1928-05-29

[Stage Direction]
Third report of the select Standing committee on standing orders-Mr. Morin (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville).


[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. S. R. MORIN (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville) moved that Bill No. 341, to incorporate the Eastern Bank of Canada be referred to the select standing committee on banking and commerce.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 342, for the relief of Frank Deer-ing.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 343, for the relief of Miary Mabel Jennie Potten Impey.-Mir. Church.
Bill No. 344, for the relief of Cyril Wilfred King.-Mr. Sanderson.
Bill No. 345, for the relief of Myrtle Adelia Baker Kn-auff.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 346, for the relief of James Harvey Lefurgey.-Mr. Garland (Carieton).
Bill No. 347, for the relief of Hilda Evelyn McDowell.-Mr. Jelliff.
Bill No. 348, for the relief of Catherine Ellen Mobbs.-Mr. Jelliff.
Bill No. 349, for the relief of Edith Elizabeth Poole.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 350. for the relief of Henry Frederick White.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 351, for the relief of Frederick Clayiton Wilton.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 352, for the relief of Lillian May Yuill.-Mir. Lennox.
Bill No. 353, for the relief of Ruth Ellen Braund.-Mr. Garland (Carieton).
Bill No. 354, for the relief of Harry Allven Heels.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 355, for the relief of Francis Augustus Pearce.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 356, for the relief of Florence Anne Salmon.-Mr. Price.
Bill No. 357, for the relief of Rocco Scocoo. -Mr. Church.
Bill No. 358, for the relief of Mary Audry Smith.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
On division.

International Relations
3495 .


[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. R. MoINTOSH (North Battleford) moved:
That the third and final report o£ the select standing committee on industrial and international relations, presented to the house on the 16th instant, be amended as follows:
By striking out paragraph 8 thereof, and substituting the following therefor, namely:
Your committee further recommends that 750 copies in English and 250 copies in French of this report, and the evidence upon which it is based, be printed in blue book form, and that standing order No. 64 be suspended in reference thereto.
And that the third report, as so amended, be concurred in.
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is a rather extraordinary procedure. I presume it is possible and in order to move that the report be concurred in. Personally, I have not had time to read the report, and if we are to insist on going forward with this report to-day I shall ask that Your Honour order the report read. There is another point, Mr. Speaker. Is it competent for a committee that has made a final report -which I understand the committee had made previous to the report now before us-to come back to the house and amend that final re-ipont? As I understand it, a committee is discharged when it makes its final report.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is a standing committee.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is suggested that it is
a standing oommittee, but if a standing committee makes a final report surely it is not in order again to meet and offer an amendment to that final report without having been instructed by the house. It may appear that this point is rather finely drawn, but it is an extraordinary and unusual procedure. This report is one of considerable importance and I do not think the house should be asked to concur in it blindly, particularly in view of the rather unusual course which is being pursued.


Mr. McINTOSH:: The report, as stated by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) was presented to the house over a week ago. All the amendment proposes is a change in a very unimportant part of the report, that is, in the number of copies of the report to be issued. There is no amendment to any of the important items in the report, and the report has been before the house for almost two weeks.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi):: The amendment to the report is not moved by the
committee. Private members have asked that the report be adopted, and anyone can move an amendment to it. The committee has not asked for the amendment of the report, and it is always open to any private member to move concurrence in the report.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think I now find myself on fairly sure ground, and I raise this as a point of order. It is not competent for two hon. members of this house, acting in their private capacity, to present an amendment to a committee's report; that, I submit is out of order. I suggest that the only procedure that can be followed is to revive the committee and refer any measure back to them for their consideration.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member is taking a stand the very opposite of that he took a few minutes ago.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not- at all.


Alan Webster Neill: It is well known that it is in order for a member to move concurrence in a report, and any motion of that character is subject to amendment.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think the point of order raised by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), regarding the amendment to the third and final report of the committee is well taken. The most practical way to amend this report is to refer it back to the committee with instructions that they have the power to reduce the number of printed copies from 10,000 to 1.000. I suggest to the mover (Mr. McIntosh) that he amend his motion-I do not think he will have any difficulty in getting the unanimous consent of the house, because it is an unimportant point-on the lines above indicated. The committee can be reconvened and can bring in a report with a view to reducing the number of printed copies from 10,000 to 1,000. The following ruling is given in Bourinot, page 480, and Beauchesne, paragraph 661:
When the motion is proposed the report may he referred back to the committee for further consideration or with instruction to amend the same in any respect. It is not competent for a committee to reconsider and reverse its own decision, but if the house resolves that such reconsideration is necessary, the correct procedure is for the house to give the committee instructions which will enable it to consider the whole question again.
Motion stands.



INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE OF FLAGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. MicQHARRIE (New Westminster) : At the request of the New Westminster
Exchange of Flags
[Stage Direction]
and District Great War Veterans' Association branch of the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League, I have the honour to present to the house a photograph of a very significant event which occurred at the city of New Westminster on April 7th last, being an exchange of flags, the Union Jack and the Stars and Stripes, between the New Westminster association and the Bellingham Post of the American Legion. I believe a duplicate of this photograph was presented by the Bellingham Post, to President Coolidge, and I concur in his words that incidents of this kind can do much to promote good will between our respective countries.
Hewitt Bostock: May I say to the hon.
member for New Westminster that the Speaker will find a suitable place in the House of Commons to keep this souvenir of a very happy incident which took place in his constituency.



QUEBEC BRIDGE-PROVISION AGAINST ACCIDENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GEORGES PARENT (Quebec West):: I would like to call the attention of the government and especially the Minister of Railways and Canals to a very sad accident which took place on the Quebec bridge a short time ago. A child fell into the St. Lawrence river through an opening between the sidewalk and the railing of the railway. This is the third accident that has occurred under similar circumstances, and I would ask the minister to take up the matter with the proper authorities to see that this condition is remedied.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): I shall be glad to have the matter looked into.



IMPORTATION OF CATTLE FROM UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: Has the Minister of Agriculture any information to give to the house to-day in respect to the question to which I drew his attention yesterday, namely, whether it was the intention of the government to cancel the order in council passed last March providing for the importation in bond of American cattle for grazing?
Hon, W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):	I may say that good progress
has been made by the method indicated in my hon. friend's question towards removing the grievance complained of.



FOREIGN CONSULS IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: The
Prime Minister yesterday made allusion to the correspondence exchanged with the British government with regard to the standing of foreign consuls in Canada. Would he have any objection to laying that correspondence upon the table of the house?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I can see no objection
and I will arrange to have the correspondence brought down.



SUPPLY-IMPERIAL AND FOREIGN RELATIONS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, May 2S, consideration of the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) for committee of supply, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Bourassa:
The house regrets that proper steps have not yet been taken to give full effect, both in domestic and external affairs, to the "equality of status" acknowledged by the Imperial conference, 1926, to be the "root-principle" of the relationship between the self-governing Britannic communities.
['Order.\nProgress reported.']
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):: Mr. Speaker, last night I spoke on this question from half past ten to eleven o'clock; I will do my utmost in the house to defeat this amendment in the other ten minutes at my disposal. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) is moving this particular amendment for political purposes and to gain votes in the province of Quebec. He wants to make political capital out of the British Empire which he has been making a football of for many a day now. Canada is not going to be talked out of the British Empire. If Canada could be talked out of the British Empire, the hon. member for Labelle would have done that long ago. Canada is not going to be talked out of the British Empire; Canada will have to be fought out of the British Empire. Canada is not going to be written out of the British Empire by the Dafoes, the Atkinsons, the Ewarts and all the rest of the gentlemen of that separatist description. The hon. member for Labelle and his illustrious leader are two souls with but a single thought, two hearts that beat as one on this particular equality of status question.
I did not start this discussion. As I say, it was started for political purposes by the hon. member for Labelle. He has found the session rather barren of results so far as the government is concerned in regard to solving

Foreign Relations-Mr. Church
the economic ills of the country, and so he has to trot forward this problem in which he refers to the government of the old country as our imperial masters, or the imperial monster who is seeking to devour all Canada, The Imperial conference, in my opinion, has left undone those things which it ought to have done and done those things which it ought not to have done and there was no health in it. No results came out of it so far as the overseas dominions were concerned. Like the League of Nations it has created more confusion and set up more strife than ever. We are proud that Canada is an integral part of the greatest empire the world has ever known. The war left us our status as it was. What Canada has done during the past thirty-five years she has done of her own volition, and' voluntarily, and she would do the same thing again, namely, come to the mother country's aid in her hour of peril. So the people of this country are satisfied with our present status and seek no change in it. Far better for Canada would it have been had the Imperial conference solved our economic problems-trade, defence and migration-instead of all this status talk.
After all is said and done the Prime Minister is only following the footsteps of Sir Robert Borden because he was the archconspirator in connection with the change of status. In 1919 at the treaty of Versailles Sir Robert Borden insisted that Canada should sign that treaty separately. He also insisted on Canada having a separate seat in the League of Nations. It would have done Canada as much if not more good for good will and peace if he had insisted on our having a seat in the American baseball league or the national and international league. It would be as practical as the League of Nations. As regards our status what have we secured and what has been the change in chronological order? In 1919 there was the treaty of Versailles which was signed separately. In 1921 there was the Washington Disarmament conference. When Sir Robert Borden and Sir George Foster brought up in the house the question of an ambassador to Washington and put it through, if I had been the only Conservative in the house at the time I would have opposed such a proposition to divide Britain's representation at Washington which was the beginning of all this monument of folly known as separatism.
In March, 1923, the Halibut treaty was signed at Washington separately by Mr. Lapointe. In 1923 the Imperial conference confirmed the separate signing of treaties. In 1924 Canada acted separately in the conference on the Dawes plan. Then there was the
question of the reservation of Dominion legislation for the assent of His Majesty or for the disallowance of such legislation. The hon. member for Labelle says now that the disallowance of legislation by His Majesty is all a matter of form. He says that the Colonial Laws Validity Act was invoked not long ago by the Privy Council to annul a statute of Canada; that this statute was wiped out by a stroke of the pen because of its possible application to Ireland. If they can wipe off the statute books that act which is the foundation of all the charters of liberty of the overseas dominions, they can change our new status and wipe the British North America Act off the statute books by a stroke of the pen also and repeal the British North America Act. In this way they can interfere with the rights of the provinces, with the rights of minorities, with the rights of municipalities in this country, and with the right of one minority to have its own religion and laws and preservation of its language. We are thus at the parting of the ways. No one knows where it will all land us.
In 1926 the conference recognized the right of each dominon to make separate and independent treaties not binding on any other dominion. We are a separate country. We have sovereign power. The people of the United States admit that. They have sent us what is known as the Kellogg note about peace and war with a general presidential election in the near future. While Secretary Kellogg on one side of the capitol is inviting the nations of the world to join in a collective renunciation of war, Secretary Wilbur is being voted the sum of $274,000,000 for the building, during the next three years, of fifteen cruisers at a cost of seventeen million dollars each and an aeroplane-carrier at nineteen million dollars. Mr. Kellogg's colleague asked for twenty-five of these 10,000-ton cruisers, but Congress thought fifteen of them in the next three years would be enough to go on with. Especially with the elections so near! [DOT]
The governor general is a mere viceroy. If he appealed to Downing street for advice he would be told: We have nothing to do with you; you are over in Canada alone and your cabinet there alone can advise you. In 1927 we won a seat in the League of Nations. What good that seat is to us, I do not know except that there will be a nice little trip between sessions for this minister or that minister and an expense account for living allowance as well. The academic league has now cost the people of this country $1,800,090 all told and has been barren of results to Canada and created more strife than peace.

Foreign Relations-Mr. Church
In 1927 we went into the ambassador business and Canada now proposes to send ambassadors to Japan and France. The United States and France and England are to send ambassadors to Canada. Did you ever hear the like of it? Where will all this separatism end? Where is it all going to land Canada? It simply means that the so-called "evolution" in theory and practice is working out in the best interests of complete separation in both domestic and external affairs. This evolution has become and is working out as a peaceful revolution. That is all that equality of status and separatism have done for Canada. The next step will come gradually and surely, namely, to change and to do the British North America Act to death and we are by this status setting up a new constitution in the name of evolution. Our separation now is as complete in a peaceful way as that of old of the North American colonies. That is the gist of it all in plain practice. No wonder the government want to close up this debate and not startle the country any further seeing that this status has landed us in a state of uncertainty and doubt and division and separation from the motherland. As a separate country we now are to be mixed up in all the foreign politics of Europe, Asia and America, for are we not boasting that way? We are at the parting of the ways. Whither are we drifting? No wonder even government members are beginning to wag their heads in doubt as to where we are, and to get alarmed at the huge cost of it all to Canada.
I say in conclusion the government want to close off this debate, because of its effect on the people of British descent of this country, who now only comprise fifty-five per cent of the population of this country. It is no wonder that many members as well as supporters of the government are wagging their heads and wondering where this equality of status folly is going to land Canada. So _ far as that goes, we are now at the parting of the ways, and we do not know what the next step is going to be. We still continue to sponge on the mother country for our defence both on land and sea. The people whom I have the honour to represent have no more pride in the nation-builders of their own party than I have in the nation builders of the party opposite. I have no use for the nation building that Sir Robert Borden, the Hon. Wedley Rowell, and the other oracles of Union government pretended to do at Versailles and WaAington. I have no use for the nation wrecking separatism of Sir Robert Borden's proposal to establish a Cana-

dian embassy at Washington. That embassy is not now and never wil be anything in the nature of a centre of service for the good of Canada. The embassy at Washington is a sink hole, and the Canadian high commissioner's office at London is not much better. These embassies, or sink holes, as I call them, will be duplicated all over the earth by this government. When the seed planted by Sir Robert Borden's and the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King's separatist embassy at Washington has reached maturity, what will the harvest be? The harvest will be reaped by the taxpayers of Canada. That harvest wil not be in the form of crops that will fill their barns, ibuit ft. will be in the form of taxes that will empty their pockets. Canada will then be spending two or three million dollars per annum in interest and debt charges on embassy buildings .and on the salaries and upkeep of useless Canadian ambassadors, and still more useless Staffs of clerks. Canada must spend two or three million dollars per annum in order to prove that we are in an academic way a nation without a navy or an army.
Never in the entire history of Canada has she at any time been alble to defend herself. We are a nation only in a mythical and academic sense.
No matter what the Imperial conference says or does, our representatives have no right to take away our birthright in this way on the pretence of evolution. It means we are a separate sovereign state independent of Great Britain, and without any semblance of a navy or army to help us.
That is what the resolution of the hon. member for Labelle means. I hope that he will not have the privilege of withdrawing his motion; I hope that unanimous consent will not foe given to allowing him to withdraw it, but that it will be pressed to a division so that the people of this country will at last awake to where this equality of status is landing Canada-out of the British Empire sooner or later.


Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take the time of the house except for a very few minutes. On several occasions I have expressed my views on certain phases of the report of the Imperial conference of 1926. In expressing those views I paid particular attention to certain clauses of that report which I thought were over-emphasized by the Prime Minister when the report was first under discussion, and I think certain of those clauses have been over-emphasized in the discussion in the South African parliament and also in the parliament of the Irish Free State.

Foreign Relations-Mr. Cahan
If one reads that report and endeavours to place himself in the atmosphere in which it was negotiated, may I say, and finally accepted, I believe that there was, upon the part of the majority of tihe prime ministers and their associates representing the several dominions at the Imperial conference, a sincere desire to preserve in our time, and' for future time, so far as possible, the unity of the British Empire, which they therein described as the British commonwealth of nations. I am sure, from the addresses of several members to which I have listened from time to time in this house, and particularly the addresses which the Prime Minister has given here and in various parts of the country, that he has a supreme desire to preserve the unity of this British eomonwealth-the political unity, imay I say, of this British commonwealth. But in preserving the unity of the eomonwealth it was necessary for those who were representing this dominion and the other dominions at the last Imperial conference to take into consideration what I might call the peculiar views or idiosyncrasies of the representatives of one or more of the dominions there represented, who had never had the experience in constitutional growth and practice which we have enjoyed for sixty years in this dominion; and I can well appreciate that, in order to satisfy their fears and anticipations for the future, particularly sitrong emphasis was laid by the draftsmen of that report upon the autonomy of the several dominions composing this British commonwealth.
But it seems to me that the problem which these representatives then had before them was a problem similar to that which faced the representatives of the dominions at the Imperial war conference of 1917, where in referring to the proposed readjustment of the constitutional relations of the component parts of the empire, they placed on record their view that:
Any such readjustment should recognize the right of the dominions and of India to an adequate voice in foreign policy and in foreign relations, and should provide effective arrangements for continuous consultation in all important matters of imperial concern, and for such necessary concerted action founded on consultation as the several governments may determine.
I think that the problem of the representatives of the several!: dominions at the Imperial conferences from that time down to the present has been to provide for this dominion as well as for the other dominions an adequate voice in foreign policy and in foreign relations. 'Some differences of opinion may exist as to what is an adequate voice, but the position reached by common agreement at the last Imperial conference seems to be this: That each dominion in respect of these foreign relations which solely and exclusively apply to its own interests shall' in the future be represented by its own ministry, and represented by its own agents, whoever they may be, who are duly accredited for the negotiation of treaties dealing with matters that are peculiarly and solely and exclusively of interest to such dominion. Therefore, the Imperial conference of 1926 approved of the appointment of a special minister by -Canada accredited to the government at Washington. We are in a most peculiar situation with regard to our neighbours to the south. They have a population of over one hundred millions of people, and they are conscious of their vast material1 and financial resources, and confident of their political power. We, on the other hand, are a small country of less than ten million people, and we, too, are conscious of our own special rights. Two peoples living alongside a common boundary stretching for three thousand miles between them, having these peculiar characteristics, must face from time to time many problems 'which we at least who are of the smaller nation must regard as of vital importance to our present and our future interests.
There was too in this country a sentiment which had been propagated for many years, and with which I do not wholly coincide, that our rights had been sacrificed from time to time since the earliest treaties were made between Great Britain and the United States dealing with Canadian interests. It seems to me in surveying the history of the past that if Canadian agents had solely and exclusively directed the negotiation of those treaties, in view of our political position, in view of our lack of financial and material resources, in view of our very modest political power, they would have found it very difficult indeed to secure such advantageous terms as were secured from time to time by British representatives at Washington in consultation with the representatives of this country.
But that opinion prevailing throughout the length and breadth of this land had at least to be conciliated, and therefore it has been provided that Canada, in regard to the United States particularly, shall have her own minister at Washington, and that those matters which are of interest solely and exclusively to Canada shall be negotiated and administered by the representative of Canada at Washington. But the correspondence, as I stated on another occasion, which resulted in the appointment of a representative of Canada at Washington, following the appointment of a

Foreign Relations-Mr. Cahan
representative of the Irish Free State, clearly discloses the understanding which was reached between the government of Canada and the
government at Westminster to be this: that all matters in which Canada is solely and exclusively interested should be attended to by her own minister; but that when matters arise which may affect Great Britain herself and other parts of the empire, the minister representing Canada should always act in close association with the British ambassador at Washington, and that if the general interests of the British commonwealth are affected, the ambassador of Great Britain would in fact retain a predominating position.
When I look also at the resolutions of the conference of 1923,' which were submitted to and approved by this house, and the explanations made in reference thereto on June 21, 1926, by the Prime Minister of the day, I find ' that he invited parliament to pass _ a resolution to the effect that those treaties which impose active obligations upon Canada, and those treaties alone, should necessarily be presented for approval by the parliament of Canada before this government should advise His Majesty to ratify them in Canada's behalf. The words of the Prime Minister were clear; he said:
The present government by this resolution is asking parliament to approve of a course of procedure which will involve with respect to treaties, involving military and economic sanctions, the approval of parliament before the government of the day agrees to any obligation implied in the treaty being undertaken in the name of the country.
That resolution, after being so explained, passed this house unanimously. Therefore so long as that resolution remains in force and effect it would be unconstitutional on the part of the government of Canada to advise the ratification of a treaty binding upon Canada which imposed active obligations of the kind mentioned without first receiving the endorsement of this parliament. But that does not apply to a large body of treaties made with foreign states which do not involve active economic or military obligations. For instance, we have had before us during this session a number of conventions-which are really treaties-and this parliament has been asked to approve thereof by resolution. There is the slavery convention, the convention protocol of the second opium conference, the international sanitary convention-these all affect very intimately the Tights and obligations in many respects of Canada and of Canadian citizens. In view of the position

which this government has taken at a recent date, I was somewhat surprised that we were not asked to confirm those treaties by acts of the Canadian parliament. During the discussion I asked either the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) or the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) if those treaties coming into effect on the advice of the Canadian government and ratified by His Majesty the King through his duly accredited representative, would make them a part of the public law of this Dominion. I received no answer, and I am still in doubt whether the government have pursued the really effective course. In respect of the Waterways treaty of 1909, it will be remembered that an act was passed by the parliament of Canada in 1911 not only confirming that treaty but empowering the government to carry it into effect. I find in looking back over our recent political history that a similar course has been followed with regard to other treaties affecting Canada. For instance, I find that chapter 46 of the statutes of Canada for the year 1921 is an act to authorize the ratification and carrying into effect of the protocol of the 16th day of December, 1920, accepting the statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice of December 13, 1920. The first section of that act reads:
The governor in council is authorized to advise that His Majesty be humbly moved to ratify on behalf of Canada the said protocol of the 16th day of December, 1920, in the manner thereby stipulated.
That was a complete confirmation by the parliament of Canada. The act also provides in section 2 as follows:
The governor in council is authorized to make such orders in council, regulations and nominations and to give such directions and notices, and to do and authorize such other acts and things as may appear to him necessary, proper or expedient on the part of Canada for carrying into effect the said protocol and the provisions of the aforesaid statute for the Permanent Court of International Justice.
In my opinion these conventions, which were submitted to us during the present session and approved by resolution only, should necessarily be confirmed by statute of this parliament in order to give the government of Canada full power and authority to carry their provisions into effect.
But leaving that apart, there is no doubt at the present time with regard to the authority and jurisdiction-shall I say?-of the government of the United Kingdom in negotiating treaties which apply to all parts of His Majesty's dominions and possessions. I do not see at the present time any restriction

Foreign Relations-Mr. Cahan
placed upon the negotiation of such treaties by the representatives of His Majesty's government at Westminster -which apply generally to the whole empire so long as they do not impose active economic and miltiary obligations upon any one of the dominions. It is obvious of course, in view of the position which the parliament of Canada has taken, that the government of this country cannot without the approval of this parliament constitutionally advise the ratification of treaties imposing such obligations upon it. There remains the negotiation of treaties which contain, if I may say so, passive obligations regulating rights as between ourselves and the foreign nations with whom we negotiate, the rights of our citizens in those foreign countries, rights affecting our commerce and trade, and the rest. And hereafter, under the present practice, it is left to the parliament of Canada, when any vital issue involving war arises, to decide as to what action we shall take under the circumstances and conditions which then prevail.
But to return for a moment. The provisions laid down by the conference of 1923 with respect to the negotiation of treaties provided for the separate negotiation of treaties by each dominion, but left it to the dominion then negotiating to decide as to whether the proposed treaty would affect the interests of Great Britain or of the other dominions. An amending provision, approved by the conference of 1926, provided moreover that each dominion when negotiating a treaty should first notify the government of the United Kingdom, and the governments of the other dominions respectively, of their intent and of the purport of the proposed treaty, and that upon receipt of sudh notification such other dominion government or the government of Great Britain should express its dissent with reasonable promptness. If no dissent is expressed, then the negotiating government may proceed to the conclusion of any treaty which does not impose active obligations upon any of the governments which are represented at the Imperial -conference. Under that provision, which I have briefly summarized, I think His Majesty the King, on the advice of the government of Great Britain, may proceed to negotiate treaties dealing with the rights of Canadian citizens in Asia or South America or Central America or elsewhere, and that so long as the government of Canada, upon receiving due notification of the purport and intent of these treaties, declines to intervene, it thereby tacitly acquiesces in the government of Great Britain negotiating such treaty, which will affect to that extent Canadian rights and interests ; provided always, of course, that it
does not impose what we have termed "active obligations." But if active obligations are proposed under the treaty being negotiated by His Majesty's ministers at Westminster, then the assent of each government must first be obtained. Therefore the existing provisions, as amended by the Imperial conference of 1926, still afford a wide discretion to the government of the United Kingdom under which that government may assume the acquiescence of any dominion that fails to express its views in regard to impending negotiations of which it may be notified. So that the citizens of this country may yet be bound through apathy and acquiescence. Take for instance the treaty of Lausanne to which reference has been made. In respect of the treaty of Lausanne and in respect of those provisions of the proposed treaty between Great Britain and Egypt, in so far as they do not impose active obligations on this country they may-under the present practice -and I think properly so-be negotiated by His Majesty's ministers at Westminster. And if the Canadian government, on being invited to participate, does not express any dissent, such treaty may be placed in operation by the ratification of His Majesty alone; because there still exist the prerogative power and authority of His Majesty the King to ratify treaties which apply to all parts of the empire. As to whose advice His Majesty may receive in respect of such ratification, that is of course a matter of constitutional practice. But in respect of the Lausanne treaty this government informed, on March 24, 1924, the government of the United Kingdom that it would not invite the Canadian parliament to concur in the ratification of that treaty.
And that-I am quoting the words, I think, of the Minister of External Affairs of Canada: -Without the approval of parliament they-[DOT]
The Canadian government.
-feel they are not warranted in signifying concurrence in ratification of the treaty and conventions. With respect to ratification, however, they

The Canadian government.
-will not take exception to such course as His Majesty's government may deem it advisable to recommend.
In that case Canada assumed no active obligation, but took no exception to the ratification of that treaty, although it did impose, I might say, passive duties and obligations upon Canada, or at least upon Canadian citizens in Turkish territory and Canadian trade and commerce and property, located in Turkish territory or under the jurisdiction of the Turkish government. Therefore the treaty of Lausanne was thereupon ratified in

