable the department to get a better appraisal system and a better appraisal service. As a matter of fact, in about one hundred ports in this country about 96 per cent of the total customs revenue is collected. In the other six hundred ports appraisals are not much of a factor because the importations are very small. It seems to me, then, that it becomes a matter for consideration whether these small ports should be closed in order to save a very moderate expenditure, oir whether they should be maintained for the convenience of the public. It seems to me that it comes down to a decision on that point. I also think, Mr. Chairman, that the convenience of the public is a factor that should be considered.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Daum Euler: Now, various suggestions
have been made. One, made I think by

Supply-National Revenue
Messrs. Clarkson, Gordon and Dilworth, was that the amount of revenue should be taken into consideration, and ports with a revenue of less than fifty thousand dollars a year should be closed. If that were done it would create a somewhat serious situation. I have here a list of ports with the revenues attaching to them. If we closed all ports with a revenue of less than fifty thousand dollars, we would have to close such places as Amherst, Glace Bay, Sorel, St. Mary's, Georgetown, Hanover, Kincardine, Perth, Listowel, Barrie-my hon. friend from Barrie is not in his seat-Newmarket, Swift Current, York-town, Carleton Place, Renfrew, Bracebridge, Grimsby, Orangeville, Banff,-to which my hon. friend the leader of the oposition (Mr. Bennett) objected the other day-Sydney Mines, Clinton, Wingham, Kamloops, Amprior, and a host of others which I need not mention here. It might be advisable to close some of these ports. It might also be thought advisable to close for importation purposes some of the smaller ports, leaving them open for such services as might be rendered in the clearing of vessels or for preventive purposes. As a matter of fact, many of the ports, especially in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, are really preventive stations rather than ports for the receipt of customs duties. Most of these ports are on the border. Now I think it is the desire of parliament that we keep the most careful supervision of importations from the United States. Then we have a great many ports, as I have stated, in the maritime provinces-a tremendously long coast line, a good deal more extensive than that of the United States itself. In fact, in the maritime provinces we have one hundred ports or more with revenues less than the expenditures involved in their maintenance. That would seem to be, as the lawyers say, a prima facie case for their closing; but it does not necessarily follow, because for the convenience of the public vessels have to be entered and cleared, and, as I have said, these ports do a great deal of preventive work, and they are also necessary for the promotion of the fishing industry. In western Canada we have great distances in sparsely settled country. In some instances our people are living very close to the international line but far from a customs port. On the American side there may be a town just across the border, and quite naturally and legitimately our people go over there, and it is hardly reasonable to expect them to go forty or fifty miles to reach a port of entry.
It is not easy to decide which ports should remain open and which should be closed. We did gather our inspectors together some
months ago in order to canvas the whole situation and try to arrive at some tentative decision as to what ports might be closed. The tentative list comprises some two hundred or more ports that we think might be closed, but we have not made a final decision. As a matter of fact, while the house is in session it has been very difficult to deal with matters of this kind, but this question will ibe taken up again as soon as parliament prorogues. Hon. members are familiar with the situation in their own constituencies, and I credit them with a desire to help put the Department of National Revenue on a proper basis. I invite them-not only those on this side, but on the other side as well-to suggest to me right now if they like, or by letter or otherwise, the ports in their own ridings-not in the other fellow's-which they would like to see closed.


Harry Bernard Short: Will you take our advice?


William Daum Euler: In conclusion I may say
that when the matter is receiving consideration all these factors will have to be very carefully gone into before a definite decision is made.


Milton Neil Campbell: Perhaps the minister
can now give us some particulars of the regulation put into effect last fall under which magazines then on the free list became dutiable.


William Daum Euler: The ruling was made by the customs board-over which, by the way, the minister has no control whatever-on *n appeal by certain parties whose names I do not recall. The board ruled that certain publications, which the ordinary layman would call magazines, were really only works of fiction. I think that ruling was quite correct. They were of the opinion that a magazine to come strictly within that designation should have a series of articles, varied in their nature, comprising current literature, reviews, essays, perhaps some poetry and illustrations, and usually a certain amount of advertising. The board of customs therefore ruled that those so-called magazines which contained absolutely nothing but fiction, and much of it not very valuable as literature, were not strictly within the technical meaning of the word, "magazines" and were rather novels. An appeal was taken to the governor in council, and the ruling was sustained.


