1928-05-08

[Stage Direction]
Nineteenth annual report of the Civil Service Commission of Canada for 1927-Mr. Rinfret.
Report of royal commission on fisheries-Mr. Cardin.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Adding-ton):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to put a question which, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), may be answered by the Minister of Health (Mr. King) or some other member of the government. There has been a very serious outbreak of rabies in the county of Frontenac, and a number of infected cattle and sheep have had to be destroyed. My question is:	Under
such circumstances will the government recompense to some extent the farmers for the loss that they have sustained?


Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Health):: I shall be pleased to bring the question to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture so he may reply to it to-morrow.



BRITISH EMPIRE STEEL CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: Mr. Speaker, on April 20 I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) with respect to an agreement which, according to the newspapers, had been entered into between the Nova Scotia miners and the British Empire Steel Corporation. At the time he promised to furnish some further information. May I ask when the agreement will be tabled, and what action the Labour department has taken in the matter? I am quite willing to let this stand as a notice of motion for production of papers.
Civil Service


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour):: I expect to have the agreement tomorrow or next day. If my hon. friend desires, I shall be glad to lay it on the table.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: What action did the department take in that connection?


Peter Heenan: As this would require a
long time to explain, suppose I lay all the papers on the table.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Thank you.



CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) if any steps have been taken to implement his promise of last session to recommend a higher classification for letter carriers and mail clerks; and, if that recommendation was made to the Civil Service Commission, has it been acted upon?


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):: 
Leon Johnson Ladner: In view of the importance of the matter may I ask the Postmaster General to table the recommendation and the correspondence?


Peter John Veniot: Yes; I will try and have it to-morrow.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. J. DENIS (Joliette):: On the orders of the day yesterday the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) requested an explanation regarding the sittings of the committee on privileges and elections. I did not at the time gather the full purport of the question and I asked to be allowed to give the hon. gentleman an answer last night at eight o'clock. Inasmuch as the house was in committee of the whole on resumption at eight o'clock I had no opportunity of making a statement on the matter, and I should like to do So now. I have read Hansard carefully and I find that the leader of the opposition stated that according to the votes and proceedings on May 3 the committee on privileges and elections had been called for Tuesday, May 8 -that is, to-day-while, according to the votes and proceedings of the next day, May 4, the committee is now scheduled to meet on May 10 instead. The hon. member asks for an explanation, and he follows this up with the statement that he had already made arrangements to be present on May 8, this change in dates being of course inconvenient to him. I may offer this explanation. The last day on which the committee met was Thursday, May 3, and when the committee rose, to resume at the call of the chair, I immediately went to the clerk and asked him to reserve, as the date of the next meeting, May 8. This was suggested tentatively because I was not sure at the time whether certain documents which are expected from the Attorney General of the province of Alberta would be available on that date. Nevertheless, seeing that we have experienced considerable difficulty and a good deal of trouble in getting together not only this but other committees, and as there are not sufficient rooms available for the committees, I deemed it wise to retain May 8 as the next date of meeting. I thought it best to reserve that date at once and I asked the clerk to arrange accordingly. I was not then aware that the mere fact of my asking the clerk to reserve May 8 would mean the printing of that date in the votes and proceedings as

Athabaska Election
the next date of meeting. Unfortunately this was done, and the following day, May 4, being afraid that the documents for which we were waiting would not be available on May 8, and not wishing to have the committee meet unnecessarily, I went back to the clerk and requested him to make it May 10 instead of May 8. There might be a further explanation regarding the necessity for the documents to which I have referred, but I do not think that my hon. friend's question bears any relation to that. As regards the inconvenience caused the hon. gentleman, I express my regret. It is my mistake and I am sorry.



THE McCONACHIE CASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. P. QUINN (Halifax):: May I ask the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) whether his attention has been called to the press reports concerning the McConachie family?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Felix Patrick Quinn: ' What are hon. gentlemen laughing at?


An hon. MEMBER:: I didn't.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Why laugh, then? I am
asking the minister a question. Has his attention been called to the press reports regarding the McConachie family? These reports state that Mrs. McConachie is sailing for Canada, leaving the infant in charge of an aunt. The reports also state that the child has considerably improved in health, which bears out the statement by medical men, when representations were made to the minister, that they could not with any degree of certainty certify as to the mental condition of the child. In view of these reports, will the Minister of Immigration make an effort now to rehabilitate this family and restore the mother and child to the father and the other children?


Hon. ROBERT FORKE (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: I have
noticed the report of which my hon. friend speaks. I am not in a position to make any statement at the present time as to what the department might do under certain circumstances.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: I would ask a further question. In case the report is true, will the minister accept a bond from certain reputable Scottish people-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Edward Ross: I have a right to
ask the question. I want to know whether the minister will accept a bond so that the child may come over without being a burden to the people of this country.


Robert Forke: The hon. member introduces his question with an "if". I am not prepared to give any answer regarding problematical cases.
LEVELS OF LAKE NIPISSING On the orders of the day:


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works):: In answer to a question asked
by my hon. friend from Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) yesterday regarding the levels of lake Nipissing, I desire to say that a communication has been received on the subject and that the present levels, according to our information, are due entirely to natural causes, the dams having been wide open ever since last November.
INTERNATIONAL PEACE TREATY On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: I wish to ask the Prime
Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) whether the government proposes to take action or to make any announcement regarding the Kellogg peace proposals?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I might be in a position
to answer specific questions my hon. friend might care to ask when the matter is under discussion. I should think the best time to discuss it would be on the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. I hope that will be very soon.
INQUIRY FOR RETURN On the orders of the day:


Mr. R. K. ANDERSON (Halton):: I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence when I may expect an answer to an order for return in connection with the Halton Rifles, which was passed on April 11?


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: I will inquire immediately, and I have no doubt the return will be ready soon.



PENSION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Health) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Pension Act
[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Pension Act to provide for the amendments reported to the house by the special committee, and for such other amendments as may be necessary in consequence of the amalgamation of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment with the Department of Health.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Mr. CLARK:: I would ask the minister if the bill has been printed and distributed?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: The bill has been printed, and as soon as the resolution is adopted the bill will be introduced and distributed.


Mr. GARDINER:: I would suggest that
the minister explain the nature of the proposed legislation.


John Warwick King: As the house
knows, when pension matters were under discussion last session it was understood that during this session a special committee would be appointed to include members of all groups in this house, Which would make an inquiry into certain matters which had been brought to the attention of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment by various soldier and other organizations throughout the country dealing with pension legislation. That committee was appointed at the earliest possible moment this session, and they have been meeting practically day by day, taking evidence and hearing the representations of those interested in pension matters. After hearing that evidence and those representations they have brought forward certain amendments to the Pension Act which are embodied in a bill to be presented to the house after this resolution is accepted. I believe the committee have given very careful consideration to these questions, and I have been advised that the amendments proposed have been unanimously agreed upon by the committee. Therefore I hope the house may find it possible to accept these amendments.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. King (Kootenay) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 289, to amend the Pension Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



RETURNED SOLDIERS' INSURANCE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
tMr. J. H. King.]
Resolved, that the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act be amended in respect to payments in case of disability not due to war, and as to applications where there is no reasonable expectation of life, and to provide that applications for insurance may be received under the act on and after the 1st July, 1928, up to and including the 30th June, 1933.
Motion, agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Robert Gardiner: Explain.


Mr. ROBB:: The bill to be introduced based upon this resolution is the result of the unanimous report of the committee inquiring into soldiers' pensions and soldiers' insurance. Broadly speaking, it reopens the insurance for five years from July 1, 1928; it provides for certain changes with respect to those whose expectation of life is doubtful, and places Canadians on the same basis as Imperial pensioners.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 290, to amend the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



GOLD AND SILVER MARKING ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon, JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 21, to amend the Gold and Silver Marking Act.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister explain the nature of this amendment?


Mr. MALCOLM:: I might explain to the
house that the senate has changed the title of the bill from the Precious Metals Act to the Precious Metals Marking Act. When the bill was introduced in the house, for the purpose of covering platinum articles, the word "platinum" was accidentally omitted from various parts of the bill. Section 4 has been changed for the purpose of clarifying it, and provision has been made in the senate by which the act shall not come into force until proclamation by the governor in council. This will permit certain stocks of merchandise on hand to be disposed of before the new act becomes effective. I might say to the house that I think all the amendments by the senate are really improvements to the legislation as offered.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.

National Revenue Act



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of National Revenue) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That the Department of National Revenue Act be amended to provide that the minister be empowered to appoint certain classes of officers with sueh salaries or remuneration as may be determined by the governor in council, and that a gratuity may be paid any officer on retirement in lieu of a period of leave of absence with pay, with further provisions as to filling vacancies by transfers and promotions for the betterment of the service.
Hon. R.	B. BENNETT (Leader of	the
Opposition):	Mr. Speaker, before this
resolution goes to	the committee	stage, Idesire to say that we who sit on your left are strongly and unrelentingly opposed to the principle of the resolution in its present form. It	means	the recurrence	of	thepatronage	system,	which should	not	be
tolerated in this country. It is not conducive to good service, or to the public weal. While there have been many defects in connection with the administration of the civil service, the fact is that it is a great advance over anything we have heretofore had in this country. We protest against any effort being made to return to the old condition of patronage.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Mr. EULER:: Perhaps I might make a
statement with regard to the resolution as it stands. The resolution, as well as the bill, which is based upon the resolution, is in accord with certain recommendations made by the royal commission investigating the Customs department. Perhaps I should offer an apology for the resolution being in the form in which it is at present, and I would like to remove some misconceptions that apparently have arisen from the text of the resolution itself.
The bill, which is founded upon the resolution, does not go nearly as far as the resolution does. The resolution itself calls for power to be given to the minister to make certain appointments. As a matter of fact, the bill does not give to the minister power to make any appointments whatsoever, although the commission recommended that such power be given to the minister. I may say, for the information of the committee, that whereas it was intended that such power should be given to the minister, I do not
care myself to go that distance, because I do not feel inclined to interfere any further than seems to me to be necessary with the work of the Civil Service Commission.
I would state what actually appears in the bill. The bill is printed; I am not sure whether it is on the file, but it is ready for consideration. Briefly, it does this: It asks that appraisers, who are technical officers in the Department of Excise, preventive officers, and special investigating officers be nominated bj' the minister. That is, the selection to be made by the minister, or by officers under his control, or by a committee, or, in the case of the appraisers, by the Dominion board of appraisers. The minister will make the nominations to the Civil Service Commission and the Civil Service Commission will make the appointments within a specified time.


John Wesley Edwards: How many
officers would that affect?


William Daum Euler: I should think about 125
out of a list of, say, 5,500 in the department. Only a small section of the employees are affected by the bill.
The minister makes the nomination, as stated, to the Civil Service Commission and the commission will make the appointment within fifteen days. That time may not be considered long enough, or possibly a shorter period may be sufficient. On the failure of the commission to make the appointment, it may then be made, on the recommendation of the minister, by governor in council. I draw the attention of the committee to this fact, that the minister himself has not the power to make the appointment, More than that, he has removed from his jurisdiction, to some extent at least, appointments in the preventive service which he now has power to make. He makes the recommendation to the commission, and if the commission does not make the appointment, as recommended, it may then be made by governor in council.
The bill further provides, and this is also in accord with the recommendation of the royal commission, that transfers of collectors and surveyors may be made from one port to another. Instances occur in which a collector may not be well fitted for the particular position he holds, and there may be a collector in a smaller port who has proven his special fitness for the higher position. In this way, it will be possible for the department to place men in the positions for which they are best qualified.
There is one other provision, which I do not think will cause any opposition, at least
National Revenue Act

I hope it will not. It applies to cases where a vacancy occurs by reason of the retirement of an official. Instead of the position remaining vacant for six months, as is now the case, the position may be declared vacant at once, and be immediately filled. As we have it now, when an official retires he is given six months' retiring allowance; six months' leave of absence, as it were. The position is not actually vacant, although the man has left his post and receives his pay for six months. We would still give him his retiring allowance of six months, but the position becomes vacant immediately, and the new appointment could be made at once. In that way, there would be no interference with the work of the department.
Mr. Chairman, that is practically all that is in the bill. I would like to point out that there is, to my mind, practically no interference whatever with the principle of the Civil Service Act. I personally desire to avoid that as much as possible and I am quite sincere in that, although I see my hon. friend opposite is giving himself over to merriment. I do not like the practice which would no doubt grow up of the minister being importuned from all sides to make appointments, and I desire to avoid that. The proposal is made with the intention of promoting the efficiency of the Department of National Revenue.


John Wesley Edwards: What is the object of going through the pretence or farce of saying that the Civil Service Commission makes appointments, when the minister very distinctly says, I make the recommendation and if you do not appoint the man I recommend, I will appoint him myself?


William Daum Euler: In the first place I agree
with the royal commission which felt that in the case of officers such as apraisers where special skill and qualifications are required, the department is in a better position than the Civil Service Commission to make the selection of those skilled officers.


John Wesley Edwards: What then is the use of bringing in the Civil Service Commission unless it be as a sort of camouflage ?


William Daum Euler: In the first instance I was
disposed to accept the recommendation of the committee just as it stood, but certain representations were made to me-and I saw the force of them-that it might be possible and perhaps would be the case that under such conditions the minister might not make such appointments as he ought to make; in other 
words, to be perfectly frank, that political pressure might be brought to bear upon him and he might appoint men to positions as appraisers on the score more of politics than of efficiency. It was felt-and I think there is something in the contention-that if in every instance the minister were obliged to make those recommendations to the Civil Service Commission, he would not be nearly so prone to go to the commission with improper recommendations, have his recommendations turned down again and again as they might be, and have the people learn the reason why they were so turned down. This is intended only to operate as a brake upon the minister exercising the power in an improper manner. There is the further brake upon the minister that if the commission fails to make the appointment, he does not then himself make it, but his recommendations and nominations must pass the scrutiny of the governor in council.


Mr. GEARY:: Under this legislation what
becomes of the preference now provided for the returned men?


William Daum Euler: I would think that the same consideration would be exercised in all cases although perhaps I should qualify that in this way. There will be one primary purpose in the mind of the department in making appointments of appraisers or special investigating officers. While every consideration should be given to the returned men and to the appraisers already in the service, other things being equal, in the cause of efficiency in the department, because the appraisers are perhaps the most important officers you can have in the Customs department, I would not hesitate, if it were necessary, to go outside in order to get the best man for the job.


George Reginald Geary: That is all very well. The
Civil Service Commission is to make the appointment and I take it that the commission will be compelled to act within a prescribed jurisdiction in that it must give the preference to the returned man. Does the minister propose that where such a preference has been given, it may be over-ridden by the minister himself or by the governor in council


William Daum Euler: I am not sure that I can say anything more than I have already said. The department will select the man best fitted in their opinion for the position. If the commission for any reason-and it might be for the reason suggested by my hon. friend- declines to make the appointment, then it will be within the purview of the governor in council to make it. The criticism may be raised that in some instances the returned

National Revenue Act
soldier might not receive the position, but I believe it would surely be, as I think it ought to be, the will of the house that the very first purpose to be served, especially in connection with a department which has been so much criticized, is to obtain the most efficient men to carry on the work. That is the one thought that has been in my mind in the preparation of the bill.


John Wesley Edwards: Will the
minister or the Civil Service Commission determine whether or not the returned soldier or any other person has the necessary qualifications?


William Daum Euler: In the case of appraisers the
recommendation coming from the department, from the minister, although the minister will personally not make the selection, will be made through the board of appraisers. They will make the selection in the first instance, as I have stated, on the primary factor of efficiency. That will stand; I can see no recession from that. Other things being equal, the returned man and also the men who are already in the service of the department should receive the preference. I should like to disabuse the mind of any civil servants, appraisers and others, who feel that they may be sidetracked. There is no such intention. I propose to promote the men in my department if they are efficient, but as I said before- and I hope the committee will bear me out in this-I would not hesitate to make a recommendation and to ask for the appointment of a man even though he came from outside the service, even though he might conceivably not be a returned man, if he were specially and peculiarly fitted for the work which he has to do.
The work which the appraisers have to do is extremely important. The whole efficiency and almost the proper conduct of the Department of Customs depends upon the efficiency of the appraisers. If your appraisal system is wrong, you will certainly not obtain the revenue you ought to obtain. The appraisal system has been criticized very severely by all those bodies that have been investigating the Customs department. Those things which they criticze we want to correct and this is the way in which we desire to correct them. There are those who will say that the Civil Service Commission can make the selections just as well as we can. My opinion is that the Dominion appraisers whom we have selected-the board is not complete, but we have made a beginning-are best qualified to make the selections. Without casting any reflection upon the Civil Service Commission I think we know the men in our department better than the commision can. Therefore I
think that is a fair way to make the appointments and it does not place in the hands of the minister the absolute power to make them. I do not know whether this is the time to read from the report of the royal commission, _ or from the report of the Commercial Protective Association, but if I did they would bear us out in that they recommend our going further than I propose to go under the bill. I have been as moderate as possible, because I do not desire to interfere with the principle of appointments by the Civil Service Commission.


Leon Johnson Ladner: In the case of a man being wanted for a given position, is there in the proposed legislation anything that will oblige the minister to submit more than one name?


William Daum Euler: No.


John Arthur Clark: What sort of an examination would the Civil Service Commission give to the man recommended to the commission?


William Daum Euler: The Civil Service Commission could make any investigation they desired. That would be entirely within their own province.


John Arthur Clark: Will the Civil Service Commission prescribe an examination or will they not?


William Daum Euler: The examination to decide
what recommendation ought to be made will be made by our own officials, by the board. If the Civil Service Commission wishes to submit the applicant to an examination, that will be absolutely within their power. Following that they can then either make the appointment or reject the nomination.


John Arthur Clark: After the minister and his
department had recommended a man for a particular position and had given him any examination they might prescribe, the minister would not expect the Civil Service Commission to refuse to make the appointment.


William Daum Euler: I hope not, because I rather
expect the commission would be willing to co-operate with the Department of National Revenue.


John Arthur Clark: Then why bring the Civil
Service Commission in at all? Does it not seem a perfect blind to mention the Civil Service Commission?


William Daum Euler: For the very reason I gave before. It should not, I would say personally, be necessary, but the intention is to put a brake, if you like, on any minister who might abuse the power that would otherwise be given to him. If the Civil Service Commission thinks it is not sufficient, I would be willing to cut that out.
National Revenue Act


Mr. BENNETT:: There are two matters
to be dealt with. The minister has dealt with the one, but not with the other. The first relates to the selection of the individual; the second relates to the salary or compensation he is to be paid. With respect to the first, the minister should not endeavour to throw this smoke screen before the public. The civil servants of this country are very greatly concerned about this matter, and merely because, I suppose, I am in the position I am, I receive telegrams and letters from civil servants from Vancouver to Nova Scotia.


William Daum Euler: So do I.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Doubtless the minister
has received them. The press of the country has referred to the matter in terms, we will say, of delicate criticism, most of them not believing that it would be possible for the minister to revert to the old system of things.


William Daum Euler: It is not possible.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let us see what it means in essence. We must not deal with the present incumbent of the office, but we must deal with the office. It is a mistake to assume that because the Hon. William Euler is Minister of National Revenue, there will always be a William Euler in that office, or that he is a particular person that must be selected for some peculiar kind of treatment from this house. An efficient and effective minister we will say he is, for the . sake of argument-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh!