Foreign Relations-Mr. Cahan
the name of the king on the advice of the British government and became binding upon Canada without confirmation by the Canadian parliament. And it is binding still upon Canada and upon all Canadians, because in the year 1924 the parliament of the United Kingdom passed chapter VII of the British statutes of that year, the Treaty of Peace (Turkey) Act, 1924, an Act to Carry into Effect a Treaty Passed between His Majesty and Certain Other Powers, and Certain Conventions, Protocols, and Declarations connected Therewith. If hon. members will read the terms of that statute they will see that by section 1:
His Majesty may make such appointments, establish such offices, make such orders in council, and do such things as appear to him to be necessary for carrying out the said treaty, conventions, protocols and deliberation, and for giving effect to any of the provisions thereof.
And section 2:
Any order in council made under this act may provide for the imposition, by summary process or otherwise, of penalties in respect of breach of the provisions thereof, and for conferring on courts within His Majesty's dominions jurisdiction in cases where under the convention respecting conditions of residence and business and jurisdiction such courts are alone to have jurisdiction.
Therefore the treaty was not only ratified by His Majesty; it was approved by a statute of the parliament of Great Britain. His Majesty's government of Great Britain was authorized to carry out its full provisions; and the enforcement of penalties was placed as a duty and obligation upon Canadian courts by a statute of the Imperial parliament.
The Imperial conference of 1926 also specifically declared that any question as to whether the nature of a treaty was such that its ratification should be concurred in by all parts of the empire was a matter for discussion and agreement between their governments. I do not lay so much emphasis as the Prime Minister appeared to do the other day, on the fact that the Secretary of State for the United States at the suggestion of the British government sent a communication to this government in respect of the Kellogg peace proposals, because I am sure the Prime Minister of this country does not wish to act separately and independently from the governments of the other dominions and from the government of the United Kingdom in regard to these negotiations. I assume from the position which the Prime Minister took at the recent Imperial conference that he realizes the absolute necessity, if we are to preserve the existing unity of the empire, of consultation and concurrence wherever
fMr. Cahan.]
possible between the governments of the dominions and that of the United Kingdom with respect to matters which appertain to the whole empire to which we belong.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hear, hear.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have noticed that certain
gentlemen in this country who are admittedly in favour of the early independence of Canada and of breaking the light ties of association which bind us to Great Britain and the other dominions, speak of Canada having become in fact though not in name an independent and practically sovereign state. The Imperial conference of 1926 took an entirely different view; as I read it, and I have read it time and again, it seems to me that those who directed the drafting of that report were insisting that all matters which relate solely and exclusively to this Dominion should be under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the parliament and the administration of this country. So, in the negotiation of treaties, our minister or representative abroad, in those matters which relate solely and exclusively ito our interests and to our well-being, would have exclusive jurisdiction, but when our interests also become matters of interest to the other dominions, to the United Kingdom and to the empire as a whole, it is implied in the Imperial conference report that as far as it is possible for honourable and intelligent men so to do, those representing the various parts of this empire, should strive to reach a concurrent view by consultation and concession, so long as they make no sacrifice of the vital interests of any part, in order to promote the general interests of the autonomous dominions and of Great Britain.
That is my hope, because in my opinion there is no doubt that at present we 'have not the political strength which will enable us to stand alone as an independent sovereignty and protect the rights which we have so jealously guarded during the last sixty years. I wish to say nothing offensive to our great neighbours to t'he south, but especially is that fact true in view of the confidence and consciousness of that great republic that their political power and their financial and material strength are not only paramount on this continent but becoming paramount throughout the world. While personally I will be pleased to see representatives of this country, in the future as in the recent past, engaged in the negotiation of conventions and treaties for the settlement of difficulties and the solution of the problems which may arise between Canada and the United States, still I have a lingering belief that the co-operation, advice

Foreign Relations-Mr. Cahan
and assistance of the government of the United Kingdom and its ambassador at Washington may yet be of vital interest to us and to our success in such negotiations. Therefore I feel persuaded that the government of Canada, looking at the whole matter, though determined to preserve our autonomous rights, will always be equally determined to preserve the political unity of this empire to which we belong, believing that under present conditions and as far as human minds can see into the future, it is in the paramount interests of Canada that we should preserve that association with Great Britain and the other dominions.
On the other hand, why introduce an element of discord into this country? The speeches which have been made on various platforms throughout Canada, in which it has been suggested that we are an independent sovereign state, with the implication that we are about to pursue an independent course and separate from Great Britain, have really deeply wounded the sentiments of hundreds of thousands of thinking people throughout Canada. It is a fact which must be recognized, that a great body of our people, and they are not confined to one race, believe in maintaining that association and that bond of empire, however light it may be; they believe that the existing ties are more honourable to both great races in Canada than any other political alliance which we might now form with any other foreign power, that the existing political association is more compatible and more consistent with the best traditions of our forefathers, some of whom actually fought to establish the constitutional liberty of this country. Those thoughtful patriotic men who preceded us, endeavoured year by year and decade by decade to mould British institutions to adapt them to the particular needs of our country, and we have now attained a position in the British Empire which I am sure will enable us to have an adequate voice in all matters of imperial concern which affect our interests; a voice which as we grow in strength will, I hope, enable us to influence the foreign policy of that empire so that it may be more consistent, if that is possible, with the views entertained by the intelligent and patriotic citizens of this Dominion. I look forward' to the future when this Dominion, autonomous, it is true, will nevertheless influence in a large measure, by consultation, by advice and by co-operation, the future policy of the government of the United Kingdom and the governments of our associated dominions.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to go into this question at greater length, but I suggest that in respect of those imperial statutes which were enacted years ago and which still apply to this country, the solution of our difficulties, if I may be allowed to say so, may be found to a large extent in adopting the policy recommended in the report of the last Imperial conference. It should be done, so far as possible, by concurrent legislation between the United Kingdom and the various dominions of the empire. It was by concurrent legislation that Canadian citizens born and bred, and Canadian citizens who had procured naturalization in this country, obtained the rights of natural born British citizens in every British community throughout the world. I am proud to say and glad to admit that the Imperial Naturalization Act of 1914 was based largely on the proposals made by the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier at the Imperial conference of 1911.
I do not think that it detracts one iota from our status, that it detracts one iota from our dignity as self respecting British citizens, that when matters of general interest arise representatives of our government should enter into amicable negotiations with the government of the United Kingdom and the other dominion governments to devise reciprocal legislation which will assure to us, as Canadian citizens, all the rights of British citizens throughout the world, and thus ensure to us that protection-I am not merely talking of naval protection-which comes through the proper exercise of the political influence of a commonwealth such as ours.
I have had occasion to look into the statutes of the parliament of Great Britain which still apply to us, and, the longer I pursued my investigations, the more statutes and treaties I found which directly affect us. I would suggest to the government that when they come to consider the modification of these statutes they will find their ramifications so extensive as almost to appall them. Before the next Imperial conference this government should make haste slowly, and, by such expert assistance as is available, should probe these matters to the bottom. They should do this not with a view to organizing some method of taking this dominion out of'the commonwealth, but to devise ways and means by agreement and concurrent legislation, and, by new conventions where legislation is not necessary, for the purpose of keeping this Dominion within the British commonwealth. Let us keep Canada in the empire as a dominion fully conscious of its rights and privileges,
Supply-Civil Government

but also conscious that we must play our parts, man for man and government for government, with those of the other dominions of the commonwealth in maintaining the political unity of the empire to which we now belong.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Just
a word of personal explanation. I think the object I had in view when I moved my amendment has been fully accomplished by this every interesting debate, and, therefore, with the leave of the house, I withdraw the motion.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member be given leave to withdraw his motion?
Amendment (Mr. Bourassa) withdrawn.

Motion (Mir. Robb) agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Laflamme in the chair.
Civil Government-External Affairs, salaries and contingencies, $144,310.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Will the Prime Minister explain the increases in this item?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is a very slight increase in the amount voted for salaries. Last year the total amount was $107,135 and this year the amount asked for is $111,310 or an increase of $4,175. That increase is accounted for in part by statutory increases and in part by additions to the staff. I might say that the additions relate more particularly to junior clerks and that one or two appropriations that were made last session for officials of a higher rank have been dropped.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil Government-Privy Council-salaries and contingencies, $59,200.
['There is a very slight increase in the amount voted for salaries. Last year the total amount was $107,135 and this year the amount asked for is $111,310 or an increase of $4,175. That increase is accounted for in part by statutory increases and in part by additions to the staff. I might say that the additions relate more particularly to junior clerks and that one or two appropriations that were made last session for officials of a higher rank have been dropped.']
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Last year the appropriation for salaries amounted to $49,780. This year it is slightly increased, the amount being $54,200. The increase is accounted for largely by statutory increases. There is but one addition, namely, that of a clerk.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Why is it that with the higher salaries increased, the salary of the humble office boy is reduced from $540 to $480. the messenger's salary is reduced from $1,300 to $780 and the confidential messenger's salary is reduced from $2,820 to $1,440? Do they not deserve as large salaries this year as they did last year?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is due to promotions which have taken place and which have been made in accordance with the regulations of the Civil Service Commission. No employee has had his salary reduced.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: The increase is due chiefly to the appointment of a private secretary.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To an assistant,
yes.


Mr. BRADY:: What are the hours of duty of the office boy?
M(r. MACKENZIE KING: He is supposed to be on duty whenever he is wanted. He has no set hours.


James Charles Brady: If his hours of duty were prolonged, for instance, to eight or ten hours, the salary would naturally be looked upon as exceedingly small, if it is $480 a year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The office boy has plenty of spare time in the summer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil government-office of the secretary to the Governor General-salaries and contingencies, including house allowance of $1,500 per annum, to secretary to the Governor General, $107,725.
['The office boy has plenty of spare time in the summer.']
William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is no real increase in this item. The amount is practically the same as last year. Any additions are due to statutory increases.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil Government - High Commissioner's office-salaries, including High Commissioner, additional to salary authorized by chap. 15, R.S.C., $2,000, and contingencies, $109,600.
['There is no real increase in this item. The amount is practically the same as last year. Any additions are due to statutory increases.']
William Lyon Mackenzie King: In this case I am pleased to inform the committee that there is a decrease. In the salaries there is a decrease of $4,680 and in contingencies there is a slight increase of $2,000, making a net decrease of $2,680.


Mr. SPENCER:: I should like to say a few words with regard to a certain matter that came to my notice when visiting London a year ago. While in London I took the opportunity of visiting both Canada House and the Australian building. I take it that we have this house in London to advertise Canada's business and Canada's wares as well as to encourage people to come to this country. Although I found Canada House an inviting place for Canadian visitors, very nicely equipped with rest rooms and writing rooms and attractive from the social point of view, at the same time, as compared with the house maintained by Australia in London, Canada

Supply-High Commissioner's Office
House seems to take second place. For instance, with regard to interesting people in Canada from an immigrant point of view- and when I say immigrant I take it to mean all classes of people who are coming to make their homes in Canada-I found there was nothing to draw attention to Canada except certain literature such as would be found in the office of any immigration agent. This might go to their houses through the mails just as well as by being put on a file at Canada House. Comparing Canada House with Australia House in London I find1 this difference, that in Australia House there is placed before the visitor a miniature picture of Australia. No doubt the Prime Minister himself has seen this as well as myself and indeed most members who have gone to London have taken the opportunity of visiting both these places. Not only do you find in Australia House an advertisement of their great mineral possibilities, agricultural resources and orchard production, but you have, as I say, a miniature picture before you of every state in the Commonwealth of Australia. Along with that you have of course literature similar to that which we have in Canada House. It seems to me that if we took a leaf out of Australia's book we might do a great, deal more with the money we are spending in London on Canada House. I found the High Commissioner doing his best to give visiting Canadians in London every opportunity to enjoy the social life of the city, and that sort of thing, which is all very nice, but I take it that the main object of Canada House is not only to interest business generally in Canadian affairs, but to interest people Who are thinking of emigrating, in the hope that they may find, in what they see at Canada House, sufficient inducement to cause them to make up their minds to come to Canada. I just throw out this suggestion because I think it is very essential from the Canadian point of view, in order to get returns from what we are spending in London, that we should change our method of advertising Canada in England.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say to my hon. friend, with reference to the contrast he points out between Australia House and Canada House, that there is a distinct difference between the manner in which Australia and Canada respectively carry out some of their services, for example, the work of immigration. All the immigration work of Australia is centered in London. The policy of Canada has been to have immigration offices scattered throughout the British Isles, in England, Scotland and Ireland. We have altoget.her some twenty-five immigration offices scattered through the British Isles, while with the exception of London there are none so far as Australia is concerned, their whole work being centered in the Australian building. That, I think, accounts in large degree for the difference in the advertising of Canada at the Canadian building to which my hon. friend has made reference. One going into the Australian building does see, as my hon. friend has pointed out, much that is representative of the different states in Australia. I question however, whether as many people who are thinking of emigrating to any of the British dominions would team of Canada through one office in London as learn of Canada through the different offices scattered throughout the British Isles.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I am well aware of the fact that we have various offices scattered throughout Great Britain, but at the same time we must remember that there are more people in the city of London than there are in the whole of Canada, and at very little expense, if any, I think we could do still more valuable advertising through making certain changes at Canada House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might add
this further woa-d. Through a committee of council, of which the Minister of Trade and Commerce is the chairman, there have been some steps taken recently to further publicity in the British Isles with the object of meeting the very point to which my hon. friend has just referred.