Milton Neil Campbell: I am glad to have the minister s explanation, because my information is that many magazines which would not come under the class stated by him are being subjected to duty.


William Daum Euler: No.
Supply-National Revenue


Milton Neil Campbell: Tariff item 184, under which these magazines previously came in, reads:
Newspapers and quarterly, monthly, and semimonthly magazines, and weekly literature, papers unbound, tailors', milliners' and mantle makers' fashion plates, when imported in single copies, in sheet form, with magazines or trade journals-free.
Until August 18 last all these came in free, but then by this ruling of the customs board they were classified under tariff item 169, which reads:
Books, viz.; novels, or works of fiction or literature of a similar character, unbound or paper-bound or in sheets, but not to include Christmas annuals commonly known as juvenile or toy books: 15, 22J and 25 per cent.
I may say that Good Housekeeping, the Ladies Home Journal, Needlecraft, the Woman's Home Companion and the American and other very excellent magazines are now dutiable. That is my information. I have received a complaint from my constituency signed by a considerable number of people who find themselves affected by this ruling. It is pointed out to me that some of these magazines now cost them a dollar a year more than before, making the price unduly high.


William Daum Euler: The Ladies' Home Journal
and simlar magazines are not subject to duty. The magazines which come under the ruling are those published in the interests of some particular concern, which is really advertising its own product in the form of a magazine.


Milton Neil Campbell: Am I to understand
that the duty should not apply to those magazines?


William Daum Euler: Not to some mentioned by
my hon. friend, but I am not quite sure which. I have not a list of those magazines before me. If I had known the matter would come up I would have had the information at hand. Generally speaking, the magazines subject to duty are those the contents of which are designed for the purpose of advertising the product of some particular concern. I might suggest to my hon. friend that if he would come to the department he could get the information much more readily than he can here, unless he desires to make a protest.


Milton Neil Campbell: I wish to make a protest if these magazines are classified under item 169. The former item 184 is rather ambiguous.


William Daum Euler: I am informed' that they are not so classified


Milton Neil Campbell: If the duty has been levied in some of these cases and if we can prove that to the officers it will be adjusted?


William Daum Euler: If any mistakes have been made they will be adjusted.


Thomas Cantley: Will the minister tell us who the present collector of customs is in New Glasgow?


William Daum Euler: There has been no change. The collector is Stanley MaoCurdy.


Thomas Cantley: Is it not intended to make any change? I understand the gentleman is over seventy, and has been retired; at least it was proposed to retire him a year ago. Will the minister give us the facts?


William Daum Euler: I understand he is seventy and a report has been called for as to whether he should be continued. I am sorry I have not the information 'but I will get it.


Thomas Cantley: Whiat is the custom in regard to the age limit?


William Daum Euler: Ordinarily officers are retired at the age of seventy. In many cases however, if the men are peculiarly fitted to continue in work, we extend the time from year to year. There is no absolute rule in the matter but they must retire at seventy-five.


Thomas Cantley: I do not know any reason why he is not fitted to continue.


William Daum Euler: I do not know that I should convey to the hon. gentleman mere impressions held by the commissioner, but the commissioner tells me it is his impression, that steps have already been taken to 'continue his services another year. That is not absolute; it is merely an impression.


Thomas Cantley: I understand locally,
judging from reports I see in the press, that the opinion is that Mr. MaioCurdy would have been retired normally in July last year but his term was extended six months and then extended another six months.


William Daum Euler: It was extended' a year.


Thomas Cantley: Well that is a little
different. What is the intention of the minister when the ^rear is up?


William Daum Euler: I cannot say; I have no information before me.


Thomas Cantley: I suppose the minister or his department has a policy?

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


William Daum Euler: We get a report on the
capabilities of the man, and if we think he is physically and mentally still fit to go on we probably extend the term another year. If not he will be retired


Thomas Cantley: If you will take my
opinion I will give it. I think he is fit.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
William Daum Euler: There is another item of mine, in the supplementaries, which I should like to have carried.