Richard Bedford Bennett: We will assume that for the sake of the argument, although I think before this house rises we will perhaps have to revise our assumption. Let us go a step further. We are now dealing with the office, not the individual, and the office proposes to make a recommendation to the Civil Service Commission for the appointment of given individuals to given posts. That is what is proposed. In other words, whatever pressure may be brought to bear upon the Minister of National Revenue, whoever he may be, that pressure, political,- friendly, family, and every other kind in the world, may succeed in 'inducing the minister, not this minister per-adventure, but a minister, to recommend to the commission the appointment of a particular person. You cannot get away from that. Then why ask the Civil Service Commission to be thus dragged in the mire by making it appear that they are going to appoint somebody that they have no power to 
appoint? They have to appoint the man the minister recommends or nobody at all. Then why drag the Civil Service Commission in? It is nothing but a smoke screen to make the people of this country believe that you are still retaining the Civil Service Commission in all its integrity, while as a matter of fact you are flaunting it and holding it up to scorn before the public. You simply write to the Civil Service Commission. "Dear Sirs:	Enclosed please find the name of the
gentleman we desire to have appointed as appraiser." The days go by and the Civil Service Commission find that he is not the man for the job, and they do not make the appointment. Then the minister goes to the governor in council and makes the appointment.
I come to the next point, the question of salary. As the matter now stands, the civil servants have graded salaries, and there is nothing they are more jealous about than their rights with respect to their salaries. This resolution proposes to appoint persons who will be appraisers not appointed by the Civil Service Commission, and receiving salaries in the discretion of the governor in council.


William Daum Euler: May I correct my hon.
friend?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The resolution says
"such salaries or remuneration as may be determined by the governor in council."


William Daum Euler: Exactly, that is what the
resolution says, but I have apologised already for the resolution. The bill does not carry out that idea. It reads:
The officer so appointed by the commission or by the governor in council, as the case may be, shall be paid such salary or remuneration in accordance with the civil service regulations as may be determined by the commission or the governor in council respectively.
My hon. friend will, note that it says, "in accordance with the civil service regulations."


Richard Bedford Bennett: That meets the difficulties I was pointing out to the minister. In other words, instead of the governor in council fixing the salaries, they are to be fixed by the Civil Service Commission. The resolution, of course, says just the opposite. Perhaps the better way for us to proceed would be to have the resolution reported and the bill given its first and second readings, so that with the bill in our hands we may study what the new provisions are as distinguished from the resolution.

*	National Revenue Act


William Daum Euler: That is exactly the suggestion I desire to make. Perhaps the committee might allow the resolution to be reported, and then the bill can be introduced and read a second time, and the whole matter be discussed in committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Without committing ourselves on this side of the house to any ac-aceptance of principle.


William Daum Euler: Quite so.


Mr. KENNEDY:: What is to prevent the Civil Service Commission having access to the same information which is available to the minister in preparing his recommendations in regard to the qualifications of any individual for the position of appraiser?


William Daum Euler: The commission cannot possibly have the same knowledge, because they cannot possibly have that knowledge in themselves. The men who will make the selection as provided for in the bill will be men who have personal knowledge of those whom they propose to be appointed as appraisers, and that is knowledge which no commission could possibly have.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Have they not the privilege of sending out an examining board to ascertain the qualifications of those it is proposed to appoint? Surely the minister does not mean to say that the Civil Service Commission themselves have knowledge of all the examinations of all the government employees for the various posts in the civil service.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: May I ask whether the minister would advocate the application of this same principle in regard to the appointment of appraisers to other departments of the government?


William Daum Euler: I have troubles enough of my own without interfering with the other departments. If the committee desires, I might give the reasons as stated in the report of the royal commission. The report says, at page 8:
Our inquiry has shown that the present system of appointing appraisers or other officers requiring expert or technical knowledge is unsatisfactory, and we are convinced that where expert and technical knowledge is required, the examination of the applicants for positions should be conducted by those who are specially qualified to act in the premises.
We are of opinion that all appointments to the office of appraiser at the different ports of the Dominion should be made by the minister after examination of the applicants by tile board of appraisers.
We quite recognize that this method of appointment would conflict with ^ the system now in vogue under the Civil Service Act, but notwithstanding this -we are of opinion that this method should be adopted.
You could not get anything much stronger than that.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Can the minister give
us the pagfe number of the evidence upon which the commission arrive at that conclusion?


William Daum Euler: I cannot do that. I am quoting from the final report.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Should not the minister take just as seriously the recommendations of the special parliamentary committee that was appointed a couple of years ago to inquire into the Customs department?


William Daum Euler: There have been at least four different bodies that have made investigations of one kind and another in regard to the Customs department, and they do not agree in all cases, and out of the plenitude of the advice that has been offered, I have been obliged to take that which sepms best to noa.
I might also quote from the recommendations of the Commercial Protective Association, whose representations, I think, were considered of some value by the parliamentary committee that investigated the customs department two years ago. They recommend with regard to appraisers:
That the board (the board of appraisers) be given power to retain such appraisers as they deem competent and qualified, and to appoint with the minister's approval and notwithstanding the provisions of the Civil Service Act such further appraisers as may be required from time to time, and to fix subject to the approval of the governor in council the remuneration to be paid to the various grades of appraisers.
Their recommendations are somewhat similar with regard to special investigating officers.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: It looks as if the resolution as it appears on the order paper followed fairly closely the report from which the minister has just quoted. But the difficulty I see is that the minister has announced to the house that the bill which he proposes to introduce does not follow the resolution. We know that matters of this kind must be introduced into parliament by way of resolution, and a resolution must first be expressly approved by His Excellency the Governor General. The resolution as it appears on the order paper was so approved, but if I gather correctly from the minister's statement, the bill does not follow the resolution in two very important points.


William Daum Euler: It does not go as far.


Hugh Guthrie: In two very important
points of principle the bill involves a serious chance. In the first place, the resolution provides that the minister is to make these

National Revenue Act
appointments; now the minister says that the bill which is based on this resolution empowers the Civil Service Commission to do so. The resolution provides that the governor in council may fix salaries; the bill, we are told, substitutes the Civil Service Commission. What I am pointing out, Mr. Chairman, is that the bill must follow the resolution. The resolution has been approved by His Excellency the Governor General, and I think the minister is going pretty far in saying that he proposes to introduce a bill very different from the resolution which he is asking the committee to consider. What is the object of passing this resolution if the bill is to be entirely different? Let us have a resolution such as we expect to be incorporated in the bill when it comes forward. If this proceeding is only for the purpose of expediting the matter, I do not know that I would seriously object; but if we are going to pass a resolution in this instance, not to be followed by a bill along the same lines, we can do it in other instances, and there will be no object in the future in introducing resolutions at all. I submit the whole proceeding is very irregular and that the minister would be well advised to introduce a new resolution in the terms of the bill he proposes to bring forward later on.


William Daum Euler: While I quite admit the
justice, to some extent, of the criticism made by my hon. friend, I think after all it is not of vital importance. The lesser is always included in the greater, and we propose in the bill to take lesser powers than are contained in the resolution. I should think the criticism would have more force if the bill went beyond the powers asked for in the resolution.


Hugh Guthrie: I think the bill does
go beyond the resolution.


William Daum Euler: No. My hon. friend said
if he knew the proceeding was merely to save time he would not be disposed to object to the passing of the resolution. That is exactly the reason. I might have removed the resolution from the order paper and replaced it' by another. I made inquiry of the proper officers, and they thought there could be no valid objection to passing the resolution in its present form. I would ask the committee to let the resolution go through. I cannot see what possible harm can be done by taking this course, for the right will still be reserved to every member of the committee to discuss the principle of the measure on the second reading, and hon. members can inform themselves upon the whole bill when they have it before them. It is now printed.


Hugh Guthrie: We object strenuously,
as my leader pointed out, to the principle involved in the resolution, and if our silence is to be treated as acquiescence in this proceeding I must protest.


William Daum Euler: Without betraying any
confidence, I may say that I made some inquiries and I understood it would probably be acceptable to pass the resolution in its present form, it always being understood that no member of the committee was to be bound by the resolution, that so far as its principle was concerned they could reserve their right to make observations on the second reading of the bill, which might be entirely at variance with the tenor of the resolution.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: I think the Minister of National Revenue is to be congratulated on his initiative in withdrawing certain classes of officers from the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. Whenever the question of appointments by the Civil Service Commission has been discussed in this house it has been pointed out that the most important positions in the service are not under the control of the commission. The minister has good authority for taking this course in the recommendation of the royal commission that investigated the customs. They recommended that certain classes of employees of the Department of National Revenue should not be appointed by the Civil Service Commission, but by the governor in council upon the recommendation of the minister. For my part I should like to see some of the minister's colleagues follow the good example he has set them, as I am fully of the opinion that the ministers and their deputies are much better qualified than the Civil Service Commission to appoint the higher classes of employees. I would rather see the minister take this responsibility himself than leave it to the Civil Service Commission.


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Chairman, at the time the Civil Service Commission was appointed I ventured to offer some criticisms as to the wisdom of placing all patronage in the hands of three or four men sitting in Ottawa. At that time I was a voice crying in the wilderness-I was in a hopeless minority. I was treated with the severest censure by those on my own side of the house, and my friends on the Liberal side were unanimous and loud in claiming that all patronage appointments should be taken out of the hands of members of parliament and turned over to the Civil Service Commission, which would be independent of parliament. I expressed the opinion at the

National Revenue Act
time that many appointments, such as postmasters in country districts, should remain in the hands of the member for the constituency, no matter what government was in power.
I contended that so long as the people saw fit to express their confidence by sending him to parliament, he was the man whose recommendation should receive consideration in the making of such appointments.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Wesley Edwards: I take no
different position now from what I took then. But there was another reason why I had serious doubts as to the way in which this change would work out. I was very confident that so long as a Conservative government was in power the Grits would force them to hew to the line in leaving all patronage in the hands of the Civil Service Commission. While at that time not one of the oldest members of the house, I had a long experience and extensive knowledge of Grit tactics. I believed then and my belief has since been confirmed absolutely, that once they obtained the reins of office the Civil Service Commission would be practically a dead letter so far as many appointments were concerned. Since this government has been in power the recommendations of the Civil Service Commission have become virtually a dead letter, and we have seen thousands of men arbitrarily appointed through Grit patronage just as in the old days before the Civil Service Commission was brought into being.
Now the commission advertise for applicants for a certain position and they set forth the qualifications required. They report whether the successful applicant posseses the requisite qualifications, and on that recommendation, and under the circumstances, the law distinctly says that the returned soldier, not may, but shall, have the preference. It does not stipulate that he shall possess a university education; if he possesses even the minimum qualifications the law says that he shall have the preference. I do not know to what extent that regulation has been observed by the minister who is interested in this bill, but I do know that I am prepared to prove that one of his colleagues, the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot), does not care anything whatever for the laws of the land when it comes to making appointments. I have the facts and I am prepared to show where in a certain instance, out of eight applicants, only one of them was a returned soldier; and although he was not only accepted by the Civil Service Commission as
possessing the necessary qualifications but was appointed to the position, the Postmaster General decided to override the law, to override the report and recommendation of the commission and to appoint one who was not a returned soldier and who did not possess any better qualifications than did the returned man. That is one instance. I will venture to say there are members in this house-[DOT] probably more on this side than on the other, but any number of hon. gentlemen-who could cite cases similar to the one I have mentioned, and which I hope to go into more fully when we are dealing with the Postmaster General's estimates. When that time comes we will fight it out to a finish. I repeat, in view of the experience we have had in the past few years-and every year is getting worse than the year before with this government- for the minister to get up and say the man will be appointed on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission is the purest kind of farce. It is a bluff, nothing but camouflage. It is hardly worthy of that name, because the minister simply says to the Civil Service Commission: "This is the man you have to appoint, and if you do not appoint him we will take the matter out of your hands and appoint him ourselves. If you do appoint him at our dictation we will say that you are the ones that made the appointment." That is the kind of bunkum put up by the minister to-day and which he wants us to endorse by legislation.
If the government have made up their minds to discard the Civil Service Commission altogether, and to ignore their recommendations, why do they not come out like men and say, " We have tried the thing and in our judgment this procedure is not the proper one; we propose, so far as we are concerned, to discard the Civil Service Commission and make these appointments ourselves." They are doing this anyway without regard for law or anything else. They have been doing it for years and it is getting worse and worse every year. When in opposition hon. gentlemen opposite insisted on hewing to the line, and a minister at that time did not dare suggest such a thing as that he had a better knowledge than the Civil Service Commission as to who should fill a certain office. But as soon as they get the reins of power the Civil Service Act, as well as every other act that interferes with tactics for election purposes, becomes a dead letter. It has been a dead letter ever since this government came into power.


Mr. IRVINE:: I understand that, according to this resolution, the appraisers will make
National Revenue Act

recommendations regarding appointments. Is the minister bound to forward to the Civil Service Commission any name so recommended or may he send in some other?


William Daum Euler: There is nothing in the act to bind the minister to accept that recommendation. I may say, however, for the information of the committee, that they would have to be very strong reasons-not political in their nature, by the way-which would lead the minister to reject the nomination of that committee of appraisers.


William Irvine: Could not a provision be
made that the recommendation of the appraisers could be sent direct to the Civil Service Commission, thus relieving the minister of any obligation in the matter of appointments?


William Daum Euler: I think I understand the
difficulty which my hon, friend would try to meet. I can assure him that he would not remove that difficulty in any case by the method he suggests. If any minister chose to exercise his authority improperly he would be about as able to do so under that method as by any other means.


Robert Gardiner: Between now and the
time the bill is read the second time the minister might take into consideration the possibility of so amending this legislation as to have the Civil Service Commission make appointments, and have them create an examining board from among the present appraisers. That would probably meet the situation better than would the method now proposed.


William Daum Euler: That would remove entirely from the control of the department the appointment of these special officers, and that is exactly what we do not want.


Robert Gardiner: If the commission were to appoint a board from the minister's appraisers for the purpose of holding examinations, then the examinations would still be under the officers of the department, although the matter would be under the control of the commission.


William Daum Euler: I have read already from
the report of the royal commission, which goes further than the bill, as well as from the report of the Commercial Protective Association, which also goes further than the bill. Someone has raised a point as to the recommendation made by the parliamentary committee of inquiry in 1926, in which no provision is suggested for appointments by the Civil Service Commission. What I have before me states:

The evidence adduced before the committee disclosed two outstanding facts, namely:-First, the methods of appraisal are exceedingly careless and fail to safeguard the interests of the importer, or the revenues of the country from being defrauded by undervaluation; and secondly, persons appointed as appraisers-
And remember, these were appointed by the Civil Service Commission.
-are in many instances untrained in the branch to which they are appointed. The committee recommend that the appraisal branch be reorganized and that all appraisers be chosen because of their competency to estimate the values of the class of goods they are appointed to appraise.
There is nothing said there about appointments by the commission.


George Reginald Geary: Surely it is assumed.


William Daum Euler: Not necessarily.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the law of the
country.


William Daum Euler: I do not say that what I
have quoted rules out of the equation appointments by the commission. But it does not so state.


Mr. STEVENS:: I thought that what we
were supposed to do was to pass this resolution subject to reservation, retaining our right to criticize the principle of the bill when we had the bill before us. In the absence of the bill I do not feel competent to discuss the matter, but things are being said now that impel me to make one or two suggestions. If the discussion is to proceed I want to call the attention of the minister to another matter. Frankly, my opinion is that the committee would be in a better position to discuss the subject if the bill were before us. I am going to confine myself for the moment to this statement, that so far as the resolution now before the committee is concerned I am absolutely and unreservedly opposed to it. The minister understands that thoroughly, and in refraining from further discussion of the resolution I must not be considered as in any sense consenting to the principle of the resolution. I will reserve, until I have the bill before me, any further remarks I have to make. I have not yet seen it and I do not know what are its terms.
iMr. KENNEDY: I would like to call the attention of the minister to one fact in relation to this recommendation by the parliamentary committee. It is true that that committee found that the methods of appraisal were very slack, but the minister will remember also the commission we had and the result of that inquiry with regard to the Civil Service Commission. In view of that fact

National Revenue Act
I do not think it fair that the commission should be ignored and that appointments should be made otherwise than through the Civil Service Commission. However, I am willing to accept the suggestion that we pass this resolution, providing that all our rghts are safeguarded so that we may discuss the matter when the bill is before the house.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the resolution
carry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: On division.
Resolution reported, on division, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Euler thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 291 to amend the Department of National Revenue Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATURALIZATION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from May 7, consideration in committee of Bill No. 19, to amend the Naturalization Act-(Mr. Rinfret-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
John Frederick Johnston: When the committee rose the question was on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the amendment?


Henry Herbert Stevens: On division.
Amendment agreed to on division.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On the title:


Robert Gardiner: I do not know whether the minister has any further proposals to make; from his observations last night I was inclined to believe that he had. My particular reference is to the question of posting notices in connection with which several suggestions' have been made in committee. Under the proposed amendment the notice will be posted for at least sixty days, and we have suggested that the minister would be well advised to extend that time to at least four months. I would like to call the attention of the committee also to this particular section and to ask the minister the reason for posting the notices as the section is drafted at present. It does not provide for anything, even if you post the notices for sixty days. This seems to me to be quite an innocuous section, and unless it is amended in some form it will have no value at all. You may post a notice for sixty days, but if there is no provision for receiving abjections to the
granting of a certificate, of what value is the posting of the notice? I would like the minister to say if he has any other proposal in mind in reference to these two particulars?


Mr. RINFRET:: In connection with the question of the proper delay and other matters of that kind I am quite in the hands of the committee. Hon. members from all sides of the house have suggested that perhaps the delay of sixty days would not be long enough, and some have even suggested a delay of six months. I would point out that under the present act there must be a delay of three months; I think it would be going too far to make it any longer, but I am quite willing that we leave the delay as it is in the present act. Therefore I would move that we revert to section 1 of the bill and that the words "ninety days" be substituted for the words "sixty days" in the fifteenth line thereof. I hope this will meet the wishes of the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Robert Gardiner: I appreciate the manner in which the minister has met our objections, but there is still another point which he has not recognized. If any valuable purpose is to be served by posting a notice for ninety days, some provision must be made for persons residing in the vicinity to file objections to the granting of a certificate. In section 22 as it stands at present no such provision is .made, although in the old act that point was taken care of. I would suggest to the minister that some provision should be made in order that objections to the granting of a certificate of naturalization may be lodged with some person in authority, either with the minister himself or with some person designated by him.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I do not think any additional provision is required on that point, but I am quite willing to declare now that any objections of the kind to which my hon. friend refers always can be brought to the attention of the Secretary of State. In the previous act it was provided that such objections might be presented to the court hearing the applications for naturalization. But now that whole procedure will take place with the department. I do not think it is necessary to have any provision in the bill. I desire to state most positively to my hon. friend that the Department of the Secretary of State will give full consideration to any such provision, as he has just referred to.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Before the bill is
reported I would like to draw the attention of the committee to the language used in
National Revenue Act

the amendment. Opposed as I am to the bill, I have hesitated to address the committee, because I was not in the house yesterday when the matter was so fully discussed. I do not know whether the language used has been discussed or not, but it does seem to me that we are not only using inappropriate language but really stultifying ourselves. "Natural born" can only mean one of two things. A natural bom fool is an idiot from his birth. "Natural bom" either means an idiot, or an illegitimate or natural son. That is a fact. "Natural" means both legitimate and illegitimate, but legitimate only when applied to ordinary affairs and not to birth. "Natural", in connection with birth, has only the one meaning. I think it can then be said that this bill was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. I am unwilling that this house, without an objection from me, should use the words "natural bom" in the sense in which I know the committee intends it, but which is not the true meaning of the words.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that the objection is well taken. I might say that that is the very term used in the Australian statute, which has been recommended for imitation by the leader of the opposition himself.


Arthur Edward Ross: There is another
objection altogether to the term. "Natural born" is the one thing which the minister is not applying to this legislation. Under the bill, Caesar could not get a certificate, or Macbeth could not get one. How will you prove that anyone is "natural bom"? The only people that I think could come under this would be the Indians, who are assured of no medical attention at birth, or the Esquimos or someone like that.


John Frederick Johnston: I think I should point out to the committee that all the sections of the bill have been carried.
Mr. ROSS' (Kingston):	I will reserve my
remarks for the third reading.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from April 27, consideration in committee of Bill No. 205, respecting the Department of Health and Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment.-Mr. King (Kootenay).-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.