Alan Webster Neill: I also visited Canada House last year, and I was struck by the paucity of Canadians in Canada House. One would have supposed that if anywhere in Britain one would find Canadians, it would be there. This session I asked a question-I have not it before me -now-as to the number of employees in Canada House who had either been born in Canada or had spent five years in this country, on the idea that if they had spent five -years in Canada they would rank as Canadians or have a knowledge of conditions in part at least of Canada. I figured the answer out to mean that only eleven per cent of the employees of Canada House were Canadians in this sense. I think in an institution presumably devoted entirely to the advertising of Canada and the getting of immigrants for Canada, it would be advisable if more Canadians were employed, even though it would cost a little more to 6end them over from here. I think they would be more likely to fill the objects for which the employees are there.

3506	COMMONS
Supply-High Commissioner's Office


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What my hon. friend says may be quite true, but it is also true that at the present time there is a larger percentage of Canadians employed at Canada House tihan there has been at any time since the office was opened. All of the higher positions are held by Canadians. Some of the typists' positions and some of the other positions are filled by persons who are residents of England and are not Canadian born, but the policy of the government in the matter is more and more to fill the existing positions with Canadians.


George Halsey Perley: There is a gentleman employed in the office there by the name of J. Reid Hyde. I would like to ask if he is a Canadian.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand
that Colonel Hyde was bom in Montreal and resided in Montreal.


George Halsey Perley: What are his
duties?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Colonel Reid
Hyde is retained to deal more particularly with the important financial transactions with which the office is concerned. He has an expert knowledge of financial affairs and has been retained by the High Commissioner to deal with these matters. He is not on the permanent staff of the office, but his services have been found extremely valuable.


George Halsey Perley: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will recall that after the war there were a great many outstanding accounts due Canada, some of them matters of adjustment between the British treasury and our treasury. There were also the loans that had been made to Greece and Roumania, and there were numerous other important financial transactions which had not been finally adjusted. My hon. friend will agree with me that in the office as it was constituted at the time he was high commissioner, if he had had to rely exclusively upon the staff then there, he would have found it difficult to deal satisfactorily on behalf of Canada with these important transactions. When Mr. Larkin was appointed high commissioner, one of the first steps he took was to endeavour to settle these transactions and to obtain payment of the advances and loans that were made by Canada during the war period. He retained Colonel Reid Hyde for the purpose of assisting him, Colonel Hyde being an expert chartered accountant and a Canadian then residing in London in whose ability Mr. Larkin had entire confidence. Colonel Reid Hyde performed his services most satisfactorily. Under the direction of the high commissioner he discussed with the British treasury and with others the details of the outstanding accounts with the result that very large sums have been paid to the Canadian treasury in the short time that Mr. Larkin has been High Commissioner in London. I might mention, as an example, the Roumanian and Greek loans. The government of hon. gentlemen opposite advanced, I think, to Greece and Roumania something like $25,000,000 each, to enable

Supply*-High Commissioner's Office
them to purchase Canadian commodities of different kinds. The commodities were purchased, but we have been unable to get payment although our own money was advanced for the purpose of the purchase. Apparently up to the present there has been very little chance of getting payment of the principal; but by the co-operation of Colonel Reid Hyde under direction of the high commissioner we have at least succeeded in making an arrangement whereby interest will be secured to Canada until the whole of the principal is paid. Up to the present time I understand that about $9,000,000 has been paid into the treasury. That is a large sum, considering that it represents interest alone.
A gentleman of the technical and professional qualifications which Colonel Reid Hyde possesses is almost essential to the High Commissioner's office for dealing with matters of this kind. I might say that the question of appointing him as a permanent official, in view of his knowledge of the financial matters with which the High Commissioner's office is concerned, has been under consideration, and at a subsequent session the government may ask parliament to approve of the appointment of a financial comptroller-because that is really what the position required is -for the office of the High Commissioner. Mr. Pacaud's name has been mentioned. Mr. Pacaud is the head of the office under the high commissioner. But his duties do not relate primarily to financial affairs, and I think m}' hon. friend from his experience as High Commissioner would feel that it was in every way advisable for Canada to have on the staff some expert accountant who would give his whole time to these very important financial matters.


George Halsey Perley: The Prime Minister seems to give all the credit to Colonel Reid Hyde for collecting money from Greece and Roumania. I wonder if Mr. Larkin, our High Commissioner, is not entitled to some of that credit? It seems to me he must be. "


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was very
careful to say that Colonel Reid Hyde had acted in consultation with and under the direction of the High Commissioner. Unquestionably the credit is primarily due to Mr. Larkin, whose great financial ability is recognized not only in this country but throughout the world. However, as my hon. friend knows, in transactions of this kind a high commissioner would wish to have associated with him someone who is able to render professional services of an expert character and
56103-222i
who could attend to details. I have just been looking over the class of professional services rendered. They relate to the adjustment of accounts with the treasury, with the admiralty, with the board of trade, to conferences regarding Canada's share of reparations under the Dawes plan, to the adjustment of the Greek and Roumanian loans, and so on. These are all financial transactions and, as my hon. friend has said, we are fortunate in having as High Commissioner a gentleman of such great experience in financial matters as Hon. Mr. Larkin. Under his direction the office has been able in this short time to secure for Canada the payments to which I have referred.


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
Henry Herbert Stevens: I thank my hon. friend. Apparently he is suffering from a little personal pique this afternoon. Then I was informed that Mr. Pacaud was at lunch and could not see me. Next day he wrote me a very nice letter apologizing for the delay occasioned me and asking if I would call again. Unfortunately I did not get an opportunity of doing so. While I was there a gentleman came bustling in and everything was on the jump at once. Here wtas Colonel Reid Hyde, with all the gold-braided flunkeys of the Canada House, touching their caps and bowing and scraping to Colonel Reid Hyde. Colonel Reid Hyde has been attached to the High Commissioner's office in a wholly unnecessary capacity. He might have done some of these minor jobs .for the High Commissioner, but as the Prime Minister has said, it wias the High Commissioner's duty-and undoubtedly he did it-to carry out the major negotiations in connection with this settlement. I should be sorry indeed to think that he had done otherwise. But to suggest that Colonel Reid Hyde was a necessary instrument in carrying it out is going pretty far. Personally I do not think his presence at Canada House is any help to Canada. It would be a great deal better for Canada if Canada House were turned into an office where Canadians could go and get the information they desired, and where those who are in London seeking information about this dominion might obtain that information in a reasonable and straightforward manner, which is not the case at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for representation at Washington, including salaries and allowances for minister plenipotentiary, secretaries and staff, notwith-
IMr. Stevens.]
standing anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act or any of its amendments, $100,000.
["I thank my hon. friend. Apparently he is suffering from a little personal pique this afternoon. Then I was informed that Mr. Pacaud was at lunch and could not see me. Next day he wrote me a very nice letter apologizing for the delay occasioned me and asking if I would call again. Unfortunately I did not get an opportunity of doing so. While I was there a gentleman came bustling in and everything was on the jump at once. Here wtas Colonel Reid Hyde, with all the gold-braided flunkeys of the Canada House, touching their caps and bowing and scraping to Colonel Reid Hyde. Colonel Reid Hyde has been attached to the High Commissioner's office in a wholly unnecessary capacity. He might have done some of these minor jobs .for the High Commissioner, but as the Prime Minister has said, it wias the High Commissioner's duty-and undoubtedly he did it-to carry out the major negotiations in connection with this settlement. I should be sorry indeed to think that he had done otherwise. But to suggest that Colonel Reid Hyde was a necessary instrument in carrying it out is going pretty far. Personally I do not think his presence at Canada House is any help to Canada. It would be a great deal better for Canada if Canada House were turned into an office where Canadians could go and get the information they desired, and where those who are in London seeking information about this dominion might obtain that information in a reasonable and straightforward manner, which is not the case at the present time."]
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might remind the committee that last year when I asked the house to appropriate $130,000 for the legation ait Washington I stated that if we were placed in a position to purchase a building it would be possible to reduce that estimate by at least $25,000 when I next came to parliament for an appropriation. I am pleased to direct the attention of the committee to the fact that that promise has been implemented and thait this year the appropriation for the legation at Washington is $30,000 less than the amount asked for last year. The difference is to be accounted for by the fact that Canada owns its building in Washington and there are no rentals to be paid.


Mr. GARDINER:: What were the expenses last year?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The total expense was $9S,000.


Robert Gardiner: I presume that the
agreement in regard to the building went through all right. I am not acquainted with the terms of the agreement and perhaps the Prime Minister will give us some information.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Under	the
Public Works items the house appropriated the sum of $500,000 for the purchase of a building including furnishings-it was a building already furnished. The entire $500,000 was not required; the building and furnishings were secured for $470,000.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What staff is employed,
and has it been found necessary to increase the number in the last year?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might say
that the exact cost of the building and furnishings was $477,756. There is a staff of from twelve to fourteen, including stenographers, messengers, clerks and secretaries.


Mr. GEARY:: What are the details of this $100,000? For instance, what provision is made for depreciation and things of that sort?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This item has nothing ait all to do with the building; it relates to salaries, and allowances for travelling expenses and for the general carrying on of the legation.


George Reginald Geary: Is this the only vote in
regard to the Washington legation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is the
only vote; it includes maintenance of the legation, it covers salaries, allowances for motor car, travelling advances, telegraph, tele-

Supply-Representation at Washington
phone, printing and stationery, light and fuel, office keeping and some furnishings; also sundries of -one kind or another.


Hugh Guthrie: In connection with this
item there is a matter concerning which I wish to make some inquiries, particularly in regard to our minister at Washington. I have reference to the case of a French Canadian widow, Mrs. .Amedee Bilodeau, who has a very large claim against the government of the United States, and which has been in process of settlement-at least, the negotiations have been going on for settlement-for a number of years. The matter has recently been drawn to the attention of the leader of the opposition, and as he was not able to be here ito-day he asked me to bring it up when this vote came before the committee. It is a very grave case of an international character and from the papers I have been able to examine in regard to iit I think this poor woman is suffering a serious injustice at the hands of the United States government. The question is, why our representative in Washington has. not been able to effect some settlement of this woman's claim. The facts, which I shall briefly state, will be in the momory of the Minister of Justice and also of the Solicitor General. They are these:	Amedee Bilodeau of Sherbrooke was shot down in cold blood by an officer of the United States government in Canadian territory on May 29, 1925. The quibble that has taken place during the last three years has been whether it was or was not in Canadian territory; but when one reads the evidence adduced in support of the claim, one is convinced that it is merely a quibble. The unlawful act took place in Canada, and the officer of the American government who perpetrated the offence is at large and has not been prosecuted. This woman has made a plea to the United States government and I think she has enlisted the sympathy of the Department of Justice; considerable correspondence has taken place between the two governments, but the last leter placed in my hands is the reply of the Secretary of State of the United States, expressing the regret of the government of the United States that such a thing should happen, but refusing the claim of the widow for any compensation. This is a matter of international interest; why has not the Department of Justice taken proceedings to arrest the offending officer? If that crime were committed in Canada he could be arrested and extradited, but up to the present time no suoh step has been taken. It was admitted at the outset that the crime did take place in Canada.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: No, that is denied.


Hugh Guthrie: I need only take the
statement of the district attorney of Essex county in the state of Vermont, in a letter written on June 18, immediately after the occurrence. As a reason for not prosecuting the offender, who was an official of the United States government, he says:
The case was never presented in our courts because we were satisfied that the shooting of Bilodeau took place in the Dominion of Canada.
There was no prosecution; the man was given his liberty. As I have said, the evidence was submitted to the Department of Justice and was also placed in my hands, and it convinces one that the question of where the actual occurrence took place is merely a quibble. It occurred on the Canadian side of the international boundary, twenty-five or thirty feet in Canada; the man was deliberately shot down by the United States officer, three or four shots being fired at him. He was able to run some three hundred yards before he dropped, and he ran further into Canadian territory. Then he was picked up by the American officer, placed in a motor car and taken to a hospital in the state of Vermont, but was dead before he reached the hospital.
From the record I see that two American officers came to Canada for the purpose of getting evidence with which to break up some illicit drug trading which was being carried on between Canada and the United States. From the evidence one gathers that Bilodeau, the man who was killed, in some way was mixed up with this illegal traffic. These officers were sent to Canada for the purpose of stopping that traffic, if possible. They induced two men in the province of Quebec, Bilodeau the deceased and a man named Price, to get them some narcotic drugs to be taken to the United States. It seems that a certain quantity of drugs was procured in Montreal, and when the parties started to go back to the United States some altercation seems to have arisen when they were at a point in Canada near the international boundary line. What the altercation was I cannot say from the evidence, but it is certain that one of the American officers, who was travelling at the time under an assumed name, deliberately shot down this man Bilodeau. The other American officer drew a revolver and threatened the other man, Price; he severely assaulted him and threatened to shoot him. Bilodeau, however, was illegally shot down in Canadian territory, and I cannot imagine why the Department of Justice has not taken steps to prosecute that man. I fancy they have used the diplomatic
3510	COMMONS
Supply-Representation at Washington
channels in Washington, which not only exist now but which have existed for some time, but there seems to be little or no prospect that they will succeed in getting anything from the government of the United States for this unfortunate woman. The United States apparently allege that there is a great conflict as to whether the act was committed on the Canadian or on the American side of the line; if it was committed on the American side of the line why was not this man prosecuted? If it was committed on the Canadian side of the line why do not our authorities take proceedings now to bring this man to Canada and try him?


Ernest Lapointe: Does not my hon. friend think that if there is a possibility of criminal proceedings, the attorney general) of the province is responsible?