Hugh Guthrie: There is only one item in the supplementaries.


William Daum Euler: There are two; one on the first page, and one on the last.


Hugh Guthrie: I have no objection to 415 being carried.
National Revenue-contingencies-to provide for the installation of calculating machines in the statistical branch, $10,000.


William Daum Euler: It is understood that this item is agreed to while 516 stands.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Ocean and river service-maintenance and repairs to Dominion steamers and icebreakers, $1,650,000.
Hugh Guthrie: This is the same amount as voted last year. It is the ordinary annual vote?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Absolutely the same.


Thomas Cantley: Where is the Stanley,
what is her condition, and What is proposed to be done with her?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Stanley is at Quebec. Certain repairs were made in the winter.


Thomas Cantley: They have been made?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, during the winter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Examination of masters and mates, $20,000.
Thomas Cantley: How many navigation
schools are maintained in the maritime provinces?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is one in each of the following places:	Halifax, Yarmouth,
North Sydney, St. John and Charlottetown.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Inspection of live stock shipping, $4,500.
Thomas Cantley: Will the minister tell us how much was spent under this vote last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We spent $3,709.


Thomas Cantley: I thought the shipment of cattle was almost a thing of the past.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There are no shipments of cattle at present, but we are maintaining two inspectors in Montreal because we do not know whether or not there will be any shipments in future, we have to keep the officers there in case of need. I am also informed that we are using them as night men in the pilot office at Montreal; we are keeping them busy although there are no inspections made.


Thomas Cantley: That is a very comfortable position for them; I hope they will be able to keep it, but only about three-fifths of the vote was spent last year while the same amount is being asked this year. I do not think there is very much likelihood of that trade being resumed in the near future.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous and unforeseen expenses, $5,000.
Mr. SIMPSON:: I suppose I should have asked this question under item 201, but 1 would like to inquire of the minister if the Dominion steamers, the light tenders and so on, are now equipped with wireless?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They are not all equipped wiith wireless but twelve are so equipped. Does my hon. friend desire the names of those vessels?


Thomas Edward Simpson: I think not. Are the steamers operating on the great lakes equipped with wireless?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, they are not.


Thomas Edward Simpson: I think they should foe.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am inclined to agree.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Life saving service, including rewards for saving life, $80,000.
Arthur Edward Ross: Will the minister give us the details of this item?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This proposed appropriation is for the maintenance of stations on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts and on the great lakes for rendering aid to vessels in distress, for saving lives endangered by marine casualties and for rewards for saving lives on the

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
high seas under conditions of difficulty and great danger, requiring a display of exceptional bravery. No change is made this year. For example, in the province of Ontario there are stations at Cobourg, Goderich, Long Point, Point Pelee, Port Stanley and Southampton.


Arthur Edward Ross: What stations are located on lake Ontario?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is the station at Cobourg, where last year the expenditure was $300; that is a volunteer station. The same amount, $300, was expended at Goderich; Long Point is a seasonal station and the expenditure amounted to $5,000, the same amount being spent at Point Pelee. The expenditure at Port Stanley and at Southampton was $300 in each case.


George Reginald Geary: Are there no stations on Georgian bay?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is Southampton.


George Reginald Geary: No, that is lake Huron.
Southampton and Goderich are both on lake Huron, but I am talking about the upper part of t'he lakes.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think those are all.


George Reginald Geary: Then I am sure the minister would like to know that towards the end of the last navigation season there was a good deal of dissatisfaction over the lack of facilities for life saving on the upper lakes. There was a bad storm; the ice came on, and as the minister probably saw in the press there was some loss of life and a large destruction of shipping property. Would it not be advisable to consider the situation along the north shores of Georgian bay, lake Huron and lake Superior? One would think there would be need for these stations.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I shall be glad to look into the situation, but representations have been made to us that we should dispense with most of these stations. However, I am quite prepared to look into the particular case mentioned by my hon. friend.