On section 6-Selection and employment of staff, etc.
John Warwick King: Mr. Chairman,
when we were in committee at the last meeting, clause (b) of section 6 also clause (g) of section 6, and section 14 were allowed to stand in order that they might be further discussed at this meeting. The other sections were adopted.
In regard to clause (b), section 6. My hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Boys) suggested that the word "temporary" should be added after the word "time", in the second line. I think if we will give a little consideration to the section he will find that the addition of the word "temporary" will not improve the section.
What is being sought in this section is to indicate a class which could not possibly be brought under the Civil Service Commission. I will just read the clause:
(b) for the selection and employment of such part time professional officers, or part or full time employees whose compensation is determined by the rates payable for similar work in the locality in which such persons are employed as may be required from time to time for the carrying on of the work with which the minister is charged under this part.
The first class, professional officers, would include consultant surgeons, consultant medical officers, X-ray experts, or some professional class that would not be in the service of the department at all times, but only as required from time to time. We have a class that would be employed part time, such as painters, window cleaners, and men of that type. They would be "part time" and would be paid for the services rendered at the prevailing rates. Then there would be "full time" employees, such as hospital orderlies, cooks, assistant cooks, engineers and firemen. If we will consult the practice in the Department of Public Works, a large employing department, it will be found that there they have a class known as the "prevailing rate class". It is to make provision for these two classes, which do not come within the provisions of the Civil Service Act, that the section is drawn. As I said before, it was drawn' by the Department of Justice, and I think it is quite clear, and would not be improved by adding the word "temporary".


Mr. SPENCER:: I would like to ask the
minister how many in the department will be outside the supervision of the Civil Service Commission?


John Warwick King: I can hardly say offhand, but it would be a considerable number. You would have your professional staff,

Pensions and National Health
such as consultant surgeons, consultant heart and chest men, and so on, in the various centres where hospitals are established. You would also have your hospital attendants, such as orderlies, and nursing staff, and the classes that I have mentioned. I would be glad to give my hon. friend that information when we go into the estimates.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is the number increased
under this bill?


John Warwick King: No, it is not
increased.


Robert Gardiner: I would like to ask the minister regarding a question which was before the committee when this bill was being considered, that is, with reference to certain classes of returned men who were indigent and had no means of providing for medical attention. In view of the recommendations of the pensions committee, would the minister now say whether those recommendations include provision for that class of returned men?


John Warwick King: This bill gives us power to provide for and take care of that class. The recommendations made by the committee will be given every consideration by the government. If my hon. friend will consider the whole field, I think he will agree that it requires pretty careful consideration. There are throughout Canada many pensioners who do not to-day come under our clinical treatment, as we treat only for pensionable conditions. This will include a very great number, but I do not believe it is the intention of the committee-and in fact they have so indicated-that cases that are financially able to provide for treatment for themselves, should come under that provision. As a matter of practice we have been treating many of those cases and we have been giving them hospitalization where they have not the financial means and it has been necessary for them to have such treatment. That practice has been followed and probably it will have to be extended from time to time as that class of case increases in numbers.


Robert Gardiner: With regard to the
class of persons whom we have been discussing, I know of many cases where they have been refused treatment. It appears to me that this country must in some degree accept the responsibility of treating such cases providing they have not the necessary means to procure treatment for themselves. Just so long as the minister is satisfied that he has power to see to it that that class of case is treated and he will look upon those cases sympathetically, I shall be satisfied with his explanation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 14-Appointment, classification and salaries of staff.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Marcil):: This
clause stood. It is a new clause.


John Warwick King: Clause 14 is related to the previous clause, that is paragraph (g). In this bill proposing to amalgamate the two departments, it is our purpose to bring the executive and clerical officers in the department within the scope of the Civil Service Commission. This clause provides the means whereby those people who have been appointed under the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment may be placed in their permanent position by the governor in council. The old section will be found on the page opposite clause 6. Under this section the minister of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment was empowered to employ those necessary to carry on the work of the department but he was also charged with seeing that those employed under this authority should as far as practicable be classified by him in accordance with the schedule of classes or positions set forth in the civil service classification. Therefore the officials whom we have in the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment and who will eventually be transferred to the permanent service, have been appointed under the rules and regulations of the Civil Service Commission although they have not been under the commission. This new clause will permit us to bring them into the department and to give them their permanent status there.


Mr. BOYS:: I did not hear clause 6 called. Clause 3 was called and then as far as I know we passed from clause 3 to the clause now under consideration. What I wish to say would not be appropriate at the moment but I trust I may be given an opportunity of saying a word or two regarding clause 6.


John Warwick King: I think we have
advanced a little too fast. As a matter of fact paragraph (g) of section 6 was held up for further discussion. There was some question regarding provision for burial expenses for returned soldiers who died in destitute circumstances.


William Alves Boys: It was paragraph (b) that was
held up.


John Warwick King: We have passed
it.


William Alves Boys: Was it called this afternoon?


John Warwick King: Yes. I referred to my hon. friend's proposal. In regard to the burial expenses of ex-members of the forces, as I stated the other day, at the pre-
ItEVISED EDITION

Pensions and National Health
sent time those who are on the strength of the hospital and under treatment and who eventually die, are buried by the department if they die in destitute circumstances. If the individual is a pensioner and he should die, then the pension commission can at their discretion provide for his burial moneys up to $100, and I understand that under the suggestion of the committee this will be made $150. In addition to that we have an organization known as the Last Post fund which is Canadian-wide, having branches in each and every province with the exception of Prince Edward Island. The central executive is in Montreal. We contribute to that organization an annual sum of $10,000. Some of the provinces, particularly Ontario, and some of the municipalities, for instance, the city of Toronto, have also contributed towards the fund. The question was raised last year on the estimates and at that time the house was given the assurance that if the Last Post fund had a deficiency in the revenues it might secure from various sources, the department would supplement that revenue in order that they might have funds with which to carry on the work. That is being done and will continue to be done.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I think the Prime Minister will bear me out that the Minister of Health is somewhat wrong in that regard. The idea was not to supplement the charitable contributions that were made, but the department was going to take over the burial of any soldier who died in indigent circumstances and thus prevent people from having to go out and beg for money for that purpose. The idea was not to supplement what they failed to collect by means of begging, but to take over the whole matter.
M:r. KING (Kootenay): I did not understand the matter in that way. I understood that those who were administering the fund found that at times their funds were insufficient and they suggested that some additional aid should be given. There is no doubt the organization has been doing good work and I am not sure that it would be wise to wipe out an organization of that character. It has maintained an interest in the various communities and I do not think that is bad for the people of Canada, If a man who has served overseas dies in a community, I do not know of any nicer tribute than for the community to support the Last Post fund. I do not think they have to go out and do any begging and we do not ask them to do that. In Manitoba and Alberta their funds have been insufficient and we are supplementing them. I believe the work is being done at a

less cost and probably more sympathetically than it could be done by the department generally.


Robert Gardiner: Does the minister find any undue delay because of the fact that funds are not available in any particular part of the country?


John Warwick King: There should not be any undue delay. If a veteran dies in a community and they communicate with the Last Post fund, the burial should take place at once.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I had an entirely different conception of the matter from that entertained by the minister. My protest was made in regard to what I considered a blot on the escutcheon of Canada; that is to allow anybody to go on the street and beg for money to bury a returned soldier. It ought to be the business of the country to see that they do not need to go out and beg.


John Arthur Clark: Section 14 says," such members of the staff of the department as may be designated by the governor in council." Why should they be designated by the governor in council rather than by the Civil Service Commission?


John Warwick King: At the present
time they are not under the Civil Service Commission. They have been appointed by the governor in council to date, and in the amalgamation these officers will be selected and designated as the officers for these positions, and eventually they will be transferred and come in under the commission.


John Arthur Clark: Do I understand that the
Civil Service Commission will have nothing to say about the selection of the officers who will be appointed for the department?


John Warwick King: The selections
have been made already and the officers are now in the department.


John Arthur Clark: I realize that, but as I read this section it would indicate that all those who are now there are not going to be transferred, but only those who are selected by the governor in council, thus many of those who are now there may be left out.


John Warwick King: I do not think there will be so many left out. There will be in the amalgamation a reduction in staff, and I think we shall have to take the responsibility of making that reduction in the reorganization. As far as the staff itself is concerned in the central office, there have been certain adjustments and there will be further adjustments, but I am satisfied that the

Pensions and National Health
reorganization that is under way will have to be carried on by the department, and after the amalgamation these officers will come in under the Civil Service Act.


John Arthur Clark: Do I understand that the
effect will be that after they are once appointed, they come under the Superannuation Act, for instance?


John Warwick King: Yes, they will.


John Arthur Clark: And after the original appointments by the governor in council, further appointments must be made by the Civil Service Commission?


John Warwick King: Exactly.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Do I understand the
minister to say that he has made all his appointments?


John Warwick King: No, I have not
made very many. Appointments have been made from time to time since the inception of the department under the legislation which brought the department into being. It is the intention, and I think it is the proper thing to do now that we have arrived at the stage where we know that a number of these officers will be required for many years to carry on this work, that they should now be made permanent and given the advantage of the Superannuation Act and other advantages that go with permanent service.


William Alves Boys: This section really brings
them under the Civil Service Act?
Mr. KING Kootenay): It will.


William Alves Boys: It brings them from the
present department to the new department, and then they become permanent and subject to the Civil Service Act?


John Warwick King: Yes.


William Alves Boys: I see my mistake. It was
evidently (b) not section 3 that was referred to. I do not wish to prolong the discussion, but I do not think the minister has in any way answered the contention that I made when this bill was before the committee before. He has merely said that he does not think the word "temporary" is going to improve the situation, but he does not say why He does not meet the argument I made. Let me make it again in a few words.
This section gives the minister power to make regulations from time to time, and to select and employ certain employees either on part or full time. My contention wa3 that that language stands, and that the min-56X03-1774
ister can appoint anyone he sees fit as a fulltime employee, and if he does that, that employee stays there and becomes permanent. The minister shakes his head. But there is the language. I am not arguing that the employee will come under the act, but the minister appoints him and he can stay there, and the effect of that is to get around the provisions of the Civil Service Act. I made no charge on the previous occasion that that [DOT] was the minister's purpose, and I am not doing so now, but I say that as the language stands it enables that to be done, and if the minister can give any reason why the insertion of the word "temporary" is objectionable, I am quite ready, as I intimated before, to drop my suggestion, but he has done nothing except simply to say that after consulting with somebody he thinks the introduction of the word "temporary" is njot going to improve matters. He does not say it is objectionable. He does not answer the argument that the way the section is worded at the present time gives him or some other minister power to appoint full-time employees. He merely says that he does not think the insertion of the word "temporary" will improve matters. I think the minister might fairly point out in what respect the argument I have advanced is wrong. We have the English language there, and it says that the minister may select and may employ part or full-time employees. All right. He employs a full-time employee. That means somebody who is going to work all the year round, according to the hours prescribed. The minister leaves him there, and he stays there.
Is there not a degree of permanency there, not in the sense that he comes under the act, but permanent so long as he is left there? Why not put in the word "temporary". That would show plainly that the intention of the committee was to give the minister no such power as that.


John Warwick King: I think my hon.. friend is unfair. I discussed this section a few moments ago at some length, and he did not hear a word I said, and now he says that I made no argument.


William Alves Boys: The minister is not fair to me. He does not mean that. He is just speaking carelessly. He says I did not hear him. I have already said that I thought section 3 was called. I have said that I heard the minister give an explanation in this connection, and I was wondering why he was introducing it under section 3. I said that the minister said that he had consulted certain officers who

Pensions and National Health
had told him that they did not think the introduction of the word "temporary" would improve matters. In view of that how can the minister rise and say that I never heard a word he said, when I have been reiterating what he did say.
I do not want to prolong the discussion. I have made my argument as to full-time employees. I have asked the minister to show me that he has not the power under this section to appoint a man as a full-time employee, who would Stay there and be permanent, thus evading the provisions of the Civil Service Act. I say that that is the effect of the language. I do not say that it is the minister's purpose, but the insertion of the word "temporary" would put an end to any such thought.


John Warwick King: Certain officers will be employed under certain conditions. As I explained before, the part-time professional officer is the expert who may be 'consulted from time to time, but would not be on our pay from day to day. Then there is the part-time painter, the man whom you might employ for a month or six weeks in the year. Then there is the hospital orderly and the cook, who are employed from day to day and are paid on full-time basis. That is all that means. The section is to apply 'to that class, and to insert the word "temporary" would just be perpetuating a condition that is now causing a great many men in the service a good deal of uneasiness, not in this department, but in the Department 'of Public Works and other departments where there are men who have been in the service twenty or twenty-five years and are still known as temporary. That condition of things is not fair to them because they are permanent to all intents and purposes, and yet they do not enjoy the advantages of a permanent civil servant. The cook who is a good cook, and the hospital attendant who is a good hospital attendant, will undoubtedly remain in their positions, and I do not see any objection to using the words "full time". I cannot see any advantage in using the word "temporary".


William Alves Boys: The minister suggests that this means a cook or an employee of that kind. There is absolutely nothing in the section to indicate that it applies only to a cook. It says:
Full time employees whose compensation is determined by the rates payable for similar work in the locality in which such persons are employed.
IMr. Boys.]
That embraces everybody who can be employed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On the preamble.
John Arthur Clark: Mr. Chairman, for a number of years an effort has been made to bring under the Civil Service Act the employees of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment and of the Soldier Settlement Board. Under this bill the former class are dealt with and in due course will become entitled to superannuation. The employees of the Soldier Settlement Board are equally deserving of similar treatment. They are doing very important work and have now been employed in the department for almost ten years. I feel that something should be done to bring them under the Civil Service Act, and I hope that action will be taken by the minister to this end.
Now I should like to ask the minister one or two questions under section seven. Are soldiers' advisers supposed to devote their whole attention to this particular work?


John Warwick King: They have not
been doing so.


John Arthur Clark: Are they all paid the same salary?


John Warwick King: No, the salaries
vary from $1,200 to $3,600.


John Arthur Clark: Will the minister give us a list?


John Warwick King: I shall be glad to place it on Hansard when we are dealing with the estimates of the department. If my hon. friend wishes I could give him what I believe are substantially the correct figures. In the city of Toronto we pay $3,600; in Halifax $3,000; in St. John, $2,400; in Winnipeg, $3,600; in Calgary, $2,400 or $3,000; in Vancouver, $3,000; in Victoria, $2,400. They do not devote their whole time to the work. Probably they could not be expected to at those salaries.


John Arthur Clark: At the various meetings of the committee which has sat on this subject during the present session it transpired that some of the soldiers' advisers are devoting their entire time to the work and are making a particularly fine record. I might mention the soldiers' adviser in the city of Winnipeg, who appeared before the committee at practically every sitting. The records produced indicated that he had done tremendous service for the returned men; and the records from the other centres in my opinion did not compare at all favourably with his. I sug-

Soldier Settlement Act
gest to the minister that there should be a reorganization so that each centre may be given the same service as is being given in Winnipeg.


John Warwick King: It is our intention to go very carefully into the work that is being done by the different advisers The adviser in Winnipeg undoubtedly has been doing a great deal of work, including the preparation of cases for the appeal board, and he has been consulted by the returned soldiers on almost every matter that interests them. He has given up a great deal, if not all, of his time to the work. That is not true of the other officers; they are devoting their time to the preparation of cases for the appeal 'board or the pension board. It is my intention to go very carefully into the work performed by these advisers.


Mr. POWER:: I wish to endorse the suggestion made by the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard (Mr. Clark). By common consent I think the committee agreed that the soldiers' adviser in Winnipeg was a remarkably efficient man. He has devoted his entire time to the work of the department for what I consider a meagre salary for a man of his ability and energy-$3,600 I think the minister ought to appoint an overseer of the soldiers' advisers in the city of Ottawa in order that the work may be co-ordinated and unified. At the present time I understand these men have no direct superior, and it is almost impossible to say whether they are doing their work properly or not. I do not wish to accuse any of them of not carrying out their duties as they should, but it seems extraordinary that one man should have so very much work to do and the others comparatively little. In my opinion the minister ought to give serious consideration to this very important matter in its relation to our returned men, and at another session bring forward some plan whereby the work will be carried on a little more efficiently.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
[DOT] *
Hon. ROBERT FORKE (Minister of Immigration and Colonization) moved the second reading of Bill No. 288, to amend the Soldier Settlement Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.
Mr. FORKE moved that the house go into committee on the bill.
Robert Gardiner: The bill is not distributed, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether it is printed or not.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I understand the bill was distributed this afternoon.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: It is on some files not. on others.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is the house ready to proceed with the bill?
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Marcil in the chair.
On section 1.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is this in accordance with the recommendations of the committee?


Robert Forke: Yes. Perhaps I had better read section 26 which is being repealed:
When a settler obtains Dominion lands, whether by soldier grant or otherwise, and whether before or after having secured from the board any advance pursuant to this act, while there is owing by him to the board any sum or sums of money as the result of any sale made to him by the board, or otherwise by reason of the exercise by the board of any of its powers under this act, such sum so owing shall constitute a first charge on the lands so obtained and no patent shall be issued to such settler therefor until such sum or sums, with accrued interest, have been fully paid or repaid.
When a soldier obtained a grant on any particular parcel of land the liability was upon that land, and if he obtained a homestead at a later date the liability was applied to that homestead also. Under this amendment the liability will apply only to the land in respect of which he gave security and if at a later date he takes up a homestead and discharges his duties thereon his patent shall be issued to him without liability on that homestead. The liability will remain on the land for which he gave security. If on the other hand he has obtained a loan upon a parcel of land and later obtains a homestead, receiving a further grant of money on the security of that homestead, then the liability shall apply both to the homestead and to the original grant of land. In respect of the homestead, the liability will be only to the amount that has been advanced by way of increased loan, through his having obtained a homestead. That, in a few words, explains the situation. This legislation will not be retroactive; it will take effect only from the passing of the act. It may be some injustice to those who in the past had not the advantage which will accrue to others under this legislation; but to make it retroactive would lead to endless confusion and would entail a tremendous amount of work which probably could never be undertaken.
Soldier Settlement Act


Mr. MANION:: Did the minister read
section 26 as it stands or as it is now in this bill?


Robert Forke: What I have read is section 26 in the original act.


Robert James Manion: And the minister is asking the committee to pass section 26 as now proposed?


Robert Forke: Yes.


Mr. ARTHURS:: The opinion of the committee which made the recommendation along this line was that it should be retroactive; otherwise it would be obviously of no use to the soldier. The intention of the committee was that those men who, they thought, had been unjustly deprived of patents for land by reason of a liability of some other description in respect of a separate transaction with the government, should be relieved and be enabled to secure their homestead without regard to that liability. There is no doubt that the intention was that they should not suffer because of any liability to the government they may have had in the past.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The idea of the committee was that a soldier having received a loan in connection with a quarter-section, that quarter-section should be security for the loan, and that if he had acquired a homestead that homestead should not necessarily be encumbered with the loan which had been granted on the quarter-section. Two soldiers take up two pieces of land; they have a quarter-section each on which they obtained loans; and one takes up a homestead. Now it is manifestly unfair to exact from the one man security in respect of a half-section and from the other man security in respect of a quarter-section. I submit-and this was the intention of the committee-that if a soldier took up a quarter-section on which he obtained a loan and then acquired a homestead, the homestead should not be encumbered but should be left free, unless some specified sum had been advanced on that homestead. I think the words "or otherwise" ought to be deleted. That phrase includes all lands he has acquired, whether by purchase or by way of homestead.