Hugh Guthrie: I think the Department of Justice here has been seized of all the facts and has been diligently corresponding with the government of the United States.


Ernest Lapointe: That was for the purpose of securing compensation for the widow and not in order to institute criminal proceedings.


Hugh Guthrie: Unless I am misinformed the Minister of Justice has power to direct the attorney general to lay an information, and I cannot see why this step has not been taken in regard to this case, with which the Department of Justice has greatly concerned itself. Whether or not the door is closed to this woman getting anything in the way of compensation, through the last letter from the Secretary of State for the United States, I do not know, but a glaring wrong has been done in the Dominion of Canada. Our law has been broken, altogether apart from the question of reparation, a crime has been committed in this country by an officer of the American government, and up to the present time no prosecution has taken place. I would ask the Prime Minister to see to it that our representative in Washington, reopens this matter with the authorities of the United States; it is sufficiently serious to be proceeded with. "Let justice be done though the heavens fall" is an old, accepted maxim, but at the present moment we have a condition which permits an official of the United States government to come into Canada and slay a man in cold blood, and no prosecution has yet taken place on either side of the line.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might say to my hon. friend that this matter is by no means closed. My hon. friend has referred

to a communication from the United States Secretary of State, but the government of Canada does not accept the view of the United States government in, this matter. Within the last week representations on that very point have been made anew to the United States government through our minister at Washington. As my bon. friend has intimated, the United States government hold that the shooting took plane in the United States and that the act was performed in selfdefence. We do not admit that; we contend, as my hon. friend has contended, that the act was committed on this side of the line and that it resulted in the death of an individual whose widow is now entitled to compensation, and we are pressing the claim of the widow in the name of the government of Canada. I can assure my hon. friend that this matter is receiving all the attention which the circumstances will permit at this time.


Robert Gardiner: With regard to this
matter I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government will be satisfied with compensation paid to the widow?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As the Minister of Justice has just said, with respect to criminal proceedings there is an obligation upon the attorney general of the province; it is not an obligation which rests with the Minister of Justice of the Dominion. As the minister has just reminded me, it is not only an obligation; the power in the matter rests with the province. If the government of Canada succeed in establishing the right of this widow to redress, I assume that of itself will be evidence that a crime has been committed, in which event I would be very much surprised if the province in which it was shown that the act had been committed did not take immediate action.


Mr. McGIBBON:: How is it that it cannot be proven where the crime took place three years ago, and why has the man not been arrested?


Ernest Lapointe: There are many lawyers interested in the matter and they are leaving nothing undone.


Peter McGibbon: I cannot say much for their efficiency if, after three years, they cannot determine that matter.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think thp lawyers have been exceedingly diligent in having failed to get the proper co-operation from this government.


Mr. MacDONALD (South Cape Breton):: There is another matter I would like to bring

Supply-Representation at Washington
to the attention of the committee in connection with this Washington embassy. I refer to the question of vessels which have been arrested off the coast of the United States. The case in which I am particularly interested has to do with a vessel owned by a person in my own constituency. This vessel was arrested nineteen miles off the coast of the United States, taken into one of the ports and kept there for eighteen months or two years until the vessel practically went to pieces. The matter was tried in the United States court and it was decided that they had mo business to arrest. This was about three years ago, and from that time the owner has been trying to get redress. I think the matter was before the British minister previous to the appointment of our own minister; then it was handed over to the latter. I have written repeatedly to the department and all I have been able to get so far is the statement that the matter is under consideration. We should, under the treaty, be able to get some action in three years because we have a treaty now between Great Britain and the United States under which such claims can be established and paid. I would ask that some action be taken because I think the matter has been under consideration long enough.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The case my hon. friend has mentioned is similar to a number which have come up within the last year or two, since the treaty to which he refers was signed. Practically al are cases that relate to alleged bootlegging. The government is anxious as far as it is possible to lend no encouragement to this traffic. We have not attempted to press cases where it was not clearly established that a national interest was affected rather than some bootlegging interest. I am afraid the case my hon. friend has in mind has not come clearly in the class of one thaJt is wholly in the national interest. However, I shall! have pleasure in seeing that the matter is looked into further.


Finlay MacDonald: I think the department is satisfied about the justice of this claim because it has already been determined by a United States court. There is no question of bootlegging because the vessel was nineteen miles off the coast. The only thing I have to complain of is the delay, because there are special provisions in this treaty whereby all we have to do is to ask for an arbitration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The point, I understand, is largely one of whether the seizure was unreasonable or improper, and any
technical question is perhaps secondary. However, the department will look into the matter further.


George Reginald Geary: Regarding the matter brought up by my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), we could understand a delay in criminal proceedings in Vermont, where they are notoriously slow, as in many of the states of the union, but as a rule we do not find that same lack of desire to prosecute criminal offenders in the provinces of this country. This is a case of great notoriety, and it has been brought to the attention of the Justice department. It has been investigated by them and thaJt department is seized of all the circumstances. I would be glad to know if the Justice department has communicated with the attorney general of the province of Quebec or even with the local crown attorney It is quite conceivable that the matter may not have reached the attention of the authorities in Quebec.


Ernest Lapointe: I am quite sure that
the department of the attorney general in ' Quebec has investigated into the matter. I did not know that this question would come up to-day and I did not look at the papers, but I will be pleased to inquire into the matter.


George Reginald Geary: The Minister of Justice will be aware that if there was neglect in prosecuting, the Department of Justice can hardly keep out of the matter now that they have taken such a prominent part in the whole affair.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think the provinces would allow even -the Department of Justice ,at Ottawa to investigate criminal affairs or take their place in regard to these matters.


George Reginald Geary: But they would very readily allow themselves to be pressed by the Minister of Justice to do their duty.


Ernest Lapointe: I believe the department of the attorney general of Quebec is doing its duty; there has never been any complaint as to that. I think our record in criminal matters in Quebec is clean.


George Reginald Geary: TheTe is no suggestion it is not. Here is a case in which there has been some miscarriage of justice, and the matter is very plainly within the purview of the Justice department here. It seems to me that the Justice department cannot stand aside and let this matter go unchallenged.


Ernest Lapointe: I think the gentleman
interested in this case has made a mistake when he tries to make it a political issue.


George Reginald Geary: I never heard of it before.
Supply-Miscellaneous


Mr. KAISER:: We are asked to provide
$100,000 for the expense of running the legation at Washington. Will the details of the expenditures pass through the hands of our Auditor General, 'just the same as other departments, and will this be the practice in regard to the new legations that are about to be established in different countries?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Every cent
of expenditure is audited by the Auditor General, and the particulars appear in his report.


George Halsey Perley: The following
appears in a Canadian Press despatch from Winnipeg; in Saturday morning's issue of the Ottawa Journal:
The appointment of a Canadian minister to Washington will be followed before very long by the appointment of Canadian plenipotentiaries to Buenos Aires, in the Argentine, and to the capital of Mexico, Dr. AY. N. Sage, assistant professor of history at the University of British Columbia, declared in the course of an address before the Canadian Historical Association, here to-day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Sage has
been posing as a prophet, but whether he will prove to be a reliable one or not I am unable to say. I would say to the committee that the government have no present intention of making any such appointments as those to which my hon. friend Iras just referred.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-salaries and expenses, passport office, $23,000.
['Mr. Sage has\nbeen posing as a prophet, but whether he will prove to be a reliable one or not I am unable to say. I would say to the committee that the government have no present intention of making any such appointments as those to which my hon. friend Iras just referred.']
Henry Elvins Spencer: Does the money paid
for passports meet the expenses of running the passport office?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The amount
obtained by the government in fees for passports more than pays the expenses of the office.


Mr. KENNEDY:: There seems to be a
good deal of misunderstanding throughout the country with regard to these passports. For instance, a short time ago a man came to see me who wanted to get a passport to go to the old country. His complaint was that he was informed by the agent of the Canadian National at Edmonton that he woidd have no trouble whatever in Ottawa and he came from Edmonton to this city. He said that if it had not been that parliament was in session and I happened to be in Ottawa, he would have had great difficulty in getting his passport because there was no one else he knew in this city or anywhere east of Alberta to whom he could refer and who could identify him in order that he might

obtain a passport. If we are going to have or if we must have a passport system, the railway agents and others selling tickets and acting as agents for steamship lines ought at least to be compelled to give to those purchasing tickets from them reasonable information regarding passports as well as in respect to all the other things it is necessary for them to know in order to proceed to the full length of the journey on which they are starting.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The same
amount of knowledge with respect to passports is, I believe, current in Canada as in any other country. Anyone going abroad assumes, I imagine, that a passport will be required and it is. very easy for an individual to ascertain where a passport is to be obtained. I think the railway companies, as my hon. friend has suggested, should advise all their agencies fully with respect to that requirement and thus help individuals purchasing tickets readily to obtain the information they need as to passports. I cannot think of any method that could be devised to make it easier for a Canadian citizen to secure a passport than that which exists at the present time.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: That is perfectly true
so far as the passport office is concerned, but the railway agents-I think the Minister of Railways might take notice of this, and he might be able to help out-should give correct information and not start people out with wrong information on a journey from the ends of this country to Europe or some other place. The business of the railway agents is to sell tickets and I think they ought at least to be charged with a sense of responsibility and not to give out wrong information to people who are buying tickets from them.


Mr. DUNNING:: I know as a matter of
fact that all railway agents, particularly in the larger centres, are fully informed regarding the passport requirements, but I would hesitate to assume the responsibility for the possibility of individual error on the part of one or more of the many thousands of station agents in Canada. The railway companies, for the very good commercial reason mentioned by my hon. friend, place their agents in a position to supply a mine of information on many topics and among them is undoubtedly the passport question.


George Reginald Geary: They have forms, I understand.

Supply-League of Nations


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: I have had the same experience. A gentleman who came from my district was told by the agent that it was easy to obtain a passport. He said to him: Go through Ottawa and everything will be lovely. When he arrived in this city no one could identify him. I do not know whether it was the railway agent or a private agent who gave him, as my hon. friend said, false information, failing to tell him that he had to get statements and documents signed by local residents. Had he been told that he would have known what to do. I think some responsibility rests upon the railway companies to instruct their agents to give correct advice. It is a very serious thing for a person to come three thousand miles and then have to go back or wait here for some weeks in order to get the necessary documents.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will see that this discussion is communicated to both railway companies.


Hugh Guthrie: Could the Prime Minister on this item assist me in a difficulty that has arisen in my constituency? An Italian named Gesmina, residing in Guelph, a British subject, who was not familiar with the passport regulations, went to Italy last August taking with him his naturalization certificate instead of a passport. He landed in Italy and although now he desires to return to Canada they will not let him out of Italy. The Italian government take the position that he entered Italy without a passport and he must not leave the country. I cannot get a passport for him now because I have no photograph of him. It seems, now that he is there, he is liable for some military service and they will not let him go. The man is a British subject and for twenty years he has been a resident of Guelph. Is there any way, diplomatic or otherwise, of getting that matter arranged?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I imagine
that if Mr. Mussolini were advised that the acting leader of the opposition had brought this matter up in the Canadian parliament and had personal reasons for wishing to have it arranged, he would be prepared to have it put right. It would certainly appear that Mr. Mussolini has the necessary power.


Hugh Guthrie: If my right hon. friend
will bring the matter to his attention, that might solve my difficulty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will do that with pleasure.


George Halsey Perley: Under present
regulations does every Canadian who goes simply to England have to haye a passport?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the
regulation. We have repeatedly discussed with the British government what seems to us to be something of an anomaly, namely, that a Canadian citizen must have a passport in order to get into the British Isles. The British authorities contend that after all time and trouble is saved by the passports which they require as a means of enforcing their regulations with respect to aliens. They think if Canadians have passports they will be subjected to less in the way of questioning.


George Reginald Geary: I am only surprised there is so little trouble. If it were not that we have a particularly efficient and courteous staff in connection with the passport office, we would have a great deal more trouble. The process is a most annoying and embarrassing one to go through, but they put it through with the minimum of trouble to the people concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous - To provide for Canada's contribution to the expenses of the League of Nations for 1928-including Secretariat, International Labour Organization and Permanent Court of International Justice, $155,968.21.
['I am only surprised there is so little trouble. If it were not that we have a particularly efficient and courteous staff in connection with the passport office, we would have a great deal more trouble. The process is a most annoying and embarrassing one to go through, but they put it through with the minimum of trouble to the people concerned.']
Hugh Guthrie: I have another matter to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister. Complaints have been received by the leader of the opposition and no doubt by the Prime Minister himself from various cities in Canada where there is a more or less extensive Jewish population, asking that something be done in regard to the alleged persecution of the Jewish people in Roumania and, I think, in other eastern European states. The writers of these letters inquire why something cannot be done by Canada's representative on the League of Nations. I would ask the Prime Minister if this matter has been brought to his attention and if any steps have been taken to mitigate the trouble in regard to the Jewish population particularly in Roumania. I understand that anti-Jewish agitations have been going on in that country for some time. I he relatives of many of these people are residents of the Dominion of Canada and they are naturally much alarmed at conditions which exist in Roumania. They expect, I think very reasonably, that our representative on the League of Nations should take this matter up with the idea of having these persecutions stopped.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand
that the principle laid down by the League of Nations in matters of the kind is that the
Supply-League of Nations

minority adversely affected should themselves, make -representations to the league. I understand that in this particular matter of the alleged persecution of the Jews in Roumania, the minority have made representations to the league, and that the matter is at the present time before the council of the league. As my hon. friend knows, Canada is represented on the council of the league, and I am sure that the circumstance will occasion an extra interest on Canada's part in the matter which my hon. friend has brought up.