Arthur Edward Ross: It does look in
some cases as though this money has not been expended where it is most necessary. Cobourg is on a coal route, but at the end of the lake we have had wrecks of these coal boats running from Oswego every year, and it looks as though something further might be done. If a station were put on the islands or somewhere towards the head of the lakes

it would be more in proximity to a greajt many wrecks. I think that should be kept in mind, as at certain points there are always wrecks. Most of the wrecks at the head of the lake occur during the fall, and I think one is more necessary there than even at Cobourg. Around the Thousand Islands a number of wrecks are always occurring among the coal running boats.


Mr. ROBINSON:: What expenditures have been made during the last two or three years at the Point Pelee life saving station? I was down there two or three years ago and I understand that recommendations had been made that the track should1 be extended to the inside of the bay so that the lifeboats could be launched on the calmer side of the point in case of storm. There have been times when it has been very difficult to launch the boats during a storm.


Mr. GOTT:: I should like to add just a word here. There are very poor facilities for getting to the shore and back to the light house station. I think application was made to the department for better equipment, and I should like to ask the minister if he would not give serious consideration to providing better equipment for that crew. There should be some kind of launch provided rather than a rowboat. They have some distance to go, and sometimes the storms are very severe.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: These representations have been considered, and I will be prepared to look into the situation in that particular place.


Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond):: Is it the intention of the government to place anything in the estimates this session for the life saving station at Scatarie island?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: According to the information which I can obtain, this station is adequately equipped. We have provided practically everything we can provide, but in view of the interest my hon. friend, is taking in this matter I shall be pleased to consider the suggestion that he has made.


Finlay MacDonald: I am pleased to note that the minister is interesting himself in the condition of the life saving station at Scatarie island. I visited Scatarie island in 1926, a short time after the ship Ringhorn grounded off that coast and five lives were lost. I had a conversation with the captain and he told me that he remained on the ship all night. He could see the people on the shore as they built fires, and he waited all night for some method of bringing his people ashore. I claim that we should at least

Private Bills
have a gun on this island in order that a line might be fired on board ship. Had such provision been provided for the island at that time, these five lives would have been saved.
I also visited the life saving station at that time. I understand that the members of this station are volunteers, only receiving pay when they go out on a life saving trip. I looked over the boat, and it was not seaworthy. It had been in the quarters for years, and I know that no man would risk his life in ordinary weather in the lifeboat that was provided for Scatarie island, let alone go out in a storm to take a crew off a ship. I am bringing this matter to the attention of the department because more lives have been lost on Scatarie island during the last ten years than on any other part of the Atlantic coast. It is known to-day, like Sable island, as one of the graveyards of the Atlantic. I bring this matter forcibly to the attention of the government, that human lives could have been saved if the proper equipment had been installed at that point.
I also wish to bring to the attention of the government the question, and inquire whether they have any additional information regarding it, as to the fog whistle or signal on the western coast of Scatarie island. I brought this question up some time ago.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that inquiries were made regarding this matter, and our information is that everything is in good order, and that the fog alarm is functioning regularly. That is the information we have in the department, having made inquiries.


Finlay MacDonald: We know that the fog alarm is functioning regularly, but the point is that ships sailing in a westerly direction cannot hear that fog horn two miles from the light. The fog whistle is at the lighthouse at Scatarie island. I have an article here from the Halifax Chronicle, the Liberal organ of my friends from the province of Nova Scotia I will read a paragraph:
Scatarie has been the graveyard of many a staunch ship, and according to seamen of Main-a-Dieu, this barren coast will claim many another victim, unless a new system of signals is inaugurated.
The fishermen claim that when approaching that island in a westerly direction, sailing from Louisburg to Scatarie island, they cannot hear that fog whistle two miles from the station. On the eastern side they can hear it for ten or twelve miles, but every wreck that has occurred on that coast during the last tea years has occurred on the western side of the island, as a result of thick fog, and not being
able to hear the fog whistle. In view of what has happened during the last few years I think the minister should make a very thorough investigation, and should at least inquire of the fishermen on that coast, who are the people concerned.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I will do so.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, May 31, 1928.