Alfred Speakman: Possibly the hon. member (Mr. Adshead) is under a slight misapprehension. The purpose of the committee was to release the Dominion lands-and by Dominion lands I do not mean lands acquired by purchase but lands still belonging to the Dominion; that is to say, lands on which entry was made, patent to be afterwards issued. We must differentiate between Dominion lands which are purchased and become private pro-
[Mr. Forked
perty, and lands which remain Dominion lands, on which entry is made until the patent is issued. The purpose of the committee was to remove the charge against such Dominion lands. The proposed section makes provision with regard to a settler who obtains Dominion lands, whether by soldier grant or otherwise, and thereafter secures the approval of the board to any advance to him pursuant to the act, "while there is owing by him to the board any sum or sums of money as the result of any sale made to him by the board or otherwise"; and we have to remember that a large part of the money advanced was advanced not for the purchase of land but for the purchase of stock and equipment, for improvement and other purposes. In many cases we found that the only land held by the man was that Dominion land together with stock and equipment; and we found it impossible to differentiate between the loan which would rightly apply to the one quarter-section alone, and loans applicable to the entire land at the time the loan was advanced. We therefore suggested that the land in possession of the settler at the time the money was advanced should be considered as security. In other words, that was the factor in the mind of the board at the time the money was loaned and was understood by the settler to be part of the security he had to offer. Under the former act, which we propose to repeal, that same man after receiving a loan made entry either by way of a soldier grant or on a homestead; and automatically that additional land was charged under the loan, although the land which he had just entered upon was not in the mind of the board at the time the loan was made, inasmuch as it was not in the possession of the settler when he received the advance. We found that the only practical method to adopt was to draw the dividing line afr the point when the loan was authorized. The land in the possession of the settler at that time would automatically come under the act, because we could not free it from the suggestion of being one of the factors that led to the loan. All land on which entry was made after the loan was advanced was free from that suggestion and would be free under the provisions of the act. The bill goes further than is apparent. After a man failed and the contract was rescinded and the land resold, the deficiency which remained was chargeable to the former settler as a debt which would automatically apply as a charge and a first mortgage against any land he might take up thereafter. Under this new section that land is free, because no soldier grant is subject to a charge of that kind.

Soldier Settlement Act


James Arthurs: This section is not retroactive.
Mr. iSPEAKMAN: It is not retroactive to this extent, that it does not apply to the man who has left the land, but as I understand it, it does apply to any man who is still in possession of the land whether or not the loan was formerly charged. While he is still possessed of the land and while the agreement has not been rescinded .1 understand that the charge is automatically removed from all Dominion land acquired after the loan was made. 'Certainly that is the 'intention of the bill and that is my understanding of it.


James Arthurs: If that is true the language should be different. In the first line of section 26 we find the words, "When a settler obtains Dominion lands,-". While if my hon. friend is correct it should read, "When a settler has Obtained or obtains."
Mr. iSPEAKMAN: Our understanding was that by the repeal of the former section the new section would apply to all settlers in possession of the land at present and would not go back to the man who has sold out except that it would permit him to take up a second homestead in the future.


Peter McGibbon: The minister has admitted that it is not retroactive at all.


Robert Forke: It applies to all soldiers now on the land. It is almost meaningless to say that it does not apply to those who have sold out and left, but it applies to all soldiers now in possession of the land.


Peter McGibbon: Then what did the minister mean by his former statement?


Robert Forke: It was a slip, if anything. The idea is something like this: Supposing a soldier has had rather bad luck with his original land and has had things go wrong. After he has been sold out and everything has been cleaned up he will be able to retain *the homestead which he obtains at a later date. This is to give him another chance. Under the old act the board would have been able to follow him up to his second homestead for the original debt, but under this section he will have another start.


Peter McGibbon: Does the minister tell me that the government have been doing that in the past? If so, they should be ashamed of themselves.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: The important word is "thereafter" in the second line. I would have no quarrel with the suggestion
of the hon. member for Parry Sound; his change would affect men now on the land, *but this section goes a little further, because it provides for homesteads which may be obtained in the future. I agree with the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario that this injustice should not have been permitted in the past, but the fact remains that it was done under the old act.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I understand that to-day when a soldier has taken out a loan on a farm which he has purchased he requires the consent of the Soldier Settlement Board in order to take up a soldier grant. He has the right, of course, to take up a homestead. In the case of a soldier who has been salvaged and who still owes something to the board, would the minister assure us that there would be no difficulty in securing the permission of the board to take up a s'oldier grant?


Robert Forke: That is the object of the act; the liability will rest only on the land on which the loan was made.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: But that would not prevent the Soldier Settlement Board from refusing the soldier the right to take up a soldier grant.


Mr. THORJSON:: What has that to do with this act?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: It refers to the soldier grant, and in view of the fact that we are dealing with this problem I think it is a legitimate question. It is a matter of administration.


William Alves Boys: I should like to ask the minister if the purpose of this act is to benefit the soldier?


Robert Forke: Yes, that is the main purpose.


William Alves Boys: I was not a member of the committee and did not hear the discussion which took place there; perhaps for that reason I do not fully appreciate the effect of this section, but after reading it three or four times I cannot see how it is going to benefit the soldier. I see the explanatory note, which reads as follows:
It is also the opinion of the committee that the present policy of withholding title to homesteads and soldier grants in respect of lands other than those upon which loans are granted should be discontinued.
I understood that the purpose of this section, which repeals the former section, was to free the homestead of any loan which might be owing the department. Am I right in that?

Soldier Settlement Act


Robert Forke: Not exactly. The section repealed gave the board power to follow up the loan to any lands which the soldier might obtain at a later date.


William Alves Boys: They have that right anyway; if any man owes the department or the government a sum of money, naturally you can follow up that loan to anything he has in order to get the money. I thought by this section you were freeing the homestead of any balance which might be due the department. But let us look at the section, which says:
When a settler obtains Dominion lands, whether by soldier grant or otherwise-
We might as well say when a soldier obtains Dominion lands in any manner.
-and thereafter secures the approval of the board to any advance to him pursuant to this act, while there is owdng by him to the board any sum or sums of money as the result of any sale made to him by the board or otherwise by reason of the exercise by the board of any of its powers under this act subsequently to such approval, such sum so owing shall constitute a first charge on the lands so obtained

That would be a homestead or any land.

and no patent shall be issued to such settler therefor until such sum or sums with accrued interest have been fully paid or repaid.
With every desire to read this in the manner indicated by the minister, that is, as favourable to the soldier, I cannot so read it. It seems me this is protecting the department.


Robert Forke: Section 26 of the original act was an iron-clad agreement which bound up the soldier in every way. This section refers to a case where the soldier secured a loan on the security of his original grant, and later took a homestead. When he took that homestead he went to the board for a further loan,, because of the fact that he had the homestead. This section deals with cases of that kind; the homestead will be held liable for the additional money loaned after the soldier acquired it.


William Alves Boys: Let me follow that up. Suppose the settler has a loan, say, of $1,000 on a certain property. Then he gets a homestead, and this section distinctly says that he cannot get that homestead until he pays the $1,000. I so read it, and if I am wrong I should like to be put right.


Charles Gavan Power: I am free to admit that
while there were seven or eight lawyer members of this committee, they were unanimous on one thing: that the officers of the crown did not know how to draft legislation. They were by no means unanimous as to how legislation should be drafted for presentation to

the house. There was a real grievance on the part of the soldier, in that after he had obtained a loan from the board, or had purchased land from the board, and then took up a homestead, the board would follow him and would not permit him to take his patent, or become the owner of this homestead, until such time as he had paid off every cent he owed under the original loan. Moreover, if he was salvaged and there was a deficiency, they would follow him for the rest of his life, even on to other land he might take up. It was thought by members of the committee that that was not quite a fair deal, and that it discouraged the initiative of the soldier. If he wanted to start over again somewhere else, it was not fair to him to plaster a mortgage on everything that he might own for the rest of his life. Two things were done; first, all deficiences were wiped out, and, secondly, it was proposed that the mortgage which was on the original land should not follow the soldier on to any Dominion land which he might afterwards acquire, and he should not be prevented from obtaining his patent.


Peter McGibbon: Will you be good enough to tell us where that is so expressed in this?


Charles Gavan Power: I am coming to that. There is another factor in this situation. The soldier who owned the two, the settlement land and the Deminion land, might go to the board, and, and the strength of both, say, "Will you give me a new loan, a loan for improvements or a loan for stock?" If he went to the board and on the security of both obtained a loan, in that case the board would be entitled to the security of the old as well as the new. It was in an endeavour to make this clear that we arrived at the draft which is now in these amendments, and which is as follows:
When a settler obtains Dominion lands, whether by soldier grant or otherwise, and thereafter-*
That is, after he has obtained these lands. Under the old act, section 26, if he obtained a new grant it was plastered with a mortgage. Now, if he obtains this, and then goes after another loan-
-and thereafter secures the approval of the board to any advance to him pursuant to this act, while there is owing by him to the board any sum or sums of money as the result of any sale made to him by the board or otherwise-
"Otherwise" here would cover the case of where he obtained money for stock.

Soldier Settlement Act
-by reason of the exercise by the board of any of its powers under this act subsequently to such approval, such sum so owing shall constitute a first charge on the lands so obtained and no patent shall f>e issued


William Alves Boys: Would my friend explain to
me just what is meant by that? It is confusing to me, and perhaps to others as well. What is meant by the words "lands so obtained" in the third to the last line?


George Reginald Geary: That is the land obtained in the first line.


William Alves Boys: Does that mean the land he
is getting, or the land-


Charles Gavan Power: "Shall constitute a first
charge on the lands so obtained."


William Alves Boys: What lands?


Charles Gavan Power: The lands obtained before
he got the loan.


William Alves Boys: That is the point exactly.


Charles Gavan Power: The lands obtained before
he got the loan. The only way I can make myself perfectly clear is to refer to the old act. Section 26 is as follows:
When a settler obtains Dominion lands, whether by soldier grant or otherwise, and whether before or after having secured from the board any advance pursuant to this act, while there is owing by him to the board any sum or sums of money as a result of any sale made to him by the board, or otherwise by reason of the exercise by the board of any of its powers under this act, such sum so owing shall constitute a first charge on the lands so obtained and no patent shall be issued to such settler therefor until such sum or sums, with accrued interest, have been fully paid or repaid.
The whole thing is in the word "thereafter". After he has obtained what I call "new land", which might be Dominion land, or by soldier grant, or by homestead, he goes to the board and says, "I want a loan," whether it be for improvements or for stock, then everything he owned would be covered by that loan.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Would not the land be
specified? It is not specifying the land when he gets the loan that we object to.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know anything
about the agreements, because I have never seen them.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: If a loan is given to
anybody, the Soldier Settlement Board must necessarily specify the security upon which they give it.


Charles Gavan Power: At present it is not specified if I may call my hon. friend's attention to section 26-and every piece of land he obtains
is plastered by this mortgage to the land settlement board. It was the endeavour of the committee to make that clear, and the amendment was brought down. Whether we have succeeded in doing that or not, I do not know; I would not be quite sure myself. It was an honest endeavour on the part of the subcommittee to clean up that situation. Personally, I think it seems to cover the case. My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Speak-man), who has had far more experience that I have in dealing with land settlement, is also of the same opinion. My hon. friend from Melfort (Mr. McLean), who has a large number of soldier settlers in his constituency, seems to think that this fits the case. I have none in my constituency, and, for that reason perhaps I have not been so much interested in land settlement as I might be.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: My hon. friend from
Red Deer made the statement a few minutes ago that the soldier who had obtained a loan upon his soldier land when he had a homestead, received that loan without anything being said in the agreement about the homestead. The hon. member said that the homestead having been a factor in securing that loan, it should be agreed upon that it was encumbered. That is the very point: that he gets a loan upon a quarter section, which is expressed in the agreement, and though the homestead that he had at the time he got the agreement was not referred to in the agreement, still it was encumbered. It is that very principle that we are discussing-that when a loan is granted the things secured by that loan should be specified in the agreement. The hon. member for Red Deer said that it was a factor in the board granting a loan, although they did not so specify it.


Alfred Speakman: If no loan had been
made for the purchase of land the matter would' be very simple. The security would be specified and be limited to the land purchase. The difficulty is that many of the loans were not obtained for the purchase of lands, and so did not stipulate any particular class of land. They may have been for the purpose of purchasing stock, or for the purpose of placing permanent improvements on the land, such as buildings; or for the purpose of purchasing seed or feed, or sometimes subsidiary amounts in order to subsist. All of these loans were general loans; there was no specification made as to the land to which they applied, and in most of these cases, I venture to say, it is impossible to dissociate the Dominion land held by the settler at that time from the board land.
Soldier Settlement Act


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Section 26
gave them the right to take any land.


Alfred Speakman: At the time the law
was made that dominion land came in as security. Without that security in most cases they could not have made the additional loan for stock, equipment and the other purposes I have mentioned. The hon. member for East Calgary is perfectly right in his contention. The complication arises from the fact that many loans were made by many different people and in none of the other loans was any special reference made to any particular class of land.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: That is exactly the unfairness of the situation. I know a soldier who took up a quarter section of land on the purchase plan and he also secured a loan for the purpose of purchasing stock and implements. Another soldier takes up a quarter section of land on precisely the same plan and he takes up another quarter section oil the homestead plan. He has to have stock because he has homesteaded. The one soldier gives as security only the quarter section that he has purchased, while the other has to give the whole half section.


Charles A. Stewart: That was
the law.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I am talking about fairness.


John Arthur Clark: I should like to make this
suggestion. Section 26 is being repealed by this bill, but I suggest that we should stop there. What will the effect be? Any future acquired property, whether it be stock or land, will be unencumbered and only the original land will be encumbered. The object of the committee surely is to free the future acquired property from the original mortgage. Therefore if we repeal section 26, we accomplish that purpose. The next thing is that we do not wish to prohibit that man from coming before the board again for a new loan. That is, I think, correct. If that man comes before the board and asks for a new loan, the board will say: What security have you? The man will say: Here is my homestead; here is my stock; here is some other subsequently acquired property; I will give you that. Why bother with this complicated section? Let us repeal the old section and thereby take the charge off the future acquired property. Then a man will have in his possession free all the property which he acquires after he put the mortgage on and he can offer that in the

future as security to the settlement board. I think that is the proper way of dealing with the present difficulty.


Mr. NEILL:: Might I suggest that the
clause would read more to the purpose which is intended by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) if it read like this:
_ When a Settler has obtained or obtains dominion land.
The word "obtains" suggests something in the future and, the minister notwithstanding, this is intended to be retroactive to a large extent. When I say that a man obtains land, that refers to the future. This section is intended to cover also the past tense.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I should like to come
back to the question that I asked the minister a little while ago, namely, with regard to a settler obtaining dominion land by soldier grant. I understand that every settler has the right to take up a homestead without any question or discretion on the part of the Soldier Settlement Board or anyone else, but section 15 of the Soldier Settlement Act reads:
The minister may issue, free, to any settler a soldier grant for not more than one quarter section, of one hundred and sixty acres, more or less, of lands reserved pursuant to section six of this act.
The point I want to raise is this: Will there be any trouble, so far as the soldier settler is concerned, in getting the right to take up a soldier grant provided that he has been salvaged and he still owes the board say $200 or $300? He has not actually been freed from the encumbrance in connection with the soldier grant unless that right is unquestioned.


Robert Forke: My hon. friend is referring
to a case where a soldier has a homestead and where he has made a failure and been cleaned out.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: No, I refer to the case of a soldier who has a loan against a homestead or any other kind of land, obtained through purchase or otherwise, and he has been salvaged. He still owes the board, after everything has been taken over by the board and sold, say $200, but he has not previously exercised his right to take up a soldier grant. Will he have any difficulty in getting a certificate giving him the right to take up that soldier grant?


Robert Forke: I can hardily answer that
question because soldier grants are governed by another law entirely. If he has failed and

Soldier Settlement Act
been cleaned out, the act says "the minister may". I suppose the whole circumstances will have to be taken into consideration.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I think it is a matter
of the right of the soldier. The act says: "the minister may". My point is: unless he is given that right, is any club held over him? Is the soldier grant not made clear?


Robert Forke: Judging from administration I would say that if a soldier had made a failure on a quarter section of land, had been cleaned out and then had got a soldier grant, if they did give it to him they would not carry over the debt of $200; they would not follow him for that money. I am perfectly certain of that.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The minister hardly
understands my question. Before a soldier can take up a soldier grant he must first secure a certificate from the minister?


Robert Forke: Yes.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: If he has been salvaged on a previous Homestead or on a purchased farm and he still owes the board say $200, will the minister undertake to say that he will receive the right to take up his soldier grant without question?


Robert Forke: I can hardly answer that
question, because all the circumstances have to be taken under consideration. If the Soldier Settlement Board came to the conclusion that he was worthy of another trial and a soldier grant was given to him, they would not follow him for the $200.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: That does not release
him so far as the soldier grant is concerned.


Robert Forke: There is no provision for
that in this bill at all.


George Reginald Geary: I think the bon. member
has the point of the difficulty. The desire of the committee apparently was to make a charge only on the land in respect of which an advance was given. You are getting at that object not by restricting the legislation so as to make the advance a charge only upon the land in respect of which the loan was issued, but by providing the other case, that is the case where a loan shall be a charge on everything that he owns. That is the case you have provided for and by implication I suppose you mean that, in no other case will there be a charge upon all the .man's holdings for the advance.


Charles Gavan Power: By repealing section 26.


George Reginald Geary: No, the old section 26 is
just that exactly.


Charles Gavan Power: That is what is repealed.


George Reginald Geary: If you add the words-
But otherwise there will be no restriction on the right of the advancee to get his patent-
-you w'ould effect the purpose of the committee. Is that not what is wanted? In other words I think my hon. friends fear there may be a debt owing and there is no guarantee that that debt will not be carried over on to all the man's property be it homestead or soldier settlement land. What you have done is to instance the one case where there shall be a charge on everything he holds. You have not excepted the situation which these gentlemen desire should not obtain, that is that there should be a charge made otherwise than in regard to land in respect of which the advance is made. I think it is in the drafting of the legislation that the difficulty has arisen. They have not provided for the case desired to be provided for, but for the other case where the charge shall be made on all the holdings. It is exactly as my hon. friend from North Simcoe said a moment ago.


William Alves Boys: I should like to support what the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard said. As I understand it, the situation now is that the department have a contract in connection with any loan that has been made. That contract binds certain specific lands mentioned therein. Get rid of this section entirely, and that contract stands as a mortgage against that land. Nothing more should be required by the department but that. We will assume that the soldier wants a further advance either on that land or on some other land, or on both. A new contract is put through, and that contract binds whatever lands may be included in it. It seems to me that to gain that purpose all you have to do is to repeal the section entirely, and the department then stands in the very same position that any individual would be in who has made an advance, and who may be called upon to make another advance.


Charles Gavan Power: If the hon. gentleman will
look at the report of the committee, he will find that that was their original idea, but we could not get it done in that way.


William Alves Boys: Will my hon. friend point
out what is wrong with that? I cannot see it. All the legislation did was to say that notwithstanding a contract specifically mentioning certain lands, any other lands that may be acquired shall be automatically bound when acquired. I understand it is the desire of the committee to get rid of that feature-
2796	COMMONS
St. John River Storage Company


Charles Gavan Power: Then there was the case
where the board had advanced moneys to a man for stock or equipment, but only because he had his land settlement land and some other land, and it would be manifestly unfair to say to the board: We will charge this new land on the strength of which a further loan is made.


William Alves Boys: My answer to that is simple.
When he comes for that advance-


Charles Gavan Power: He has done so already.


William Alves Boys: Then your position is this.
The board has made an advance to a soldier without security. If they choose to make an advance without security-


Charles Gavan Power: But it was made on the
strength of the legislation which covered all his land, both the land under land settlement and the other land. The advance was made on the strength of that legislation. They said: His land setlement land may not be sufficient to cover this advance, but we know that he has a homestead alongside, and so the two together were charged to cover the advance, which might not be just for the purposes of the land settlement land, but might be for stock or equipment to be used on both lands. The settler may have bought horses and cattle to be used on both these lands, and the board advanced him money on the strength of that.