Hugh Guthrie: There is one other matter pertaining to the League of Nations. Complaints have also been -made, and I have no doubt to the government as well as to the leader of the opposition, in regard to German currency which is held in this country to a considerable extent and was purchased during or after the war. It is said that in some countries German currency has already been redeemed out of the alien enemy property which has accumulated in the hands of receivers in various countries. There is a proposal, I believe, before congress now that German currency held in the United States shall be redeemed out of -money held by the custodian of alien property in that country. Whether that proposal will go through congress I cannot say, but it seems that there is held a considerable amount of German currency, in marks, much of which was purchased at a higher figure, and much at a ridiculously low figure, but the holders of this currency are unable to obtain any payment at all from Germany. Could the matter be taken up either at the League of Nations or in any other quarter to see if some compensation could not be made to the holders of this German currency? Canada obtains a large amount of reparation -money. Is there any provision in regard to that reparation money for the redeeming of this German currency?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It would seem as if German currency was in the same position as the depreciated currency of many other countries.


Hugh Guthrie: But the German currency has been repudiated altogether, I believe.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That may possibly be the case. At any rate it is depreciated to a point where a good many, I imagine, would be inclined to repudiate it. To take action in accordance with the suggestion of my hon. friend would mean that the government would have to consider very carefully the element of speculation that may have entered into the whole question of the holding of German currency, and I am afraid
[Mr. Mackenzie King.J
that were we to attempt to solve that phase of the question, we would get into a morass out of which we would never succeed in extricating ourselves.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Will the Prime
Minister be good enough to explain what the increase in expenditure is due to? We are in for this expenditure now, but I think we should be careful that we have as little increase in expenditure as possible.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my hon.
friend will recall, Canada was elected to the council of the league, and that has involved some additional expenditure. The additional expenditure is accounted for in that way.


Arthur Edward Ross: Now that we have a seat on the council of the league, what is our position in regard to the receipt of these notes from the United States in regard to
peace?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Ou-r position, I assume, is precisely the same as that of Great Britain -and all the other nations that are members of the league.


Arthur Edward Ross: It seems rather
odd, now that we -are spending a large amount on the League of Nations to preserve peace, that we should be receiving separately these notes from the United States.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I presume my hon. friend is referring to the invitation extended by the United States government to the great powers-


Arthur Edward Ross: The Kellogg note.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will realize, of course, that the United States is not a member of the League of Nations, and it would not be in a position on its own initiative to communicate through the league. I think we ought to welcome as many invitations as possible to join in a movement of the kind.


Arthur Edward Ross: Might it not have been preferable for us to stay out of the league? We might have been able to deal with these things better separately.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, I think
not.


Peter McGibbon: Is this increase for entertaining purposes?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think it is, no.


Mr. CANTLEY:: Will the Prime Minister explain these various increases? There are four of them altogether, totalling over $196,-

Supply-League of Nations
009. There is an increase in item 291 of $5,000 odd, an increase in the next item of $0,000, an increase of $5,000 in item 297, and a much larger increase in the other item.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will do my best to explain the increases as we come to the various items.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required for expenses of Canadian delegates to the assembly council and commissions of the League of Nations, $21,000.
['I will do my best to explain the increases as we come to the various items.']
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The increase
here is due to the circumstance I have already mentioned, namely, that we are on the council of the league, as well as being represented at the assembly. There are additional expenses arising out of representation on the council.


Arthur Edward Ross: Will the Prime
Minister explain what has happened this year or last year to account for the increase?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Last year
Canada was elected to a seat on the council of the league.


Arthur Edward Ross: Who took that
seat?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The leader of the government in the Senate has represented Canada on one or two occasions on the council. At the next meeting of the council Canada will be represented by the Hon. Philippe Roy, who is at present Commissioner General in Paris.


Thomas Cantley: May I ask the Prime
Minister what advantage accrues to Canada through a seat in the council, which increases our expenditure by $6,000?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is a very large question. Representation on the council affords us a wider knowledge of affairs in which we ale interested, and also enables Canada's voice to be heard in the councils of Europe on matters in which we are interested. My hon. friend doubtless heard the very eloquent and able address made this afternoon by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, in which he expressed his belief that Canada's influence was beneficial among the nations of the world, and that it would be increasingly so as the years go by. That is the view which the govem-' ment holds with respect to our representation on the council of the League of Nations and it is because we believe we may be able to make a contribution that will be helpful that we have accepted a seat on the council.


Peter McGibbon: Was it the wish of the
government of Canada that we be represented on the council?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That was a
matter which the nations represented at the league themselves decided. The Canadian government did not take any part whatever in the matter.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: When does the next
meeting of the assembly take place?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It meets on
the first Monday of September each year.


Alfred Speakman: Is Canada preparing
part of the agenda which will be discussed at that time? This is a matter of considerable interest to Canadians.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The preliminary agenda has, I understand, been prepared, but the final agenda has not yet come forward.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for representation at Geneva, $17,000.
['The preliminary agenda has, I understand, been prepared, but the final agenda has not yet come forward.']
Thomas Cantley: Why the increase here?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is to cover an additional secretary and stenographer. The work of our representation at Geneva has increased for the reason I have already mentioned-our representation on the council.


Arthur Edward Ross: Who is the additional representation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As to the addition to the staff at Geneva, the appointment has not yet been made. The appropriation will have to be provided first.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide publications of League of Nations for distribution to members of parliament and a grant to League of Nations Society of Canada, $3,000.
['As to the addition to the staff at Geneva, the appointment has not yet been made. The appropriation will have to be provided first.']
William Lyon Mackenzie King: At first sight
this may appear a considerable increase- $2,250. It is only a small portion of what was requested by the League of Nations Society of Canada. The government felt it would be furthering the wishes of parliament in giving to the Canadian Society an additional amount for the distribution of publications of the League of Nations.


Alfred Speakman: Can the Prime Minister give any idea of the success of the drive which has just been concluded for increased membership in the Canadian Society of the League of Nations?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid I cannot give my hon. friend any information. That is the work of the society itself, and I have not heard how successful the drive has been.
3516	COMMONS
Supply-Representation at Paris and Tokyo
M'r. SPEAKMAN: I appreciate that it is not a government institution, but I thought the Prime Minister might have been in touch with the heads of the society.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand the society has been successful in increasing its membership considerably, but I a.m sorry that I cannot give particulars.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for representation at Paris, including salaries and allowances for minister plenipotentiary, secretaries and staff, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act or any of its amendments, $75,000.
['I understand the society has been successful in increasing its membership considerably, but I a.m sorry that I cannot give particulars.']
Hugh Guthrie: What increased salary will our minister receive, and what increase in staff is necessitated by the change?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my hon.
friend is aware, the Hon. Philippe Roy is at the present time Commissioner General of Canada in France. Mr. Roy received his appointment in 1911, and has continued a3 Canada's representative ever since. He has served under different governments, and I think with entire satisfaction to all of them. His present salary is $12,000. It is not intended to increase his salary when Mr. Roy is appointed-as he will be, we hope-to the position of minister plenipotentiary. There will be an additional allowance for representation purposes. There will be a slight increase in the staff. Apart from that we do not expect that the expenses of the present office in Paris will be materially increased. I might say to my hon. friend that for some time past Mr. Roy has represented that the premises in which the present offices are situated are quite inadequate. Possibly hon. gentlemen will recall that when there was a thought of purchasing the Scribe hotel it was the intention to have the Paris office transferred to that building, had it come into the possession of the government of Canada. However, when that project was dropped the Canadian office in Paris remained where it had always been. We would have changed the office in any event, whether we had decided to open a legation in Paris or not. The intention is to move from the present premises to another part of Paris where better accommodation can be had and which will prove more convenient-the Rue Francois Premier. The rent of the new office will be a little higher, and some of the additional amount in the estimate is asked for on that account.


Mr. MANION:: Does the Prime Minister mean that the new location will be more convenient for Mr. Roy or more convenient for
fMr. Mackenzie King.]
Canadians who may have occasion to call there? I ask the question because I remember that the present office is exceedingly convenient for any Canadian seeking information I do not know the street named by the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend looks at a map of Paris he will find that most of the embassies and legations are located in the section of the city to 'which the office is being transferred. This section, I understand, is increasing in its business significance, and -I believe the new location will be even more convenient to Canadians visiting Paris than the present one.


Hugh Guthrie: I think $12,000 was rather an inadequate salary for the Commissioner
General in view of the duties he had to perform and the expenditure he had to incur. Now he is to be raised to the position of minister plenipotentiary is it the intention of the government to supplement his salary at all?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The salary remains at the figure at which it has been, but the government is making an increased representation allowance, as it is termed.


Hugh Guthrie: Is it included in the
$75,000?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for representation at Tokyo, including salaries and allowances for minister plenipotentiary, secretaries, and staff, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act or any- of its amendments, $50,000.
['Yes.']
Hugh Guthrie: Might I ask my right
hon. friend to allow this item to stand until my leader returns?	.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly.
Item stands.
Supplementary estimates-civil government External Affairs - Contingencies - further amount required, $7,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This vote arises out of the circumstance that we expect [DOT]increased obligations arising out of the legations at Paris and Tokyo, and the addition of a high commissioner's office in Ottawa after the arrival of the high commissioner from England.


Thomas Langton Church: I should like to ask what item are we considering now? I wish to move an amendment to reduce this to a dollar. I so move that amendment. I will write it out

Supply-Railways-Railway Commission


The CHAIRMAN:: Item 413 of the supplementary estimates. Shall the item carry? Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Railways and Canals-Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, maintenance and operation, $287,100.
Mr. BRADETTE:: This vote brings up a
question which is of considerable importance to my constituency. At least 90 per cent of the entire Canadian National Railway system is at present paying taxation, or ait any rate compensation in lieu of taxation, to all municipalities along the system; but for some reason unknown to us we in northern Ontario are not receiving any compensation or taxation whatsoever. I have already referred to this subject; I brought it up when speaking on the address in reply to the speech from the throne at the beginning of the session. It will no doubt surprise hon. members that so far this question has not been brought to the attention of the house. I want to point out however (that in northern Ontario the whole subject is under consideration. The town of Cochrane is taking a keen interest in it, being well organized for the discussion of these matters affecting that part of the country. We have been working on a policy for the last twelve years and have sent several delegations to Ottawa. We have met various ministers of different governments and we 'have also interviewed the provincial authorities. So far, however, the matter has never been discussed on the floor of this house. Now, I do not want to be parochial or regional, because this is a matter of national importance. The question of public and private ownership naturally involves the principle of taxation, and-
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	I know my hon.
friend wishes to have sufficient time to develop this subject properly. I suggest therefore thait this matter is more appropriately connected with the Canadian National Railway vote than with the vote for the Board of Railway Commissioners. The taxation of railways is a question that does not come within the purview of that board. My hon. friend doubtless has in mind the Canadian National board. I 'have no objection to his proceeding, but his remarks would be more in order, and 'he would have more time to develop his subject, if he waited until the Canadian Nationlal estimates were under discussion.


Mr. HEAPS:: But the hon. member's remarks might apply to the Canadian Pacific as well as to the Canadian National.


Charles Avery Dunning: Neither is under the
jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners so far as taxation is concerned.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Some principle governing the question of taxation, and applicable to both railways, should be arrived at. I know that this is a broad question, but it is one that will have to be discussed sooner or later, and the sooner we discuss it and come to some conclusion the better it will be for the country at large. I shall be perfectly satisfied to discuss it under another item, but I want to emphasize the fact that this discussion is absolutely necessary.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend will
understand that I have no objection to his going on; I was merely pointing out that the matter is not strictly relevant to the item now before the committee.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Under what item does
the minister think at would be best to discuss the question?


Charles Avery Dunning: Unquestionably under the vote for Canadian National Railways.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: What time does the
minister think that vote will come before the house?


Charles Avery Dunning: I wish I knew; I can
only say, some time before the end of the session. I will bear in mind that my hon. friend does desire to speak on the subject on that occasion, and will endeavour to make sure that he knows when the vote comes up. If in the meantime he is in the house as much as I am he will know when it is being discussed.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: That will be satisfactory under the circumstances, but I want it understood that it is my intention to bring the matter forcibly before the minister so that a conclusion may be arrived at before next session.