Peter McGibbon: But the board has that stock for security.


Charles Gavan Power: Some of the cattle may
have died.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 17 respecting the St. John River Storage Company.-Sir Eugene Fiset.-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Provincial acts adopted and confirmed.
Sir EUGENE FISET:: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend from Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) has given notice of motion to amend this bill on the third reading. As he will have full

opportunity to discuss his motion then, and knowing how prolix he can sometimes be, and in view of the importance of conserving as far as possible-


Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Chairman-
Sir EUGENE FISET -this precious hour for private bills, I do move that this bill be now reported.


John Frederick Johnston: Is it the pleasure of
the committee to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.
Motion agreed to on division, and bill reported.


Hewitt Bostock: When shall said bill be
read the third time?


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, before this bill is read a third time I have an amendment to move, seconded by Mr. Woodsworth-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Next sitting of the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, now.


Hewitt Bostock: I will put the motion.
It is moved by Sir Eugene Fiset, seconded by Mr. McLean (Melfort) that said bill, namely, an act respecting the St. John River Storage Company (as amended) be now read a third time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, we called "Next sitting of the house," I understand that without unanimous consent the bill cannot be read a third time to-day.


Hewitt Bostock: Did any hon. member
say, "Next sitting of the house"?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before you proceed, Mr. Speaker, I would ask if you will accept my amendment at the next sitting of the house when the bill comes up for third reading?


Hewitt Bostock: At that time the hon.
member will be at liberty to present his amendment.	.


William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. We have just reported from the committee of the whole a very important and technical bill that I believe is ultra vires of the parliament of Canada to enact, and we have not considered one single clause of it. I submit that this is out of order, and I desire to register my protest against such procedure.

Federal Loan Company


Hewitt Bostock: The bill was committed
by the house to the committee of the whole. The committee of the whole was seized of what appertained to the bill. If I followed aright the proceedings, the committee of the whole decided of its own. volition that the bill should be at once reported. It was so reported. Upon resuming the chair, I asked: When shall said bill be read a third time? I was under the impression that it was the desire of the house to have it read immediately, but the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) called "At the next sitting." Therefore at the next sitting of the house on the third reading any hon. member may rise and take objection to the bill. But as I said, the committee of the whole can do as it pleases with the legislation which is submitted to it. The committee of the whole, having said that the bill should now be reported, apparently considered that it had been sufficiently examined and studied.


Peter McGibbon: Surely, Mr. Speaker, the action of
this house is not to become a farce. Here is a bill submitted to the committee of the whole and reported without being considered at all. It cannot be considered clause by clause on the third reading. What are we to do with it?


Peter John Veniot: It was fully considered by the private bills committee.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that this house is prevented from discussing this bill in committee in the future?


Hewitt Bostock: The committee will do
as it pleases. If the committee decides to discuss the bill from the title to its last clause, it will of course do so; but if the committee says unanimously, or by a majority, that the bill shall be reported forthwith, then I must accept the will of the committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: The member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset) was determined that the committee should not hear anything about the bill.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. There is nothing
before the house. Will the Clerk Assistant call the next order?



FEDERAL LOAN COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
On the order being called:
House in committee on Bill No. 59, an act to incorporate the Federal Loan Company (as amended, and recommending that the title be changed to "An act to incorporate the Federal Lending Company")-Mr. Lang.
Mr. M. F. HEPBURN (West Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the sponsor of the bill, I may say that I understand there is to be a change in the title. It is-*


Hewitt Bostock: Order. Is the hon.
gentleman desirous of proceeding with the bill? The promotor of the bill is not here.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Stands.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Hewitt Bostock: Stands?


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Mr.	Speaker, I-


Hewitt Bostock: Is	the hon. member
authorized by the promoter of the bill to proceed in his absence?


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Yes,	Mr. Speaker.


Hewitt Bostock: Mr.	Hepburn, for Mr
Lang, moves, seconded by Mr. Chevrier, that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on Bill No. 59, to incorporate the Federal Loan Company. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.


Mr. CHURCH:: I wish the hon. member
who has moved this bill into committee would give some explanation of it. A session or two ago the house took up the question of a consolidation of the federal loan companies act and the principle of incorporating such purely provincial companies was found to be quite unsound and not for this parliament. The house is on pretty thin ice so far as this bill goes as to jurisdiction in the matter of provincial rights are concerned. We do not want any more Home Banks or Sovereign or Farmers Banks or York County Loan Companies in Canada; we do not want loan companies and innsurance companies obtaining from the federal parliament charters purely provincial in scope and character. Is this bill within the four corners of federal jurisdiction? The hon. member should enlighten the committee as to what security parliament will have that the powers conferred in this bill will be carried out and that we are within our powers. We are entitled to know something about the company, what it proposes to do, its bona fide%
279S
Federal Loan Company

what security it offers, and the nature of the business to be transacted. In the public interest we should be very careful in passing bills of this sort, which endanger provincial rights.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Unfortunately the sponsor of the bill is absent, but I may say that this is an ordinary loan company which is being incorporated in the usual way. Apart from this I have no explanation to make. The bill passed the committee and had the approval of the Superintendent of Insurance. On the third reading of the bill, I have no doubt, an explanation can be given.


Thomas Langton Church: As we cannot get any information I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Mr. CANNON:: I was present when this
bill came before the banking and commerce committee and a report was submitted from the Superintendent of Insurance who had examined it and who gave his approval. The only objection was that the name of the company might be misleading inasmuch as there were other companies bearing similar names. I understood that the promoter of the bill had agreed to change the name. Thi3 objection was the only reason why the bill was not adopted when it first came up. It is now before the house in order to have the name of the company changed.


John Frederick Johnston: There is before the
committee a motion which is not debatable. Mr. Church has moved that the committee rise and report progress. Those in favour of the motion will say Aye.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Frederick Johnston: In my opinion the nays have it; I declare the motion lost. There is a motion that the name of the company be changed to the Central Finance Corporation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The notice says "Federal Lending Company."


Henry Elvins Spencer: This legislation, I understand, is asked for in order to make it possible for corporations to lend money on second mortgages. Although ostensibly only 6 per cent is to be charged on money loaned, we are informed by the Superintendent of Insurance that, with the various charges, the rate will amount to about 18 or 20 per cent. I have no doubt that those who are promot-

ing the bill are perfectly right when they say that this will not be as high an interest as is charged by certain money lenders in such cities as Montreal. At the same time it is a usurious rate and it seems to me that something is wrong with our present financial institutions if it is necessary for us to get behind legislation like this, under which the borrower will ultimately have to pay about 18 per cent. The only ground on which one could possibly support this bill is that under it the evil will not be as great as that which prevails at the present time with money lenders who charge much higher rates. As regards the name, I do not think that the word "Finance" should be used. When we use that word we associate it with the highest type of financial institutions in the country. The name does not seem to me to be a proper one to designate a money lending institution whose various charges will eventually run up to as high as 18 per cent.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to protest against this bill. Some of us can remember the ruin caused by the York County Loan Company, and the suffering entailed in Parkdale, West York and other places. I protest against parliament granting a charter to the persons named in this bill-Lawrence Kert, David Sher and two or three stenographers. How do we know who the company are? Do we know anything of its bona fides? What are its powers? It will lend money on second mortgages at any rate it likes to poor people. I submit that the powers of this company are beyond the scope of this parliament. The company will deal in chattel mortgages, lien notes, second mortgages and all that kind of thing and its purposes will be purely provincial and local in Toronto. This company is to have its head office in the city of Toronto, but we have had enough companies there incorporated by this parliament, such as the Farmers' Bank, the Home Bank, the Sovereign Bank, the York Loan Company and many others, all of which have failed and caused great ruin and loss to thousands. You will notice what these gentlemen propose to do; they desire to suspend three federal acts, the Money Lenders Act, the Interest Act and the Loan Companies Act, all of which have been passed for the protection of the working classes in our large cities. No one knows what interest this company will charge on these second mortgages; this parliament is asked to release the company from the control of these acts. A

Federal Loan Company
similar bill came up in this house two or three years ago, and I took the ground then that we did not have sufficient protection for our people and that this parliament had no jurisdiction. On general principles I protest against incorporating companies such as this, which give no security or protection to the public from extortionate rates of interest.


Mr. MORIN (St. Hyacinthe):: I rise to
a point of order; I think the hon. gentleman is absolutely out of order in his remarks. The discussion should be limited to the amendment changing the name of the Company, rather than to the merits of the bill.


Thomas Langton Church: My hon. friend will be able to speak when I get through.


John Frederick Johnston: I think the point raised by my hon. friend is well taken. There is an amendment before the committee and the hon. gentleman should discuss the amendment.


Thomas Langton Church: Very well, I will discuss the change of name. This change of name is just a subterfuge; they wanted to get the word "Federal" in the title of the company, but some of the government officials were opposed to that name so they are asking this parliament to change the name to " Central Finance Corporation " making this in effect a new bill in its entirety. There are too many of these companies now imposing extortionate rates of interest on the foreign people in the city of Toronto, lending them money on chattel and second mortgage and charging them fabulous rates of interest for it. Many of these foreigners are not educated and cannot afford to employ a lawyer, and companies of this kind find it easy to do business with them. There are several of these companies in the city of Toronto, and the provincial legislature saw fit to bring in legislation to try to effect some control. I see that the hon. member for Toronto West Centre is in his seat; this is in his constituency. If we are not careful, before we know it we will have some day a second York Loan Company incorporated by this parliament if some control is not exercised by this house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: I am discussing this change of name, and you cannot discuss the name without discussing the principle of the bill. This amendment practically makes this a new bill, so I think it should go back to the private bills or other committee for reconsideration. While this particular company will not be located in my own constituency I know something of the suffering among the
poor people of Toronto from the failure of similar companies, such as the Home Bank, the Farmers' Bank and the York Loan Company, and so long as I am a member of this house I will protest against the incorporating here of purely provincial companies of this kind, which attempt to secure a charter from this parliament by some change of name or some play on words so as to escape provincial supervision. When they are incorporated here the provincial government can do nothing with them; they are not even under the terms of the public acts I have mentioned of this parliament. If this sort of thing is to go on the sooner the Minister of Finance brings in a new Loan Companies Act the better it will be, if the public are to be protected from extortionate rates. As a lawyer I have seen something of the suffering caused among the poor people of Toronto, by the failure of some of these loan companies of this kind, and I wish to protest against interference by this parliament with the government of Ontario in its control of purely provincial companies of this kind, which are not by the widest stretch of the imagination proper companies to give a charter to here.


James Arthurs: I wish to bring up a point of order. Apparently the banking and commerce committee considered that the name of this company was very important, because the only change they made was in the name. Now we have an entirely new name proposed by some hon. members, and I would direct attention to standing order 113, which says:
No important amendment may be proposed to any private bill, in a committee of the_ whole house, or at the third reading of the bill, unless one day's notice of the same has been given.
This amendment now before the house changes the name of the company, so I believe it should stand as a notice of motion to be considered when the bill comes up again.


John Frederick Johnston: Notice of this amendment has appeared in the votes and proceedings for the required time, so it is quite in order.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On section 5-Objects.
Robert Gardiner: Will the promoter of
this bill give some explanation with regard to subsection " b " of section 5, which is as follows:
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Interest Act, and the Money Lenders Act, and in section 63 (c) of the Loan Companies Act-
Federal Loan Company

I should like the hon. gentleman to explain what, that means, in order that we may know exactly what we are doing.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: I am not entirely familiar with this bill. It was discussed in the banking and commerce committee and T understand it has been endorsed by the Superintendent of Insurance. I believe the company is to lend money on second mortgages, and probably for that reason they cannot be bound down as other companies are.	.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: I submit that there are many members of the house who have not had an opportunity of attending the meetings of the committee which considered this bill, and I think someone should be here to explain any of the sections which may require explanation. Inasmuch as there apparently is no one here, I would move that the committee rise and report progress.


John Frederick Johnston: All those in favour will please say, " yea."


Mr. HAY:: Mr. Chairman-


John Frederick Johnston: The motion is not debatable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Progress reported.

John Frederick Johnston: There are quite a number of divorce bills. Will it serve the purpose of the committee if I read one bill, and we can name the others and report them all at one time?
Bill No. 221, for the relief of Edward Bennett.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 222, for the relief of Annie Amelia Eliza Ferguson.-Mr. Rennie.
Bill No. 223, for the relief of Laura Lang-staff Dent Kemp.-Mr. Hepburn.
Bill No. 224, for the relief of Helen McLean. -Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 225, for the relief of Robert Pius Nageleisen.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 226, for the relief of Elsie Irene O'Meara.-Mr. Stinson.
Bill No. 227, for the relief of Doris Read.- Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 228, for the relief of Thomas Zeamond Toll.-Mr. Stinson.
Bill No. 229, for the relief of Katie Louise Turner.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 230, for the relief of Samuel Rad-cliffe Weaver.-Mr. Rennie.
Bill No. 231, for the relief of Florence Elizabeth Mousley Monarque Westover.- Mr. Casselman.

Bill No. 232, for the relief of Richard Thomas Bell.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 233, for the relief of Albert Cheney. -Mr. White (Mount Royal).
Bill No. 234, for the relief of Katharine Adriance Burruss Christie.-Mr. Wilson (Wentworth) .
Bill No. 235, for the relief of Nellie Cohen. -Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 236, for the relief of Louis Cowell. -Mr. Church.
Bill No. 237, for the relief of Wesley Thornton Davidson.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 238, for the relief of Orfie Earl Dingman.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 239, for the relief of Edith Alice Douglas.-Mr. Pettit.
Bill No. 240, for the relief of Radford Alonzo Dunfield.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 241, for the relief of Reuben James Fenton.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 242, for the relief of Jane Annie Field.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 243, for the relief of Charles Edward Frank.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 244, for the relief of Bernice Gatehouse.-Mr.	Anderson (Toronto-High
Park).
Bill No. 245, for the relief of Harriet Elizabeth Roussie Grey.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 246, for the relief of Thomas Haggith.-Mr. Kay.
Bill No. 247, for the relief of Ellen May Collison Keene.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 248, for the relief of Henry Peet.- Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 249, for the relief of Leon Proulx. -Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 250, for the relief of Dorothea Wilhelmina Reynolds.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 251, for the relief of Violet Robinson.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 252, for the relief of Susan Amelia Saunders.-Mr. Lang.
Bill No. 253, for the relief of Agnes Georgiana Smith.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 254, for the relief of Walter Edgar Soule.-Mr. Thorson.
Bill No. 255, for the relief of Phoebe Ellen Stevens.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 256, for the relief of Thomas William Storey.-Mr. Bothwell.
Bill No. 257, for the relief of Samuel Wellington Thompson.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 258, for the relief of John Edwin Timson.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 259, for the relief of Jennie Campbell.-Mr. Geary.

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge
Bill No. 260, for the relief of Annie Pearl Appel.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 261, for the relief of Dorothy Catalina Day Armstrong.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 262. for the relief of Louise Morris Hays Grier.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 263, for the relief of Thelma Katherine Halliday.-Mr. Thorson.
Bill No. 264, for the relief of Marion Jarvis Lewis.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 265, for the relief of Annie Moore. -Mr. Casselman.
Motion for third readings agreed to on division, and bills read the third time and passed.



SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Geary, seconded by Mr. White (London), the following bills were read
the second time, on division, and referred to the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills:
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Sydney Franklin Lankin.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 158, for the relief of William James Wall.-Mr. Jelliff.
Bill No. 159, for the relief of George Rubin Sanderowich, otherwise known as Rubin Sanders.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 160, for the relief of Kathleen Elizabeth Hedges.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 161, for the relief of Lotus Henderson Conover.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 162, for the relief of Marguerite Trelawney Buller Allan.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 163, for the relief of Alexander Graham.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 164, for the relief of William Henry Phillips.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 165, for the relief of Marjory Elgin Burch.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast) .
Bill No. 166, for the relief of Frances Helen Renison.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 167, for the relief of Katie Abramo-vitch.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 168, for the relief of Daisy Myrtle McPherson.-Mr. Pettit.
Bill No. 172, for the relief of Claire Ellen Burke.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 173, for the relief of George Edgar Gooderham.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 174, for the relief of Pearl Hazel [DOT]Clement.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 175, for the relief of John Arthur Towers Irvine.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 176, for the relief of William Henry King.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 177, for the relief of John Pepper. -Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 178, for the relief of Caroline Mildred Potter.-Mr. Edwards (South Waterloo).
Bill No. 179, for the relief of Fanny Alrheta Schaefer.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 180, for the relief of Ivy Ethel James Sergent.-Mr. Robinson.
Bill No. 181, for the relief of Angelo Spada-fore.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 182, for the relief of Lena Zimmerman Staples.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Audie Bertha Stewart.-Mr. Pettit.
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Gertrude Aileen VanderVoort.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 185, for the relief of Roy James Yollans.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 186, for the relief of John Young.- Mr. Clark.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 70, to incorporate Thousand Islands International Bridge Corporation.-Mr. Hay.
Hewitt Bostock: I understand the hon.
gentleman wishes to withdraw this bill.


Francis Wellington Hay: Yes.
Bill withdrawn.



NIAGARA FALLS MEMORIAL BRIDGE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 14, to incorporate the Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge Company-Mr. Pettit-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Mr. PETTIT:: I move that the bill be
reported.


Milton Neil Campbell: I find myself unalterably opposed to this bill.


John Frederick Johnston: The motion is not
debatable.
Bill reported.


Hewitt Bostock: When shall the bill be
read a third time?


James Dew Chaplin: Next sitting of the house.


Hewitt Bostock: It cannot be read now.


Lucien Cannon: The bill has been amended in committee and therefore it cannot be read a third time now.


Hewitt Bostock: Standing order 77 reads:
All amendments made in committee are reported by the chairman to the house, which shall receive the same forthwith. After report the

Bell Telephone Company

bill is open to debate and amendment, before it is ordered for third reading. But when a bill is reported without amendment it is forthwith ordered to be read a third time at such time as may be appointed by the house.
The bill having been amended in committee, it cannot be read a third time now.


James Dew Chaplin: There are already on the order paper amendments for this bill.


Hewitt Bostock: The bill having been
amended in committee and having been reported as such, it cannot be read a third time now. I am deciding in favour of the hon. gentleman. Next sitting of the house.



BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from April 1U consideration in committee of Bill No. 43, respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.- Mr, Edwards (Ottawa).-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Louis-Simon-René Morin: I
beg to move, Mr. Chairman, that the bill be reported.


Thomas Langton Church: I have an amendment to
that bill, Mr. Chairman.


John Frederick Johnston: House in committee
on Bill No. 43, respecting the Bell Telephone Compan}' of Canada.


Louis-Simon-René Morin: I
beg to move that the bill be reported.


Thomas Langton Church: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment to this particular bill in the votes and proceedings of April last.


John Frederick Johnston: Order. When the hon. gentleman first rose the bill was not then before the committee. When the bill was properly before the committee, the hon. member who was looking after it moved that the bill be reported. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the bill be reported?


Thomas Langton Church: I rise to a point of order.
I moved an amendment the other night, and at nine o'clock the amendment was still before the chair when time expired. The bill went to the bottom of the list, and it is up again to-night. I had not completed my forty minutes when I spoke the other evening; I had spoken only 38 minutes of that time. I had not finished, I was then speaking to the amendment.


Louis-Simon-René Morin: You completed your forty miutes, and I made a motion following.


John Frederick Johnston: Order.
	. .. . 4 _..


John Wesley Edwards: I think the point of order taken by the hon. member for Toronto Northwest is well taken, that he had not taken his full time. So far as the bill not being before the committee is concerned, there ought to be a rule of this house obliging the hon. gentleman who occupies the position of chairman to sit with his face absolutely facing that clock and not turning one hair's breadth more to the right than to the left. Otherwise it is a question of which can jump the quicker. I am not saying that I agree with the position taken by the hon. member for Toronto Northwest, but I say that every hon. member of this house is entitled to a square deal, and I do not consider that he is getting a square deal in this matter.