Thomas Langton Church: The item we are now discussing passed last session at four o'clock in the morning. At that time the minister promised to bring down certain information asked for in a motion for papers. That -information has not been brought down. This commission was appointed a few years ago to facilitate the settlement of disputes between the municipalities and the railways, but so far as the exercise of any jurisdiction on the part of the commission goes, this item providing for $287,000 might as well be struck out. Indeed, I am going to move now that the item be reduced by $200,000. This commission has ceased to exercise its functions; it has ceased to invoke the powers, privileges and functions for which it was appointed. It
3518	COMMONS
Supply-Railways-Railway Commission
might just as well be abolished, and we might profitably go back to .the law of supply and demand for all the commission has done in the way of regulating freight and passenger charges and express and telephone rates.
The people of this country are entitled to better treatment than they have been receiving at the hands of the commission. The Board of Railway Commissioners is not a court; it never was a court, some of the gentlemen on the commission are not lawyers and are not qualified to be judges. You might as well suggest that the Civil Service Commission was a court. A ruling was given recently to the effect that there could be no criticism of the commission because it is a court. When the bill was introduced into this house, under the Laurier government, setting up the commission the reasons given for the creation of the commission were that, in the first place, the railway committee of the privy council, which was a committee of the cabinet, was too busy and that, secondly, in a matter of this sort we should have railway and civil engineers on the board the commission was to be in effect a committee of parliament. This commission was created under the auspices of a great chairman, the late Mr. Justice Mabee, and later under Sir Henry Drayton. Under the chairmanship of those gentlemen the commission got somewhere, but now it has fallen from grace. One application with regard to express rates, has been before the commission for eight or ten years or longer than that, with the result that the commissioners who originally had tha question under consideration have all died. No decision has ever been given in the matter. The members of the board are dead and gone, and no proper hearing has been held to determine the case. Now the express rates case must Ibe heard all over again, and the municipalities have been invited to come back to Ottawa and see what can be done.
I have good reasons for moving this amendment; the railway commission has failed to exercise its power. Members of that commission are sworn to carry out their duties; they may go into matters of this kind of their own volition, without waiting for everyone to complain, in order to give the long-suffering people of this country some relief. I have looked over the list of cases for the last fifteen or twenty years and I cannot find one instance where they went into a case of this kind on their own responsibility, or volition, as the act says. That may be due to the fact that the government have not appointed the gentlemen best qualified to undertake this work of rate regulation. The Interstate Oom-

merce Commission across the border has this same power, and they deal with cases of this kind on their own responsibility.


Charles Avery Dunning: Just before six o'clock
pei'haps my hon. friend will answer this question:	If the Interstate Commerce Commission is so useful in the United States, how is it that the rates in Canada are far lower than those which obtain in the United States?


Thomas Langton Church: The hon. gentleman can
reply at the proper time, but I can give him some rate information he knows nothing about.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am asking for it.


Thomas Langton Church: I can tell him about the
way his railway is being operated.
Progress reported.


ANGLO-EGYPTIAN TREATY
William Lyon Mackenzie King: With the permission of the house I would like to table some correspondence, which last night I promised I would table this afternoon. The correspondence was requested earlier in the session by the leader of the opposition. It relates to the communications between Canada and Great Britain on the subject of the Egyptian treaty.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 58, to incorporate the London and Port Burwell Railway Company-Mr. Taylor-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.	*
Mr. TAYLOR:: This is a bill to incorporate the London and Port Burwell Railway Company. The company propose to construct and operate a railroad line from the town of Port Burwell, in the county of Elgin, in the province of Ontario, to the city of London, in the county of Middlesex, in the province of Ontario, a distance of some thirty-four miles. At Port Burwell, the lake terminal of this railway, there is a well-developed harbour capable of accommodating the largest lake vessels. This harbour has a channel depth of about 25 feet and a turning basin of 650 feet. Only one side of this harbour is being utilized at the present time, yet it

London and Port Burwell Railway
contributed last year over $160,000 to the revenue of this Dominion. The inland terminal of this railway line will be the city of London, with a population of approximately 65,000 people. London is recognized as a distributing point for freight in southwestern Ontario.
The primary object in constructing this railway is to supply cheap transportation facilities for the products of coking ovens, which this company propose to build at Port Burwell. This is provided for in the amendment as clause 16, which reads as follows:
Provided, however, the Board of Railway Commissioners shall not exercise its powers under sections 106, 167 and 170 of the Railway Act except and until either:-
(a)	a coking plant, fully equipped, has been established at or near Port Burwell at a cost of at least $700,000; or
(b)	a bona fide contract has been' entered between responsible parties for the construction of a coking plant, fully equipped, to be established at or near Port Burwell at a cost of, at least, $700,000 and a sum of, at least, $200,000 has been expended in and/or on the construction of such coking plant; all to the satisfaction of the Board of Railway Commissioners.
' Western Ontario will thus be assured of an industrial development of the greatest value to that section of the province, helping to solve the fuel problem in that locality and also assist in the establishmenet of other industries which are sure to follow -a development of this kind.
This bill was gone into very thoroughly in the committee and it was shown that the freight to be carried by this company will be new business, a product of their own development. I feel that I scarcely need appeal to the house for the passing of this bill when hon. members become aware that favourable action will mean the expenditure or employment of a large amount of new capital in the country, and capital which will assist in solving a great problem in the industrial and economic life of Ontario. In doing this it will not place any burden whatever upon any part of our country.
I should like to emphasize one more point, Mr. Chairman, and that is that the promoters of this company are not asking, nor do they intend to ask, for any assistance, financially or otherwise, except that they be given the privilege to spend their money in this manner. When the question of the capital necessary for the construction of this project was discussed in the committee, clause (4), providing for the capital stock of the company, was deleted from the bill. I, therefore, beg to move:
That the following be inserted in the said bill as clause 4:-
The capital stock of the company shall be five hundred thousand dollars.


Hugh Guthrie: Are we down to clause
4 yet?


Robert James Manion: Is not that amendment out of order?


John Frederick Johnston: There is no amendment to section 1. Shall the section carry?


Mr. WHITE (London):: Before this clause is declared carried I wish to make a few remarks in regard to this bill. I represent the city of London in this house, that city being the northern terminus of the proposed line, and I am opposed to the passing of the bill. I think I can give the committee some good reasons why the bill should not be passed.
This bill proposes to grant a charter to a railroad from Port Burwell to London, Port Burwell being on the north shore of lake Erie. There is already a railroad in operation running from the shore of lake Erie to London, and owned very largely by the city of London-the London and Port Stanley Railway. The proposed line starts at Port Burwell, which is about seventeen or eighteen miles east of Port Stanley, and runs to London in a northwesterly direction. The route of the London and Port Stanley road, which connects London with Port Stanley, is a direct line south by the shortest possible route to the shore of the lake. This road is about twenty-four miles long, while the proposed London and Port Burwell road would be thirty-four miles long, according to the sponsor of the bill.
I should like to give the committee a short history of the existing road. In the early days before railroad accommodation was what it is to-day, London suffered a great deal from very high freight rates, and in an endeavour to extricate herself from that position-and in fact the people of St. Thomas were in the same position-certain residents and officials of London and also of St. Thomas organized a company and secured a charter for the London and Port Stanley Railway. That charter was secured in 1853 so that the road has been in existence for seventy-five years. When the charter was secured there were a few private shareholders concerned as well as the municipalities of London and St. Thomas. The road commenced operations under the direction of the London and Port Stanley Railway Company in 1856 and it continued under that direction until 1874. It was then rented to the Great Western Railway and that lease ran for twenty years. The Great

London and Port Burwell Railway
Western Railway was absorbed in 1882, the Grand Trunk Railway took over that road and also of course took over the lease of the London and Port Stanley Railway. The Grand Trunk railway operated the latter road until 1892 and then, having failed to secure the stock of the road by purchase at its own price, it abandoned operations in 1892, two years before the expiration of the lease. During this time the Grand Trunk secured some shares of the stock and the stock now stands about four-fifths owned by the city of London and one-fifth owned by the Grand Trunk or the Canadian National Railways.
London bought out the shares of the city of St. Thomas in 1893, paying therefor the sum of 840,000. After the cessation of operations by the Grand Trunk there was a period in which a certain United States syndicate rented the road, but they did not operate it very long. They gave it up and finally the city of London leased it to the Pere Marquette Railway for a period of twenty-one years for a rental of about $12,000 per annum. The operation by steam continued until 1915, but it was not very satisfactory and the roadbed and bridges were allowed to depreciate. The service as regards both passenger and freight were very poor. In fact business declined very materially and of course the trunk roads had no particular object in keeping the road open to the lake. The longer haul west or east gave a great deal more to those railroads than they could get by bringing material from Port Stanley to London; so the road was allowed to decline. Prior to 1914 the city of London had invested about $520,000. That was an actual investment of cash and there were certain arrears of interest which amounted to a great deal more than that. In 1914 the city of London, being the largest creditor, took over the road. It rebuilt it, installed new 80-pound rails, new bridges, new stations and freight houses, new carshops and barns, and a great deal of new rolling stock was purchased. The road was electrified and London started operations in 1914, using hydro-electric current as the motive power.
I should like to say a word about the construction of the line. Some people have the idea that an electric line is some little line that runs alongside a highway without any particular regard for curves, grades or anything of that kind and that it probably runs all over the countryside before reaching its destination. But in this case it is a line that goes straight from London to the lake and the rails which weTe put in by the city of London

in 1914 are 80-pound rails. A great deal of broken stone was used as ballast and the other construction pertaining to electrical matters is also up to date. The road was electrified largely by the enterprise of the late Sir Adam Beck, and in installing that equipment he had the idea of making the road a standard for the hydro-radials which he was then promoting. Consequently the construction is particularly good. For example, the method of suspending the live wire is a little out of the ordinary. Steel towers were used set in cement instead of the ordinary wooden poles, and cables were stretched from tower to tower with a certain amount of sag between towers. The live wire was suspended from the cable by hangers of varying lengths in such a way that the live wire is horizontal throughout its length.
I am giving these details so that the committee will understand just how important this installation is and how well it was done. In fact the character of the construction is comparable with that which is used in electric tracks through tunnels and also in United^ States cities where they do not allow steam locomotives to go into the centre of the city. The construction is first class throughout and is such that steam roads have been using that electric road on occasions when they have mishaps on their own lines. Only three weeks ago I saw several freight trains come in hauled by Wabash engines which came over from St. Thomas to London and thence went east on the Canadian National. In that construction the city of London spent from 1914 to 1927 some $1,434,000. The road is of great importance to the whole district and particularly to London where there are three large industrial establishments situated along the line. One of these is the stove and furnace branch of the McClary works, advertised as being the largest stove and furnace plant under the British flag. Thus hon. members can see that the Port Stanley road is of great importance to the city of London in regard to freight handling. It also provides an entrance to the city of London from the city of St. Thomas by the Michigan Central, that road having made an arrangement with the London and Port Stanley for the handling of freight. That arrangement is subject to revision every five years and subject also to the approval of the Dominion railway commission.
At Port Stanley the harbour has been greatly improved by the Dominion public works department. We have twenty-two feet of water in the inner harbour and twenty-

London and Port Burwell Railway
four feet outside with about one thousand feet of dockage and a turning basin probably eight or nine hundred feet in diameter. A great deal of freight is brought in by boat to Port Stanley. The Cleveland and Canada Navigation Company run passenger and package freight boats from Cleveland. The Canada Steamship Company make Port Stanley a port of call and a great deal of package freight is handled from Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, up to Port Stanley and consequently through western Ontario by the London and Port Stanley road. Then we have a car ferry which connects Conneaut with Port Stanley and which handles about 35 or 40 loaded cars per trip. We also have the Century Coal Company which is established there, handling coal in bulk. It proposes to handle about 300,000 tons of coal this year. In committee the statement was made that the London and Port Stanley railwaj'' could not handle coal. The fact is that the London and Port Stanley railway has been handling coal every day, and has done so for twenty years or more. I have a communication here from the manager of the road in regard to its capacity as a freight-handling proposition, from which I should like to quote a few paragraphs. He says:
We have three sixty-ton electric locomotives, each equipped with four 250-horsepower motors.
The statement was made in committee that eight hundred tons of freight was the limit of a train load. I explained to the committee that while 800 tons is the limit handled to-day, it is not necessarily the limit that can be handled by these locomotives. That figure of eight hundred tons is set in order to keep the power charges down. Those who understand the method of charging for electric current will very readily understand that the peak load charge in connection with electric energy is a very heavy one. The charges for electric energy are computed in two ways: First, in computing the monthly power bill there is tihe demand or peak load charge, which is based on the highest horse-power used for a period of ten minutes during any day during the month in which the power is delivered. After that, the charge for the current is so much per kilowatt hour. Inasmuch as the charge for peak load or demand makes up about one-third to one-half of the power bill, it will be readily understood that it is very important to keep down the peak load. The manager says:
Eight hundred tons of coal is the maximum tonnage allowed for one train for the purpose 56103-223
of keeping the power peak down, but this is not the capacity haul of one locomotive. One locomotive could haul from Port Stanley to St. Thomas approximately 1,040 tons. If volume of business warranted and power was available, then it no doubt would be profitable to raise the tonnage allowance to the limit.
Further he says, referring to a vessel load of coal which came in shortly before he wrote:
With reference to the movement of 7,000 tons of coal which arrived at Port Stanley in one vessel, it will be noted that a total of 120 cars, comprising 7,200 tons, was handled from Port Stanley and delivered to our connections within the time of 50 hours. Other business handled northbound for the same period consisted of 1,731 tons, which comprised car ferry business and regular business between St. Thomas and London. Southbound movements during the same time accounted for 4,493 tons.
He also says, in regard to capacity:
The maximum number of tons that could be handled by one sixty-ton locomotive with the present restriction of 800 tons out of Port Stanley would be approximately 9,360 tons per day. The maximum number of tons that could be handled with one sixty-ton locomotive with no power restrictions would be approximately 12,480 tons per day.
So the committee can very readily see that the question of insufficient power or insufficient equipment is not a vital one, because the road is well equipped in those respects, and can handle all the tonnage that is available.
Then in addition to the freight business, the passenger business has developed to a great extent. Port Stanley has become a very popular summer resort, as it has a very desirable bathing beach and picnic ground. Since electrification there has been a marked increase in passenger traffic. The passenger business in the last year of steam operation (1915), amounted to 100,000 paying passengers. In both 1925 and 1926 there were over 1,000,000 paid passages each year on the railway, and last year, 1927, there were 700,000 passengers carried.
Now a word as to the management and the general financial results. First of all, I want to explain to the committee just how this road is being operated by the city of London. The London and Port Stanley Railway Company as at first organized is still in existence. That company is comprised of the mayor of the city of London as president, and eight aldermen, composing the board of directors, the city clerk acting as secretary. The company thus organized took over the property in 1914, and leased it from January 1, 1914, to the'city of London for a period of ninety-nine years. The city of London appoints the London railway commission, which operates