Louis-Simon-René Morin: The hon. gentleman had already spoken forty minutes, a.nd when nine o'clock struck he had finished his remarks. The committee then reported progress without any amendment.


John Wesley Edwards: On that
point I merely wish to say that the only evidence we have is a statement by thq hon. member across the way and a statement to the contrary by the hon. member for Toronto Northwest. If the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville wants to back up his assertion, let him produce the records to show that the chair called time.


John Frederick Johnston: I think this confusion
has come about from the fact that the house copy of the bill is not at the table at the moment.


Thomas Langton Church: A motion was made, and
it is in the votes and proceedings, in April, but the Speaker ruled that before I could move my amendment the bill had to go in committee. I had not finished at nine o'clock. The Speaker was in the chair, and he ruled that the bill had to go into committee. That is recorded in the votes and proceedings. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I would point out to you that the clock is striking nine.


John Frederick Johnston: Under the circumstances I think the committee cannot proceed as the house copy of the bill has been mislaid, and it is not on the table.


John Wesley Edwards: I would call your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that it is nine o'clock.

Soldier Settlement Act



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 288, to amend the Soldier Settlement Act.-Mr. Forke.-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-No patent to issue until amount owing to board is repaid.
William Alves Boys: Before the house rose at six
o'clock the hon. member for Quebec South had made an explanation in answer to what I and my hon. friend from Vancouver-Burrard had suggested regarding this section. At the moment I was somewhat impressed by what he said, but I am given to understand now that in all the contracts the land to which the department and the government look for security is named, and if the land is named, that should afford the department ample security. Therefore I think that the object of the committee and of the minister himself would be gained by repealing the ciause entirely, leaving it to the department and the government to look to the land included in that agjeement, and to any other land that may be included in any future agreement when further loans may be made.


Robert Forke: Where the soldier has taken up a homestead some time after the money was loaned on his first parcel of land, and a further loan is made on the security of that homestead, then the amount of money loaned should stand against the homestead because the loan was made on the further security he had to offer. That is what section 26 as it now stands is intended to cover.


John Arthur Clark: Does the minister suggest
that further moneys are advanced from time to time without taking any written security whatever?


Robert Forke: I expect so. I do not
know that anything is done if money is loaned on the security of that land.


John Arthur Clark: I think the minister misunderstands my question. It is suggested here that further moneys are advanced from time to time after the original loan was made. There is no question surely that when the original moneys are advanced a security in the form of an agreement or mortgage is taken. That is correct, is it not?


Robert Forke: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: Then I believe it is suggested that subsequently, for the purpose of acquiring stock or perhaps an additional piece of land, further moneys are advanced. That is correct, is it not?


Robert Forke: Yes.
56103-178J


John Arthur Clark: It is now suggested that in
order to make that stock or land which is subsequently acquired security for the further advance, we must preserve this section of the act, because otherwise the government would not have any security. I cannot believe that that money would be advanced without a further agreement or mortgage which would make the stock or additional land security for the moneys so advanced. If that is so, then there is no necessity whatever for this section. This section can be repealed quite safely, and in the future the man can come before the department and bargain for the additional moneys required, putting up as security the stock or additional land which he may have in his possession.


Charles A. Stewart: But my hon. friend is forgetting, is he not, that the title to the homestead land is in the Department of the Interior. The precaution taken here is simply by statute to provide that the Department of the Interior shall not issue a patent on land included in the loan for which the settler can give no instrument that would be valid for the loan.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No valid security.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. Therefore it is necessary in the statute itself to mention the land held by the Department of the Interior, that is, crown land.


John Arthur Clark: I quite understand that; but there must surely be some document entered into between the soldier and the department when the second loan is made. Am I correct in that?


Robert Forke: I think you are right.


John Arthur Clark: Then in that agreement
surely this homestead, or whatever it may be, will be mentioned, and even although the man has not the legal right to pledge the homestead as security, notice can be given by the Soldier Settlement Board to the Department of the Interior not to issue the patent, or if issued, to send it to the board. Thereupon the charge is perfected and no statutory provision is necessary.


Robert Forke: I understand that the Soldier Settlement Board make a charge against that particular land, which is known as "charged land." When the patent is asked for it is not issued until that charge which has been registered against the land is paid off.


William Alves Boys: The minister does not make
it plain to me. Let us take a concrete case and reason it out. In one case the man owns the land and asks for a loan. He pledges his property to the department as security, and
Soldier Settlement Act

the department is protected. Now the minister takes another case where the man is a homesteader, and before he receives his patent he wants a loan. Cannot the department protect itself when making that loan by taking a mortgage? I do not think this section is as clear as it should be. In fact I think you are hurting the soldier by it.


Charles Gavan Power: How are we hurting the
soldier? We certainly are not making him worse off than he was before.


William Alves Boys: I rather think we may be.
My friend has said that after seven or eight lawyers had tackled it they could not agree among themselves. Now we all seem to be of one mind; we want to help the soldier and to make the legislation definite. I do not think I can put it any plainer. I have dealt with the two classes; one where the man owns the land, borrows money and gives the land as security.


Charles A. Stewart: That is
freehold.


William Alves Boys: Certainly. The other class
is where he has not the freehold; the title is in the crown.


Charles A. Stewart: It is in the ownership of the Department of the Interior for the crown. It is not the property of the Soldier Settlement Board.


William Alves Boys: In that event there is no
question whatever that the soldier cannot give any security.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, he can give security to the extent of his interest in the land.


William Alves Boys: Very well; that is done by
agreement, and the moment you give the crown notice of that it is binding. This section is useless. I venture to say that my friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power) could draft a section which would be much more easily construed. He must admit that this is very doubtful.


Charles Gavan Power: No, I do not admit that
this section is very doubtful at all. I did say that we had considerable trouble in drafting it. I understand it, but my difficulty is in making it clear to my hon. friends. I understand what we had in mind when we drafted it, and it covers the point we were then considering.


James Arthurs: That was in your head, not in the bill.


Charles Gavan Power: Partly. The trouble is I
cannot communicate what is in my head to thicker heads opposite! I apologize for that remark. I understand the point made by my hon. friend from Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark), and also by my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Boys), that it would be better to repeal section 26 altogether.


William Alves Boys: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: As a matter of fact that
was the first suggestion of the drafting committee in the report.


William Alves Boys: The first suggestion is generally the best.


Charles Gavan Power: If the hon. gentleman cares to read the report he will find it suggested that section 26 be repealed. While we were studying it later with the officers of the Soldier Settlement Board and with several members of the house who are familiar with the operations of the board, the question arose whether or not if we repealed section 26 we would not be going too f^r in taking away security from the crown.


William Alves Boys: Will you explain that?


Charles Gavan Power: I understand my hon.
friend's point. There is a direct obligation over and above the statutory one. We are in agreement up to this point, I take it. In endeavouring to repeal the statutory agreement we found that we had gone too far, in that we had lifted the mortgage from land which really should be subject to it under the terms of the contract.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes. The man makes a contract; he goes to the board and obtains an advance of money on the strength of the security which he has in his two parcels of land.


William Alves Boys: And that certainly binds both him and the land.


Charles Gavan Power: That binds him-


William Alves Boys: And the land too.


Charles Gavan Power: Contractually-


William Alves Boys: It binds both the man and his land.


John Arthur Clark: And any interest there may be in it.


Charles Gavan Power: And any interest or equity
there may be in the land.


William Alves Boys: Quite so.

Soldier Settlement Act


Charles Gavan Power: But it was in order to save the board from having to take proceedings on that contract that we retained the charge on the land-the statutory obligation. The reason will appear later on in the discussion of another section. The Soldier Settlement Board, though it does sometimes foreclose under the statutory charge, and has as a matter of fact sold lands under the enactment, has not taken action in the courts to obtain judgment and enforce the written agreement or contract. Apparently the board has always been reluctant to do this and I suppose it still is, so much so that it made representations to the members of the drafting committee with respect to the deficiencies. The idea was not to abandon altogether their recourse under the contract with regard to deficiencies, because that might permit fraud or allow a person with fraudulent intent to get something which he had no right to. But the information we had was to the effect that this contract has never been enforced, so that it was thought well to leave the statutory guarantee in. I do not know whether I have made clear the intention.


William Alves Boys: Does my hon. friend suggest that the statutory right is any higher than the contract of the man himself?


Charles Gavan Power: It involves much less
trouble.


William Alves Boys: I cannot see that. I agree with everything that my hon. friend has said except on the last point. He admits that the right exists against the land and the man, both, and if you passed fifty statutes you could not give the department more than that. What therefore is the sense of retaining the statutory provision?
MY. POWER: Because they keep the patent fo the land.


William Alves Boys: Of course they do; they keep it anyway.


Charles Gavan Power: My information is that
under the agreement they do not.


John Arthur Clark: But they can.


Charles Gavan Power: Under the agreement they do not. Apparently the agreement covered only the loan on the land, whereas the government of the day thought it well to go further and have a statutory charge on the land. We are lifting the statutory charge in every case. The statutory charge that existed in 1926 we are lifting in every case except that in which the man gives his new land as a guarantee for loans in connection with both it and the old. The former statute give them a lot more.


George Reginald Geary: Will the hon. member tell me this: Is there any charge against the land subsequently obtained in connection with any one of these transactions except the statutory charge contained in the old section 26?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


George Reginald Geary: Are you sure?


Charles Gavan Power: I think there is.


George Reginald Geary: Outside section 26?


James Layton Ralston: I do not know anything
about the Dominion Lands Act and therefore I am as well qualified to speak about it as anybody else. There seem to be three transactions involved. One transaction, in section 18, relates to the sale of stock and equipment, where security is provided-a statutory charge. There is another under section 19, where the charge is somewhat different; it is a first charge on the land of the settler or the land sold to him by the board. That indebtedness is created by advances for improvements-not advances in connection with the purchase of the land itself, but for improvements. Then section 25 provides for advances for the discharge of incumbrances This is the only section in which there is a specific charge on Dominion lands held by the settler. Under sections 18 and 19 there is no specific charge on Dominion lands which the settler held at the time the advance was made or the indebtedness created. But apparently section 26 has been introduced for the purpose of creating what I may call an omnibus charge not only on land then owned by the settler but on after-acquired land; and what is sought to be done by this amendment is to do away with that charge on afteracquired land. The object is to see that the board's security shall be preserved in so far as there is a charge on land owned by the settler at the time the indebtedness was incurred or the advance made. But as to the Dominion land which he may acquire in the future, there is to be no charge.


George Reginald Geary: Except under 26.


James Layton Ralston: Except under 26, and, I
may point out to my hon. friend, under 25 as well, which seems to provide for the very same thing. Section 26 provides for a charge not only in respect of money owing as a result of any sale made to the settler by the board, but otherwise, by reason of the exercise by the board of any of its powers under this act, and also in respect of advances made by the board pursuant to th*
Soldier Settlement Act

act. It seems to cover all possible forms of indebtedness which could be created under the act as between the board and the settler. It says, "You shall have a charge not only on Dominion lands at present owned but on lands hereafter to be owned"; and I take it that the object of the amendment-and apparently it was the object of the committee -is to do away with that charge on future acquired Dominion lands, leaving the board with the security on the lands owned by the settler at the time the loan was made or the obligation created.


Peter McGibbon: The minister is not
quite correct in his interpretation in the matter. The intention was to make it retroactive.


James Layton Ralston: It is retroactive in the
sense that if there is any indebtedness outstanding and there has been no settlement between the board and the settler, the charge which is created by section 26 shall not apply to Dominion lands acquired in the future.


Peter McGibbon: In the past a soldier
wanting to homestead would apply to the government for a loan for stock, and the government took not only the original security but his stock and notes as well. Is that correct?


James Layton Ralston: That is correct under section 26. That is one of the transactions covered by that section, under which the board had not only the security of the stock itself, but the security in connection with the land which he owned and Dominion land which he might acquire in the future.


Peter McGibbon: It was the intention
that the homestead land should be free; that is to say, the original farm plus his stock should be sufficient security for the additional loan, without taking in everything else. Is that right? Does it apply in that case?


James Layton Ralston: I think so.


Peter McGibbon: I want to be sure.


James Layton Ralston: It applies only to Dominion land which was owned by the settler before the advance was made; that must be what my hon. friend has in mind. If the settler owned land at the time the advance was made, the charge applies; if the land is acquired later the charge does not apply.


Peter McGibbon: That is exactly the
point; all this land will be still mortgaged. Our contention was that that advance was 
for stock; his original holding plus the stock should have been enough security without mortgaging these homesteads, and these mortgages should be lifted.


James Layton Ralston: I can only say that there are three kinds of security, as I was trying to point out; there are three different sections, and they deal with securities in varying terms. Then along comes section 26 and gathers all the land together as security. This section does away with that so far as it affects property later acquired.


James Arthurs: To a large extent I agree with the hon. member for Quebec South. I know he has had great difficulty in understanding this section, because earlier in the debate he said he had consulted ten or twelve lawyers before he really understood it. To me this section is about as clear as mud. I think the government have the right intention, as far as this Section goes; the intention of the committee was that the soldier should be relieved with regard to any land which he held in addition to the land previously mortgaged to the government. This has been more or less restricted by this section, since it does not apply to cases where men had homesteads before receiving a second loan, although in many cases the second loan was expended on the homestead itself. I am not opposed to protecting the government to that extent, but the main objection to the section is that it is not clear and distinct s'o that everyone can understand it without trouble. A second objection to the whole bill is that it does not go as far as the committee intended it to go. There was a special provision made by the committee, unless I am mistaken, providing that in cases where the assets of a defaulter or a man who had not made good on a farm were not sufficient to pay his indebtedness, he should be released from any future obligation to the government and that no further action could be taken against him. That is most important, because instead of homesteading land a man might purchase other land, and he would always have this claim of the government hanging over him no matter how long he stayed on the land or how hard he worked.
I think the act should be amended to include all the provisions recommended by the committee.


James Layton Ralston: That was the way the report was put before me, and I was given to understand, and I am within the hearing of members of the committee from both 6ides of the house, that on further consideration it was

Soldier Settlement Act
thought that the repeal of the whole section would be going too far, in that it would wipe out the security for loans made for other purposes besides the purchase of land itself.


James Arthurs: I did not question that point; I said I was in favour of that restriction which is now made. But there is the other point which has to do with a man being held liable for an indebtedness after he has been cleaned out.


James Layton Ralston: The repeal of section 26 would wipe out the security not only for indebtedness in respect to land purchased from the board but also for loans for stock and equipment and for improvements, and it was thought that security should be retained provided that it consisted of land owned at the time the advance was made. I understand that my hon. friend does not object to that. With regard to the deficiency my hon. friend is right; I see there is a provision in the statute covering deficiencies, but I understand that that is never invoked except in cases of fraud, and I understand further that the committee reported themselves perfectly satisfied that this section should be invoked in those cases. That is a matter of practice, and I make that statement within the hearing of the minister.


James Arthurs: We believe it should be in the statute rather than a matter of practice.


Charles Gavan Power: That is what I was trying
to explain a moment ago. As my hon. friend says, it is quite true that the committee was of opinion that these deficiencies should be wiped out and that the man who made a failure should be allowed to start with a clean sheet, but my hon. friend will find that under the act that charge would have applied to lands. There is a charge in the act now which applies to lands which he may obtain after he has been cleaned out. Under the Soldier Settlement Act he cannot make a fresh start unless he first pays back everything he owed to the board, and in addition to that under his contractual obligations, even if he left the land and opened a shop in the city, the board could follow him. It was found very inconvenient to do that; in fact, it was found impossible, and no case has arisen where that action has been taken by the board. We could have easily wiped out the deficiency when there was a question of new land being taken up, and I think we have done that by the new section 26. Any land the settler may take up now will not be charged with his debt; he may take it up now or after he has failed
and has settled with the board. The man who goes into the city and opens a shop is not protected in any way by any of our amendments.


James Arthurs: But the. settler who buys an adjoining farm to make a new start is not protected either.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes; we have wiped out
section 26.


James Arthurs: That applies only to
crown lands.


Charles Gavan Power: I think the hon. gentleman
is right, but when the settler obtains a patent that becomes his own land and is therefore private land.


James Arthurs: But suppose he purchases private land?


Charles Gavan Power: Then it is not crown land.


James Arthurs: He would not be protected against that.


Charles Gavan Power: I believe that is right, but
he is protected to the extent that the board will not sue him; it has not been the practice of the board to institute actions of this kind. Unless we pass legislation stating that the board no longer should have the right to enforce obligations under the act by appealing to the court, we must allow this section to remain in the statute. It must not be forgotten that we have to protect the government against fraud, and in view of the fact that it has not been the practice of the board to go before the courts to obtain judgment it was thought wise to leave with the board power to take this action in cases of fraud. If we placed an amendment in the act stating that this action could be taken only when there was fraudulent intent it would be necessary for the board to prove fraud, so we thought it best to leave these provisions in the act with the clear understanding that no soldier settlement board will take action except in cases of fraud, and in so doing I think the soldier is amply protected.


John Arthur Clark: May I ask a question? As I interpret the remarks of my hon. friend, they are to this effect:	He leaves the section as
drafted in the act. The department can take the law in its own hands and retain the man's patent, or retain the man's interest in the land; the man has no defence. If the section is not there, it may be necessary at some time for the department to take action in the courts, in which case the man would have a defence. Leaving the section in as it is, the department coidd take the law in its owe hands.
Soldier Settlement Act


Charles Gavan Power: They have not taken any
action.


William Alves Boys: I do not propose to repeat what I have said, but I want to read the explanatory note on another feature. This appears on the right hand side of the sheet:
It is also the committee's opinion that no deficiency which may remain on the resale of the lands or other property of a former settler whose agreement with the board has been terminated should be charged to or collectible from the said former settler, except in such cases where fraud or intent to defraud is shown.
It has been suggested that such a thing has never been done, and that such a thing never will be done. I do not think there is anybody in this house who has the right to speak for what may be done in the future. That will depend, no doubt, upon the contractual rights. What I rise to say is this: There certainly is nothing whatever in section 26 of this bill which in any way carries into effect the protection that is given the soldier by the explanatory note that I have just read. I might say further that I have been told that this particular bill was never considered by the committee as a whole, but that it was considered by a sub-committee. It does seem to me that the proper course to take is for this 'bill to go back to the committee for further 'consideration.


Charles Gavan Power: The report was read to the committee and concurred in.


James Arthurs: I want to say that the
member for North Simcoe (Mr. Boys) was mistaken.


William Alves Boys: I was speaking of the bill itself.


James Arthurs: The bill would not be before the committee.


William Alves Boys: That is what I am saying.


James Arthurs: The member for North Simcoe was taking up the point I brought forward a few minutes ago. We want to relieve the man of any deficiency which might exist, but I believe this should be statutory, and not at the whim of this or any other government. This land settlement scheme was for the purpose of placing soldiers on the land as settlers; we all agree on that. We are anxious to keep as many men as we possibly can on the land of the various provinces of Canada. If a man is sold out under this act and still believes that he can go on and make a success, either by the purchase of another farm, with the assistance of his friends or otherwise, or by locating land under the
[Mr. Dark.)
homesteads acts of the various western provinces, or the provinces in the east, that man should not have the threat held over him all the time that an action for the deficiency between the amount he agreed to pay and the amount his land brought under a forced sale 'will be brought by the soldier settlement board. That is the only point I am trying to 'make, and I think the minister would be well advised to make it statutory instead of following the practice which we believe is followed. It would be a great relief to many of these men to know they could not be proceeded against except in the ease of fraud.


Mr. ESLING:: May I ask the minister a Question with respect to the future operation 'of this act? Are there any advances being made now, or is there any provision for advances to returned men toward the purchase either of land or of equipment?


Robert Forke: No, there are no advances made.


William Kemble Esling: And there have not been any made since 1924, I understand?


Robert Forke: No.


William Kemble Esling: Why talk about the future? 'Is there going to be any provision made for this year? I have two or three applications from returned men who desire assistance, either in the purchase of land or in the purchase of equipment. Is it the intention of the government to make any provision for the returned men by way of advances?


Robert Forke: No, there has been nothing done since 1924; no money has been voted for that purpose.


William Kemble Esling: But have you made any provision for the future?


Robert Forke: No, I do not expect so.


Mr. CALLAN:: I have listened to the discussion, and it seems to me that the clause might be simplified and carry out the intent of the committee-an intent which has been expressed by the hon. member for Quebec South and by members on each side of the house-if it were made to read something like this:
When a settler obtains Dominion lands, whether by soldier grant or otherwise, such lands shall be subject to a first charge in respect of any advance thereafter made to him by the board, pursuant to this act-
Then follow the closing words:
-and no patent shall be issued to such settler for such lands until the amount of such advance, with accrued interest, has been fully repaid.

Soldier Settlement Act
If you bear in mind the fact that you wish to secure future advances, and future advances only, upon these Dominion lands so acquired, it seems to me that you might express it in a more simple and concise form, and prevent any possibility of such misunderstandings as have arisen in this discussion. It seems to me that the clause might be redrafted and made so simple and so clear as to obviate the criticisms which have been made during the course of the discussion this evening.


Charles Gavan Power: Will the hon. gentleman
read that again, please?


Mr. CAHAN:: When a settler obtains Dominion lands, whether by soldier grant or otherwise, such lands shall be subject to a first charge in respect of any advance thereafter made to him by the beard, pursuant to this act, and no patent shall be issued to such settler for such lands until the amount of such advance, with accrued interest, has been fully repaid.
That seems to me to carry out the intent of the hon. member for Quebec South.


Charles A. Stewart: While I was not a member of the committee I have discussed the matter at some length with members of the committee. Am I wrong in coming to this conclusion that what the committee really intended to do was to free Dominion lands, or crown lands, from the mortgage issued on the freehold, if at the date of the issuing of the mortgage, or subsequent to that date, the settler acquired those lands? That is what I think the committee had in mind-that the mortgage should apply only to the lands upon which it was issued, and not on the Dominion lands acquired after the issuing of the mortgage. I do not think you have done that.


Peter McGibbon: No, we have not.


Charles A. Stewart: Am I right
in supposing that?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Did I not cover that in
my suggestion-"shall be subject to a first charge in respect of any advances thereafter made"? It does not apply to previous advances; it only secures the advances thereafter made to such settler by the board, pursuant to this act.
Mr. RALSTON; Does my hon. friend think that covers the case of an actual sale of lands by the board-not the advance of money, but the sale of lands? That is What is covered also in this section.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: All I am suggesting is this
simple way of expressing it.


James Layton Ralston: It certainly saves a lot
of words.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And it might save a lot of
circumlocution. I suggest that it might be reconsidered. This committee seems to be unanimous in its intent, and it should be easy to find some form of expression which will cover it clearly.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, there are two points that we have just been discussing. The first is whether or not the mortgage, under the provisions of the amendment, will be freed from the crown lands acquired after the mortgage was issued, and, secondly-


William Alves Boys: That is not disputed. How
could you possibly free by statute lands upon which the man himself has a mortgage?


Charles A. Stewart: We are not speaking of that at all. Let me try to make it clear. As I gathered from the report of the committee what they are desirous of doing is this. Under section 26 as it is at present any land owned by the settler and even his canary and his cat come under the provision of the mortgage. What the committee want to do is this, that any land acquired from the crown by homesteading or otherwise by the settler after the execution of the loan should not be covered by the mortgage.


William Alves Boys: Quite so.


Charles A. Stewart: I doubt if
they have done that. Let us endeavour to get the matter clear so that we can amend the act properly. The second thing the committee desires is that it be made statutory, that except in case of fraud, he shall not be proceeded against for the deficiency.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: That being so, does the minister suggest that section 26 covers that? I am directing this question to the Minister of the Interior, he having elucidated the matter better than it has been done so far at this sitting. Is the department under section 26 prevented from suing a soldier for the money he owes?


Charles A. Stewart: He can be
sued. If we could get into our laymen's minds exactly what the committee want, then we had better take some time to redraft the bill properly.


William Alves Boys: We all know what we want,
and most of us feel that it is not to be found
Soldier Settlement Act

in the provisions of the bill. We are told that the committee reported on certain things. This is the report of the committee:
Your committee therefore recommends that an act be passed this session as follows:
An act to amend the Soldier Settlement Act.
His Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons enacts as follows:
1.	Subsection 4 of section 22 of the Soldier Settlement Act, being chapter 188 of the revised statutes of 1927, is amended by striking out all words following the word "settler" in the sixth line thereof.
2.	Section 26 of the said act is repealed.
I need not read the remainder. The bill that is before us-and I say this with all respect to the hon. member for Parry Sound -was never before that committee. The bill that was before that committee and the bill which it recommended is absolutely different from the bill now before the house. The committee recommended the repeal of section 26, and we find the extraordinary situation that although we have the committee recommending that repeal, a bill that has not been before them is introduced to carry into effect their report, but doing the very opposite. It may be intended to have the same purpose but it certainly has not. In view of the fact that the bill now before this committee was never before the special committee that dealt with the matter, would it not be wise that it should be referred to the committee for consideration so that some provision may be inserted which will protect the soldier in regard to the explanatory note which I read, and which I need not read again? It is not in the bill now, and if the intention is to relieve the soldier from any deficiency there may be, let us have something in the statute; do not let us leave it to the whim or caprice of some future minister or some official of the department. If you intend to give the soldier that right, to discharge him from that obligation, let us put it in the statute.


Charles Gavan Power: My hon. friend is quite
right in what he has just said with regard to the report of the committee. I will go further. The report of the committee recommended that the Soldier Settlement Act be amended in this respect:
Subsection 4 of section 22 of the Soldier Settlement Act, being chapter 188 of the revised statutes of 1927, is amended by striking out all words following the word "settler" in the sixth line thereof.
That covers the deficiency.


William Alves Boys: That is just what I read a
minute ago.


Charles Gavan Power: Section 26 we have already-discussed. Section 27 also had references to charges on the land. In order that my hon. friend may not have any doubt as to the bona tides of the Minister of the Interior-


William Alves Boys: I have none.


Charles Gavan Power: -or of the minister in
charge of the administration of this act-


William Alves Boys: I am not expressing any.


Charles Gavan Power: -may I tell him this, that the report of the committee passed the committee? The suggested amendments were looked over by the officers in charge of the land settlement board and they found that some of the amendments were not workable. With all due respect to all the lawyers on the committee, although we knew what we wanted, we had not arrived at a workable solution. For instance, in regard to the amendment to section 68, while I was discussing the matter with the Minister of National Defence, he pointed out that it was all very well to provide for a revaluation of certain lands, but we had not made any arrangements for a basis on which the revaluation could be made. Therefore we were obliged to consult with the officers of the Soldier Settlement Board in order to find out how we Could arrive at a reasonable basis. That has been done by the new amendment to the act.
The amendments that have reference to deficiencies and to the mortgage were thoroughly discussed by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thorson), the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean), the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) and myself. We met the officers of the Soldier Settlement Board and the law officers of the crown and on Friday night after continuous discussion we arrived at the drafting which is now before the committee. We were not in any way influenced, I can assure the committee, by either of the ministers, and our endeavour was to put before the house something which would be comprehensive. Evidently we did not succeed. I would suggest to the minister that he allow this clause to stand and I for one am perfectly willing to agree to this. We cannot ask that the bill be sent back to the committee because the committee is discharged, the report having been brought before the house and concurred in. But I think some of the committee members on the other side of the house and others would be quite willing to volunteer to join in a conference for the purpose of discussing the matter. I knctw members on this side of the house who are interested in land settlement will do like-

Dumping Duly-Mr. Tolmie
wise, and in view of the fact that we all have in mind the same thing; that there is no dispute with regard to the principle, I think by to-morrow or the next day we may arrive at some amendment which will be satisfactory to all parties. Perhaps the minister will accept that suggestion.


Robert Forke: I trusted to about half a dozen lawyers to draw up the bill and I now find there is a great deal of difficulty in regard to it. I move that the committee rise and report progress.


Alan Webster Neill: Might I repeat the suggestion I made before six o'clock that if the section is going to be amended it should read that when a settler-


Eugène Fiset: This motion is not debatable.


Charles Gavan Power: By consent of the committee.


John Arthur Clark: I do not propose to discuss the motion, but may I draw the minister's attention-


Eugène Fiset: The motion is not debatable.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY-DUMPING DUTY

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Victoria, B.C.):: I
wish to move an amendment to this motion, Mr. Speaker, and in doing so, to draw the attention of the house to a very important matter, namely, the application of a dumping duty applicable to certain agricultural products that are imported into Canada from time to time.
It must be realized by all that to build up the agriculture of Canada we must establish and maintain stable markets in which the producer can dispose of his products at a profit. In Canada we find that our crops are divided practically into two divisions. Some of our crops are those which keep well and can be shipped long distances, and owing to *that and to our soil and climatic conditions as well, and to the condition of the world's market and the shortage of supply, we can put these crops on the market at a profit. Owing to the very nature of these products we can also hold them from time to time until we have an opportunity to sell them to the very best advantage. On the other hand, we are producing soft fruits and vegetables of various kinds, poultry and poultry products, and so forth. With regard to the
fruits and vegetables, they are of such a nature that an immediate sale must be obtained for them; otherwise a loss is experienced.
The United States, located to the south of the border line, and enjoying a very much earlier season, is able to dispose of her early products to great advantage in the large, populous and wealthy centres in that country', and a little later on, when her markets begin to be satisfied, she looks for other suitable markets in which to dump her surplus products. These products are shipped north into Canada in preference to forcing them on the home markets in the United States and spoiling those markets. These products come into Canada in competition with the early crops in this country, and they have a very serious effect on the results obtained by our producers. We have as an illustration of that the poultry business, the production of eggs, and so forth, which has now reached a very large figure in this country. We find that in California they have spring weather in December, January and February, when the poultry down there are producing their egg crop at the very lowest cost of the whole season, while the producers in Canada have to house their fowl and keep them at much greater expense, and are producing at the very highest peak of cost. Then we have in British Columbia a country that is milder than eastern Canada, a province that is especially well-fitted for the production of poultry and poultry products. We can ship to the big markets in eastern Canada, such as Montreal and Toronto and other places, at a season of the year before their local poultry have begun to produce at a profit. That presents a tremendous opportunity for the British Columbian to build up a great trade in the east, but when he ships his produce there, unless protected by the dumping clause as he has been for some short time, he finds that when his produce reaches that market it meets with the surplus production from the southern states, their end of the season crop, when their produce has to be sold very cheap, and the result is that the market is demoralized to a great extent.
As a striking illustration in fruit, take apricots. We have 'California, Oregon and some other states to the south all producing apricots. They sell their best quality apricots in the large centres of the United States, securing a high price for them, and then when it comes to disposing of their surplus crop, instead of spoiling their local market by forcing their sale, lowering prices to do so, they ship them north into Canada, and a

Dumping Duty-Mr. Tolmie
great advertising campaign is carried on to help dispose of them. They are several weeks ahead of our producers in the Okanagan, and when our first class product reaches the market we find that the shelves of the housewife have already been filled to a great extent by American trash. It was to meet such a condition as that, that the dumping clause was first introduced by Mr. Fielding in 1907.	It provided that the
specific duty was not to exceed 15 per cent under any conditions. But in 1920 it was discovered that the dumping clause had been evaded to a great extent, and that it had been of really no protection to the fruit and vegetable growers in the way it was being applied up to that time. In 1921 it was amended and the duty was based on the cost of production, so that a reasonable figure was charged on these products from the south, and the protection thus received' by the producers in Canada was found by them to be very advantageous indeed. In 1922 this was repealed, and clause 47a was added to the Customs Act, whereby the duty was based on the fair market value, such value being fixed by the Minister of Customs. Very little action was taken under this clause for some time, and finally an order in council was passed' authorizing the minister actually to fix the various estimates of what a fair charge was. This list was prepared and published, and gave great satisfaction to the dealers throughout the country because it established stability to a certain extent. In 1926, and later, it was generally enforced, with excellent results indeed.	The experience with the
dumping clause has been that it has not increased the prices of the products to the local consumer. We have found that by stabilizing our home market it has had the effect of encouraging greater production, with the result that our home production soon meets our home requirements, and as far as prices are concerned the competition between the various producers in this country regulates that feature.
The value of a dumping clause depends, first of all, very greatly upon its continuity and steady enforcement, so that a man is enabled to figure from one year to another, whether he is a buyer of these products, a dealer, or the producer on the land.
Secondly, we must have a fair conception of the market value. We progressed very well with the dumping clause, and it was found very advantageous to the producers, but on the 19th of March last, 1928, we found that this dumping clause was cancelled by the government. This has had a demoralizing effect and has given rise to a great deal

of discussion throughout the whole of this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific. This was clearly shown the other day at the meeting held in this building when a large delegation from all parts of the Dominion met members of the cabinet and discussed this matter very fully.
Now, the fixing of values on the importation of certain commodities into Canada is not entirely new. I remember years ago after there had been a very heavy settlement of the ranching districts of Oregon, Washington and Idaho, that a large number of horse ranches were closed up owing to the depreciation in the value of the stock. These animals were shipped into Canada several hundred at a time. I remember inspecting one train load of over three hundred head. Some of those horses on their home ranges were not worth more than five or ten dollars a head. To meet this situation our tariff was amended so that those animals were valued at not less than fifty dollars per head, thus assuring the payment of a duty of $12 50 on each animal. That had a very excellent effect for it kept out of this country a lot of cheap breeding stock that would have been detrimental to the horse breeding of the Dominion.
The present situation is one of urgency. It should be dealt with immediately. Some of these vegetable crops are now coming on the market. By the handling of these crops with a little care, by stabilizing our market, we can greatly increase our production not only along the lines I have mentioned but along other lines that are of importance to Canada. To be effective we must have quick action, otherwise the market is broken before the remedy can be applied. In addition to this, we must have such legislation as will anticipate the coming of various shipments. If we have to wait until a shipment arrives at the boundary line before we can get an order in council passed, I am afraid the procedure will be too slow to be effective. What we want is to be in a position immediately to meet any shipments which it is intended to dump here and take the requisite steps to exclude them except under certain conditions. I repeat, the case is most urgent, and I hope after the interview which the government had with the delegates from all parts of the country a few days ago, they fully realize the importance of speedy action and will take a sympathetic view of the whole situation.
Before reading the amendment I may refer to the fact that in the course of his remark*

Dumping Duly-Mr. Mackenzie King
the other day to the delegation the right hon Prime Minister said, referring to hot house tomatoes, asparagus and canteloup, that some of these were not even produced in this country. I would point out to the right hon. gentleman that that is not exactly so. We are producing asparagus of excellent quality in many parts of Ontario and also in British Columbia. As to hothouse tomatoes, they are produced of the very highest quality in British Columbia and in the east, and under present conditions without the protection of a dumping clause they are forced to come into competition with tomatoes sent up from the southern states, the product of Mexican peon labour. With regard to canteloup, I think growers in the east have established a great reputation for what is known as the Montreal melon. I do know that in the southern Okanagan valley our returned soldiers are producing a canteloup at Oliver, British Columbia. It is very thin of rind, rich in flavour, and second to none. Once you try an Oliver canteloup you are eager to order a case. I am quite sure that if this district is given an opportunity it will soon build up an extensive trade in the Oliver canteloup from one end of Canada to the other.
I beg to move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by Mr. Charters:
That all the words after the word "that" be stricken out and the following substituted therefor:
In the opinion of this house the necessary action should be taken by the government forthwith to effectively control the importation into Canada, either on sale, or on consignment, of natural products of a class or kind produced in Canada under conditions which prejudicially or injuriously affect, or threaten to prejudicially or injuriously affect, the interests of Canadian producers.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker. I might say to the house that the government received no intimation whatever of the intention of the opposition to move this amendment until after the hon. member (Mr. Tolmie) who has just spoken was on his feet. It is customary, when an amendment is to be moved to the motion to go into committee of supply, particularly as in such a ease it is equivalent to a motion of non-confidence in the government, that notice should be given in advance to the administration in order that the ministers who are immediately concerned will be certain of being in their places and in a position to make reply. I regret that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), who was here a few minutes ago, has gone to another
part of the building. Pending his return I shall say a few words with regard to the amendment.
The amendment implies that at the present time there is no power in the hands of the government to take action where necessary "forthwith to effectively control the importation into Canada, either on sale or on consignment, of natural products of a class or kind produced in Canada, under conditions which prejudicially or injuriously affect, or threaten to prejudicially or injuriously affect, the interests of Canadian producers." I may say that there is on the statute books a clause in one of the acts which was passed by this parliament some years ago designed to serve this very purpose. It is a part of the Customs Act and was designed for the express purpos'e of giving to the administration power to take action in case of necessity. I will read the clause, and I think hon. members will see at once that it almost parallels in its phraseology the terms of the amendment. Section 43 of the Customs Act provides:
If at any time it appears to the satisfaction of the governor in council on a report from the minister, that natural products of a class or kind produced in Canada are being imported into Canada, either on sale on on consignment, under such conditions as prejudicially or injuriously to affect the interests of Canadian producers, the governor in council may, in any case or class of cases, authorize the minister to value such goods for duty, notwithstanding any other provisions of this act, and the value so determined shall be held to be the fair market value thereof.
That clause has never been repealed. My hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Tolmie) has referred to a rather important delegation which, as he remarked, waited upon the government a few days ago, within the precincts of this chamber. The members of that delegation for the most part came here under the impression that the power just referred to had 'been taken away from the administration, and they were here to request that a new section should be enacted which would restore the power so repealed. They were somewhat surprised to learn that they had evidently been misinformed as to what had taken place with respect to the matters in which they were interested, and to learn that the power which resides in the governor in council and under which alone, during the past years, it has been possible to take action of the character referred to in the amendment of my hon. friend, still resides in the governor in council and has in no sense been affected by any action on the part of the administration.
,Mr. LADNER:	That is really the whole
point of the debate. Does the Prime Min-
2814	COMMONS
Dumping Duty-Mr. Mackenzie King
ister say there is provision under the act giving authority to the governor in council to pass an order in council to apply the dumping duty? I am informed that the Department of Justice has ruled that no such power as this exists under section 6.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not aware of the ruling to which my hon. friend refers. What I am aware of is the statute before me at the present time, and the clause which I have just read to the house is the clause in the Customs Act as it appears to-day. I would respectfully submit-


Leon Johnson Ladner: The section to which the
Prime Minister is referring is not linked up with the other section giving power to apply the dumping duty, and that is the fault in the whole thing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot enter into an argument with my hon. friend on matters in respect of which I cannot speak with authority or with full knowledge, but I can say to him that the section of the Customs Act which was framed for the purpose of preventing the importation of natural products of a class or kind produced in Canada, at rates which would be prejudicial to or which would injuriously affect such products in Canada, still remains on the statute, and the governor in council has authority to act under that section.


Leon Johnson Ladner: And apply the dumping
duty?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The governor
in council has the power to fix the rate at which these goods are to be valued when coming into the country.


Leon Johnson Ladner: But that merely makes it
subject to an ad valorem duty; it does not make it incumbent on the governor in council to apply the dumping duty. That is the point of the debate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With respect
to the importation of natural products from other countries at rates which would be prejudicial to the producers of Canada, the method which this parliament has said should be adopted as an effective means of preventing that sort of thing has been to give the governor in council in cases of emergent necessity power to fix the valuation at which these commodities shall be admitted by the Department of National Revenue. That means is provided in the statute at the present time; the power to exercise that right still resides in the governor in council. I submit therefore, with respect to the amendment moved by my hon. friend, that the necesity for such a motion 
does not appear inasmuch as the power rests already with the government for this express purpose. There is no doubt that there is wide misapprehension throughout the Dominion as to that power still residing in the government. Circulars were sent out from interested parties to horticultural organizations in different parts of the Dominion, which I gather created the impression that in some manner this power has been taken away from the administration; and the delegation to which my hon. friend refers waited upon the government with the express object of emphasizing the necessity for having that power restored. They were, as I have said, very much surprised when they were told that the power had not been taken away, but that it still resided in the governor in council.
I am informed by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) that at the present time there are no representations before the Department of Customs with respect to any commodities coming into this country in a manner such as to necessitate action by the governor in council in accordance with the terms of the section of the Customs Act to which I have just referred. Should such a necessity arise, there is power for the governor in council to take action. And the governor in council proposes, as circumstances arise which appear to justify action under this clause, in keeping with the intention of parliament, to see that such action shall be taken as may be necessary. But I desire to make it very clear to this house that the governor in council does not purpose to usurp the powers of parliament with respect to fixing the rates of duty that should govern commodities coming into the country. The right to levy or fix customs duties, which are a form of taxation, is a right which no parliament that has any regard for British procedure will ever delegate to a governor in council or to an executive. So far as the collection or the imposition of customs duties is concerned, that is a responsibility for parliament; and when the government finds it necessary to impose additional customs duties on any class of products it will come to parliament and ask for the authority so to do. The government does not construe the clause to which I have referred as giving to the cabinet the right to fix duties, as the House of Commons would have the right to fix them. What it does construe the clauses as giving to the governor in council power to do is to meet emergent conditions, where producers of natural products in this country are placed at a disadvantage and prejudicially affected by situations, arising in other countries, which

Dumping Duty-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)
could not be foreseen and which are of a temporary character, and such as parliament would not likely provide against from one year's end to the other.
I say therefore, with respect to this motion, that the necessary authority has already been given by parliament to the governor in council to deal with the situation to which my hon. friend has referred. There is no way in which that power could be increased except by the decision of parliament itself to raise the duties which are to be levied on natural products coming into this country. I submit that the moment to consider that question is when the house is in committee of ways and means, with budget resolutions before it proposed by the Minister of Finance, and not by an amendment brought forward upon a motion to go into supply, which is the equivalent of a motion of want of confidence in the administration.


Mr. GOTT:: I want to ask the Prime Minister one question. Is he aware of the fact that order in council No. 1088 did not increase the tariff on vegetables imported from the United States?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry I
have not in mind just what order in council 1088 is. I do not know the orders by number.


Eccles James Gott: The one we are discussing
under 47a of the Customs Act.


Hewitt Bostock: Is the house ready for
the question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.
And Mr. Speaker proceeding to put the question:


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, before you
proceeded to put the question the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) was on his feet.


Lucien Cannon: He can look after himself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But other hon. gentlemen on this side wanted to speak.


Mr. PARENT:: The hon. member can
withdraw his feet whenever he likes.


Hewitt Bostock: Does the hon. member
for Weyburn desire to speak?


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: No.


Hewitt Bostock: The spirit does not move the hon. member.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The point is this: The
hon. member was on his feet and a member on our side was to follow, but Your Honour called the question.
Mr. SPEAKER- The question has not been put, and if any hon. member wishes to speak he may do so now.


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I shall not take up very
much of the time of the house in discussing this amendment, but I should like to call attention to the fact that this amendment expresses the opinion that the necessary action should be taken by the government forthwith -not after they have received certain notices and spent several days in consideration of the matters presented to them, but forthwith- with a view to protecting the interests of our producers. The amendment suggests that action should be taken forthwith to effectively control the importation into Canada, either on sale or on consignment, of natural products of a class or kind produced in Canada under conditions which prejudicially or injuriously affect-and I wish to emphasize the next words-or threaten to prejudicially or injuriously affect the interests of the Canadian producer. There are a few people in the constituency which I have the honour to represent who will be benefited by a resolution of this kind, and I would like to present to the house one or two reasons why . action should be taken forthwith not only to protect our producers against the importation of goods now but to protect them against improper importations with which they are threatened.
Let us consider for a moment the advantages enjoyed by producers of these articles in the United States. If you go to the southern states you will find that they have the advantage of cheap Mexican and negro labour, and that the wages they pay are very much lower than those paid by Canadian producers. I am sure everyone will admit that the southern producer has a decided advantage in that respect. Then I point to a second advantage: The Canadian producer must be satisfied with the production of one crop during the year, but the southern producer is able to produce two or three crops, due to the more favourable climate. I have indicated two advantages which seem to me apparent as being enjoyed by the southern producer as against the producer in Canada, but there is still another point which must be considered. The American producer has three markets, two high price markets and one low price or medium price market, while the Canadian producer under existing conditions has only one market, which is a low price or medium price market. In the first place, the United States producer has the advantage of the high price which is paid
2816	COMMONS
Dumping Duty-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)
when he first places his vegetables and fruits on the market. After a time producers in other parts of the United States compete with him and he gets the medium or low price market. The Canadian producer has no opportunity to compete in the high price American market, for the very good reason that Canadian products are not available at that time. When Canadian vegetables and fruits are brought to the Canadian market, and when the Canadian producer should be obtaining the high price which will make his business profitable, his products are thrown into competition with American products which have been on the American market for weeks. So I say the American producer, in addition to the advantages of cheap labour and climate which enable him to produce two or three crops in a season, has the further advantage of a home market in which a high price is paid for fresh products and in which he meets no Canadian competition; he has first entry into our market, securing the highest prices paid here, and therefore has two high price markets and one medium price market while the Canadian producer has to take a lower price for his products.
Let us apply this argument to strawberries. American strawberries appear on the Canadian market before our strawberries are ready, and they command a high price here after having also obtained a high price in their own country. By the time our strawberries are ready for the market the American strawberries have broken the market so that our producers must take a low or medium price for what they have to sell. Again, by the time our Canadian strawberries are ready for the market the American raspberries come in at a high price and compete with the Canadian article, which is absolutely unfair.
One may theorize as much as hr likes with regard to matters of free trade and so on, but there should be something like fair play for our producers. I do not care what party is in power or who makes the tariff; they may theorize as much as they please with regard to the principles of Cobden and Bright, but any government or party framing a tariff for Canada should in all fairness take into consideration the climatic conditions prevailing in this country and in the countries with which Canada must compete. That is a matter of fair play to our Canadian producers, and it does seem to me that eome-* times hon. gentlemen, perhaps with the best intentions in the world, in their theorizing on trade matters, entirely overlook the kind of climate we have in Canada, which places our producers at a disadvantage as com oared

with producers in other countries where the climate is milder.
A number of years ago the Canadian producer had some protection quite apart from the tariff; the difficulty and expense of transportation afforded him some protection, but to-day distance is not measured in miles but in minutes or hours. We do not say it is so many miles to Winnipeg; we say it will take so many hours to go there. Transportation facilities all over the world have so improved and cold storage appliances have been so perfected in recent years that in so tar as trade is concerned the advantage of distance has been practically overcome.
I do submit, on behalf of the people in my own constituency who are engaged in producing these vegetables and fruits, that in all fairness to them I should enter my protest against existing conditions and express my approval of an amendment which has as its object giving our Canadian producers fair play and a decent, reasonable opportunity to compete with their own produce in their own home market.


Mr. ROCH LANCTOT (Laprairie-Napier-ville) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I entered the house just as the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Tolmie), the ex-minister of Agriculture, was discussing Canadian vegetables. I strongly favour the policy of giving protection to our farmers, for they are greatly in need of it. However, after discussing the matter over with my hon. colleagues on this side, when the question was brought to their attention by the delegation from Quebec and other parts of the country which came to Ottawa, the right hon. Prime Minister pointed out to us the tariff that was agreed upon in 1926, for a period of twelve months. People living in towns openly advocated that we should not enact too high a tariff, because certain kinds of vegetables are not grown in the province of Quebec or in any other province. I agreed with their views that we should have a seasonal tariff. I agree with all those who advocate a protective tariff for our vegetables seeing that we have the Americans competing against us. We must bear in mind that the United States grow vegetables at all seasons, while we have but one season to produce them. There are in my riding a few thousand farmers who grow vegetables, and I wish to state that our crop of potatoes, tomatoes and a great quantity of garden products were very remunerative last year. I am still in favour of giving this protection to my people who have treated me so kindly ever since I have had the, honour to represent them in this house. Later on when Que-

Dumping Duty-Mr. Lanctot
bee will have its own supply of potatoes and other garden vegetables, I shall be among those who will come to Ottawa to interview the Minister of Customs, the right hon. Prime Minister and his colleagues, and request them to apply the seasonal tariff of which we shall then be in need for a period of three or four months, as the case may be. This will also apply to all the vegetables grown in my county.
I have on many occasions stated in my riding, and I 'have also told a number of my colleagues in this house, that last year we enjoyed a protective tariff and that we made money. We are indeed very grateful. There must not be only one class of society to enjoy protection. We give protection to the manufacturers of this country; therefore, I state that it is high time to also protect the farmers. Since there is a contention put forth at -present, that the salaries of a certain class of people are not sufficiently high, it is also time that we look after the interests of the farmers. The country may 'be prosperous for certain classes of people but it is not so for the farming element. If there is one person who has a knowledge of farming conditions,
I should be the one, for I am a hay and grain dealer in the county of Laprairie-Napier-ville. I endeavour to give the farmers, who work day and night to supply the Montreal market with garden products, all the protection possible.
I did not expect to deal with this question, but since my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Tolmie) brought on this debate, I deem it my duty to plead for a few moments the cause of my constituents. I wish to state, sir, that I shall bear in mind the statements which were again made to-night by the right hon. Prime Minister: that we should have a higher protective tariff than we have at present, in order that our country may benefit from the sale of early potatoes. Last year, in my own county, we sold on the Montreal market thousands of bags of potatoes; we were able to compete with the Americans on our own markets. The people of Laprairie-Napierville did not sell their potatoes at the price the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) paid for them last year, that is $12.50 per barrel, they were sold at $5.50 and $6 per barrel, or $3 per bag for the first week, gradually coming down in price to $1.50 per bag, and we were quite satisfied. I state that by an intensive production and a protective tariff we would do away with American competition on our own markets.
There are in my riding four factories, canning tomatoes, peas, beans and com. That goes to show that our tomato production is 56103-179
considerable. Why not encourage our farmers and force the Americans to stay in their own country? Why should the Americans have a market in this country to sell their vegetables, when they have a population of 115,000,000 people? That is why in closing my remarks I state: it is more than time to protect our truck farmers and the farmers as a whole. Had I my notes with me I could discuss this question more at length, but I did not think this subject would come up this evening.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: Tariff
legislation, Mr. Speaker, seems to be going up and up, step by step, and I am surprised that a Liberal government in power can apply a measure of this kind to the food of the people. This measure was applied last summer and raised the price of certain natural products to a valuation somewhere about two or three hundred per cent above what any of our growers got for them. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said, the government still has the power, and they have applied it this year to the very limit. The hon. gentleman sa-id a word or two about the rights of parliament. I want to say right here that this measure, known as the dumping act-call it what you like- has rendered parliament practically a nonentity. No one knows at present what duty is going to be paid on any of these natural products. No one knows what valuation the appraisers will put on these articles, and the duty is collected accordingly. They say that it is only put on during emergent conditions. Emergent conditions, sir, are a matter of opinion only. It has a very wide meaning, something like what our Conservative friends used to call "adequate protection." No one knows what it means, where it begins, or where it stops. Anyway, parliament has been rendered practically a nonentity during the application of this measure. The government still has the power, and it has used it to the detriment of every consumer in this country. They say it is a producers' measure. It is not a producers' measure, and I do not think it was meant to be a producers' measure. It was meant only to be a distributors' measure, and they are the only class that has so far been profited by it.	_
Last year, I say, this measure was applied, and the result was -the raising of the prices to those who had already filled their warehouses. The prices paid to the Canadian producer were similar to what has been paid in years gone by. Take British Columbia apples; there is about 600 per cent difference



Dumping Duty-Mr. Evans
between the valuation on a box of apples and what the consumer pays for it. From 50 to 80 cents was the price paid this last year for British Columbia apples. Boxes valued at that price, have been selling in the retail stores in Saskatoon-I have taken particular notice of it-at something between $3.25 and $3.75 each. If any further dumping is needed on the food of the people, I do not know of it. The first anti-dumping order on vegetables and fruits was put into effect on July 14, 1926, during the short time that the Conservative party was in power, and tomatoes, cucumbers, celery, onions, potatoes, 'beets, spinach, cauliflower and so on were in some cases raised two hundred per cent in valuation over the cost price. Peaches and raspberries actually went up three hundred per cent. This was long before the Canadian growers of these commodities came forward asking for any concession or any seasonal tariff, but it was done, I say, by the Tory party during the short time they were in power in 1926. The first order that was imposed on July 14, 1926, was to all intents and purposes imposed after the importers got stocked up on some of these main lines. A week or two later plums, prunes and so on received attention and as regards most of these articles it seemed that the new duty was to be permanent.
The Liberal government after it took power rescinded this order on most varieties of fruits on October 5, 1926, but it was left on certain of the vegetables until February 8, 1927, so as to prevent importations that would spoil the price, not for the growers, but for the importers, packers and dealers who handle the stuff. Hardly any of this stuff is brought out by the farmer later than the end of November and the fact that freer trade existed after those dates did not help the consumer at all. It is on apples that the greatest incongruity of all these manipulations exists. On September 2 an anti-dumping order was issued which fixed the value for duty purposes at 300 per cent higher than the price the growers received that year, and the special duty was maintained by the Liberal government until February 23. when the big dealers announced that they could not buy enough Canadian apples to supply the demand. Therefore, while the duty was removed the price to the consumer remained the same and no one except the dealer was benefited by the putting on or taking off of the special duty. Surely these figures go to show that the man who needs *the benefit does not get it. The tariff is an incongruity in all its phases. It is an economic fallacy from the beginning. As I say,
TMr. Evans.]
the one who needs the benefit never gets it. If the duty was removed the price to the consumer remained the same so' that no one benefited but the dealer.
Boxes of apples were valued as follows:
Extra fancy, medium and large.. ..	$1 80
Smaller sizes of same	 1 50
Fancy in small sizes	 1 25
Combination fancy and C grade	 1 35
Unwrapped jumble pack	 1 20
Small, fancy and C grade in baskets.. 1 20
I have under my hand a letter from the Minister of National Revenue under date of November 18, 1927, with a letter attached giving full information as to the price of apples, in regard to which I was at the time seeking information. The attached letter is signed by Mr. A. Fulton, Chief, Markets Extension Service, and is dated October 17, 1927. I find that the figures that I have given are just about the same as his, but I want to say that the price of Macintosh Reds to the consumer in Saskatoon was $3.25, on January 6, 1928. The price to the retailer when they were shipped by freight was 15 cents higher. Mr. Fulton in his letter states:
It is impossible at this date to state what prices the producer will procure for his apples until they are all finally shipped. Last year's average price to the producer averaged between 50 to 80 cents per box according to variety.
This is an authoritative statement showing that the value for customs purposes was fixed at 250 per cent higher than the price the grower received. No one cares for the producer. I have said in the house before and I do not mind repeating it that it looks as if this was done for the benefit of those who can bargain with the government or with politicians. I -have yet to hear a better reason why the interest of the consumer is traded off in this way.
On January 6, 1928, fancy apples were retailing in Saskatoon at $3.25 or 400 per cent above the price that the grower received during the time the anti-dumping act was in full operation under both the Liberal and the Tory regimes. On June 1st last a new set of orders were issued reviving the anti-dumping duty, and on this occasion the length of time that the duties were to be in force was specified. Let me take as examples: asparagus. 10 cents per pound from April 15 to June 30; lettuce, a duty of 3 cents per pound all the year round, and strawberries, 10 cents per pound from June 1 to July 31.
Again on June 14 another order was issued covering other fruits and vegetables. Onions and lettuce are covered for the whole year by the anti-dumping duty. It covers a long list of fruits and vegetables on which the

Dumping Duty-Mr. Anderson (Halton)
duty will now be about 75 per cent to 100 per cent in some cases, higher than before, although most of these were protected by a high duty before the seasonal tariff was imposed, and they were very profitable before to the big dealer and importer. The value for customs purposes of these foodstuffs will henceforth bear no relation to the price the grower in a foreign country may receive from the Canadian importer; it will be guaged entirely by the need of the importer, and l think as well by the campaign election fund of the party. During the session of 1925 the Conservative party declared that what they needed was an elastic tariff. This was also mentioned at the Winnipeg convention, I remember. Well, here we have it. They used to work hard on a "brick for brick'' policy, but I think they found that Uncle Sam could sling brickbats just as well as any Canadian. It seems now that elastic is safer than bricks and it can be stretched and manipulated to meet all kinds of conditions.
I am in favour of keeping the cost of living as low as it is possible to get it, and if Canada is to be an exporting nation, if wo are to prosper, we must keep down the cost of living in this country so that it is in line with other countries. Then, too, I believe that the worker has a perfect right to all these succulent foods which now only the rich can buy. I think it is time the government considered abolishing an act of bondage of this kind. Dumping legislation was first of all enacted by the Canadian government. It seems that we have led in acts of privilege, at least since 1878, and since 1896 still more It was 1904 that saw the introduction of this measure, and it has been nothing but a measure of bondage ever since. It was put on for the benefit only of those who can make a bargain with the party that is in power at the time.


Robert King Anderson: We
have just listened to the one consistent and whole-time free trader in the house, the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans). The hon. gentleman is always advocating free trade. If he were anything else but a wheat grower and a producer of free trade arguments he would probably want protection, but as those products do not need anything of that kind, he is consistently a free trader. If he had listened to the arguments presented by the very large and representative delegation which waited upon the government about a week ago, he would-have heard some fairly good reasons why the use of the dumping &6103-1794
clause was in the interests of the consumer. The hon. gentleman says that it is not in the interest of the consumer, but the delegation contended, and they gave their reasons why, that the dumping clause was in the interest of the consumers in the Dominion of Canada. They instanced the fact that if we did not conserve the fruit and vegetable industry and the poultry industry in this country, we would have to look outside of Canada for our fruits and vegetables and poultry products, in which case these gentlemen claim that it will cost the Canadian consumer very much more than he is paying to-day. They instanced the fact that only last year when the production of fruits in the United States was rather small and scarcely sufficient to supply their own needs, the Canadian market was supplied by our home production in Canada, and the prices of fruits here were very much less than they were in other years. The fact that there was no importation from the United States did not increase the price of the product in Canada.
I was very much impressed with that delegation. They were representative men, coming from all parts of Canada, and representing a large and important industry in this country. If you look up the figures you will find that the production of fruits and vegetables in this country is very large indeed. I have here some figures with regard to that industry which I received from the Bureau of Statistics. They show that from 1922 up to the present the industry has been shrinking. The production of fruits and vegetables in 1922 amounted to $55,855,000;	1923,
$58,000,000; 1925, $48,000,000; 1927, $46,000,000, showing a slight reduction each year, because, so the delegation claimed, of the inadequate protection which the industry receives on its products.
The delegation are not asking for very much. They ask that the Canadian market be conserved for their products; that is, that the Americans shall not have the privilege of sending their products in here at any and all times, flooding our market with their surplus products, which are sold at lower prices than prevail here.
The hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) in his remarks this evening gave the reason why the Canadian producer of fruits and vegetables cannot compete with the American producer. It is largely due to climatic conditions. In the United States the weather is very much milder and they can produce their products cheaper. They have a larger market at home, and they can supply lint market in the average year and have a
2820	COMMONS
Banking and Commerce-Mr. Woodsworth
surplus. Some of their products starting from the southern states are sent up to the large cities in the United States, and sometimes they reach the Canadian border without finding a purchaser. They are consequently dumped upon the Canadian market simply for the cost of the freight.
On motion of Mr. Anderson (Halton) the lebate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, May 9, 1928