3522	COMMONS
London and Port Burwell Railway
the road. That lease and that agreement were confirmed by an act of this parliament, chapter 16 of the statutes of Canada, 1914. By it, certain rentals are payable to the city of London varying from $20,000 per year up until 1923, to larger amounts, until $50,000 per year is reached in the final years of the lease.
As to the financial outcome of our operations, the road from 1916 to 1921 paid all expenses, all taxes, rentals, operating costs, interest and sinking fund and had a surplus each year of quite a substantial sum. About that time, owing to the establishment of good roads, the competition of motor trucks and passenger automobiles became so severe that the surpluses were changed to deficits, and since then we have had a deficit each year. I should like to quote from the manager's statement in the year 1925. He says that between July 1, 1915, and December 31, 1923, the railroads paid to the city of London in rentals, $170,000; sinking fund, $170,600; accumulated surpluses, $157,000; and some other items which are too small to enumerate, which make a total of about $527,000 or a yearly average of $62,000. Those are profits over and above operating charges, interest on debentures, taxation, and other items that are met out of earning. This road is of such importance to the city of London that even if a loss were incurred each year, I am very much of the opinion that London would continue to operate the road and consider it good business, not only because of the freight that is handled, but because of the means it affords of getting people to Port Stanley.
The early stages of the road's operation proved that the road can be operated at a profit provided sufficient business is available. The difficulty is .that the road is in more or less of a starved condition so far as traffic is concerned, but physically it is kept up in A-l condition. The position is this: We need more business, and the statement of the manager of the road is that it could handle three times the business it now handles if the traffic were available. In that case, of course, the overhead would be spread over a larger tonnage, and consequently it would be much easier to make the road pay.
This is not the first time that competition has been offered to the London and Port Stanley railway. The Southwestern Traction Company started in business in 1906 or 1907. It inaugurated a line from London, through Lambeth to Port Stanley, and did a considerable business in its early years, but it failed to make profits, and was taken Over in 1910 by the London and Lake Erie Transportation Company. That company had

charters for building roads to various towns and villages in western Ontario-Port Burwell, by the way, was one of them-but after operating about five years it was forced into liquidation, and those who had invested their money in it, including many farmers and others residing along the line of the road, lost large sums. This is proof of the fact that there is not enough business in that section of the country to keep two roads operating at a profit.
There was another line which proposed to come into competition with the London and Port Stanley railway, and that was the Erie, London and Tillsonburg railway. A charter was granted for that railway in 1906, and although five or six extensions of time were granted, no work was done and the charter finally expired in 1916, those who had taken out the charter evidently not being convinced that there was a prospect of sufficient business even to start operations.
The proposed charter is opposed by the London railway commission. In a resolution, after reciting the circumstances, they state:
It is the wish of the commission that the council write the member for the city of London and ask him to do everything possible to oppose the granting of a charter to the London and Port Burwell Railway Company.
The London chamber of commerce are also on record in the following resolution:
This civic institution therefore supports the London and Port Stanley railway commission of the city of London in the protest agains-* the granting of the charter to the proposed Port Burwell-London Railway and desires to register this decision with the member for London.
The city council of London are also on record in the same direction in the following resolution:
Be it therefore resolved that the federal government be petitioned to refuse the application, and the clerk instructed to furnish every member of the federal parliament with a copy of this resolution, and the member for London and the several members of the federal parliament urged to oppose the granting of the said application.
Then it is opposed by the city council of St. Thomas in a resolution which reads as follows:
That Mr. M. F. Hepburn, M.P., be advised that the St. Thomas city council are opposed to the proposed London and Port Burwell Railway Company as set forth in the application dated at Tillsonburg January 26, 1928, a copy of which was sent to this council by Donald F. Gibson, solicitor for the applicants.


Mr. HEPBURN:: Is not the hon. member well aware of the fact that since that time the city council have passed a second resolution in which they state that the city of

London and Port Burwell Railway
St. Thomas is content to leave the matter of the London and Port Burwell Railway charter to my judgment?


John Franklin White: I was not aware of that fact. I did hear a statement made by the member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn) that the mayor of St. Thomas had sent him a telegram in which he said something of the kind; but it was a private telegram, and inasmuch as the horn, member did not quote any communication from himself to the mayor, it is pretty hard to tell what circumstances brought about that message. But this resolution is dated May 3, and so far as I know is the last official record on the books of the city council of St. Thomas. It might be of interest too to the hon. member for West Elgin to look up some of the press notices in which it is stated that the people of Port Burwell will boycott the people of London and St. Thomas because of their objection to the London and Poi't Burwell Railway charter. So while the mayor of St. Thomas and the hon. member are in agreement, there are probably other people in St. Thomas who will have something to say about that a little later on. This application is also opposed by the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways. I shall have something to say about the railway situation a little later.
According to clause 16 of the bill, it ia proposed to install a coking plant at Port Burwell with a daily capacity of 675 tons. We contend that such a coking plant might very well be located at Port Stanfcy, for the reason that it would put the producers of coke in closer proximity to St. Thomas and London, and I have no doubt an arrangement might be arrived at with the London railway commission whereby the gias, a by-product of the coking process, could be piped to those two cities along the right of way of the London and Port Stanley railway. The London and Port Stanley railway is well able to handle all the coke that may be turned out by the proposed plant at rates fixed, of course, by the Dominion railway commission. The London railway commission is ready to talk business with the promoters of the coking plant and we contend that a daily output of 675 tons is not sufficient to warrant the building of another railway line.
I oppose the bill for the reasons that I have enumerated, and also on account of the increased losses which will be incurred by the city of London if the proposed railway is built. The city of London has invested roughly about two million dollars in cash in
the London and Port Stanley railway, and any division of the existing business must of course result in further loss to the city.
I contend, Mr. Chairman, that there is no demand for increased railway facilities in the district to be traversed by the projected line. It is already served by the Canadian Pacific railway running from Port Burwell to Inger-soll and thence to London, Port Burwell being served by this railway and Port Stanley by the London and Port Stanley railway. The proposed line starting from London will cross the Canadian Pacific railway running from St. Thomas to Ingersoll; it will cross the doubletrack line of the Michigan Central railway, running from St. Thomas to the Niagara district; it will also cross the Canadian National railway at Aylmer, making these three crossings in a distance of less than ten miles. The district is well served with railways. There is no influx of population, there is no increase in manufacturing, there are no new industries to any marked extent, and from a very careful scaling of the map I find that no section of the district is more than eight or nine miles from a railway; in fact I am quite within the mark when I say that ninety per cent of the people live closer than five miles to a railway. I repeat, the district is well served with railways and does not need any more trackage.
The sponsor of the bill stated that this coking freight would be all new business, but, as I have stated, there is no influx of population, and consequently no increased demand for fuel and things of that kind. The present business will have to be divided among all the roads already operating there, and if one more is built it means that there will be so much less business for each road. May I have the attention of the Minister of Railways for a moment?


Charles Avery Dunning: Certainly.


John Franklin White: I want to direct
his special attention to the objections of the London and Port Stanley Railway in opposition to this proposed charter. The matter of granting promiscuous charters to promiscuous companies is one which this house should take into its serious consideration. We all remember the circumstances of the taking over by the Canadian National Railways of many lines which originally were built to compete with one another, and the minister will bear me out When I say that if he had succeeded to a number of lines that had been built in the first instance to co-operate rather than to compete he would have a much easier task now in making the Canadian National rail-
3524	COMMONS
London and Port Burwell Railway
ways a paying proposition. These roads have been installed in various places and this one may be installed if the house sees fit; but in time it may have to be taken over by the Canadian National [Railways or someone else.
I want to direct the attention of the minister to the fact that the Canadian National holds one-fifth of the stock of the London and Port Stanley Railway.


Charles Avery Dunning: It has not been worth
much up to now.


John Franklin White: Considering the
figures I put on Hansard as to the paying qualities of the London and Port Stanley Railway it has probably paid a little better than the Canadian National.


Charles Avery Dunning: We have not had dividends from the London and Port Stanley Railway.


John Franklin White: Nor from the Canadian National. I wish also to direct the minister's attention to the fact that this proposed line crosses the line of the Canadian National railways at Aylmer, coming into direct competition in that district with the Canadian National. It is therefore bound to affect freight to some extent. I suggest that he consider this question of direct competition with the Canadian National railways.
I would also appeal especially to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott). He is a resident of London; he is a taxpayer of London; and he has heard what I have said. He is well acquainted with the circumstances and knows the history of the London and Port Stanley Railway from its inception. I appeal therefore to him to use his good business judgment in this matter. The same appeal I have made to the Minister of Railways is applicable to every member of the house. It seems to me that in the interests of good business the house can do no better than reject the bill.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: The hon. member has
given, with respect to the London and Port Stanley Railway, an argument which has no relevancy to the bill before the house. Certain statements have been made with regard to the attitude of the people of the city of St. Thomas, and as the representative of that city I feel it my duty to spend a few minutes explaining the situation. The people of that locality realize that new developments have taken place in the transportation of coal into southern Ontario. Instead of taking it by freight around the lake they are now inaugurating cross-lake shipment in bulk. They must therefore provide proper facilities. This new company first approached the London and

Port Stanley Railway with a view to buying the road but it was not for sale. Then they turned to Port Burwell harbour, where the government has spent $1,500,000. They bought a piece of land there on the assurance that there would be no opposition from the city of London. They then propose to build from Burwell to London a line which does not parallel the London and Port Stanley railway.
The present objection coming from the London and Port Stanley railway is hard to understand especially in view of the fact, not only that they are in financial difficulties today, but that the crown attorney of the county of Middlesex is investigating charges of corruption and bribery against the London and Port Stanley Railway. In fact, the mayor of London was elected on an issue which involved the operations of the London and Port Stanley Railway. That railway is claimed to be a political enterprise. As a matter of fact there is very little sympathy for that railway and its present management.
In regard to the opposition of St. Thomas, it is true that they passed a resolution opposing the railway unless it came through the city of St. Thomas. At the same time the city of London was opposing the same railway on the ground that it was proposed to build the railway to the city of London. This only shows the anomaly of the situation. Later on the city council of St. Thomas passed a resolution to the effect that they were content to leave to my judgment the matter of the railway charter, and that is the present position so far as St. Thomas is concerned.
I have here several letters, one in particular from the reeve of the township of Yarmouth, in that locality, who states that after making a careful investigation with regard to the proposed line he finds that the people of that district are very much in sympathy with the new railway, and that no doubt it will be connected with one of the biggest industrial developments now pending in southern Ontario. As a guarantee of good faith in the matter, these people are willing to build an $800,000 coking plant and to spend several millions in the construction of their railway. They have made a careful survey of the whole situation and have definite plans establishing the feasibility of the project. I will not take up the time of the committee further, and in view of the fact that we have only a few minutes left for the consideration of private bills, I move that this bill be reported.	.
Motion agreed to on division:	yeas, 75,
nays, 46.
Bill reported.

Private Bills


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS
John Frederick Johnston: Will it serve the purpose of the committee to take all these divorce bills together, giving the numbers and the names?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: On division.
Bill No. 292 for the relief of Edward Aranha.-Mr. McGregor.
Bill No. 293 for the relief of Mildred Jarvis Aspinall.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto).
Bill No. 294 for the relief of William Bell.- Mr. Anderson (Toronto).
Bill No. 295 for the relief of Lilias Agnes Cressman.-Mr. Young (Toronto).
Bill No. 296 for the relief of Jane Glass.- Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 297 for the relief of Laura May Hinscliffe.-Mr. Edwards (Waterloo).
Bill No. 298 for the relief of William Hogg. -Mr. Pettit.
Bill No. 299 for the relief of Helen Horn. -Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 300 for the relief of Jessie McPherson.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 301 for the relief of Sylvia Orten-berg.-Mr. Hepburn.
Bill No. 305 for the relief of Florence Reno Moxon Attewell.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 306 for the relief of Mary Irene Boyd.-Mr. Hepburn.
Bill No. 307 for the relief of Augustus Vernon Ellis.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 308 for the relief of Agatha Jean Hobbs-Mr. Anderson (Toronto).
Bill No. 309 for the relief of Hazel K. Clunie Howard.-Mr. Howard.
Bill No. 310 for the relief of Helen Stewart Graham Lovell.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 311 for the relief of Marie-Anne Palardy Murphy.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 312 for the relief of Joseph Patrick Nolan.-Mr. Stinson.
Bill No. 313 for the relief of John James Ward.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto).
Bill No. 315 for the relief of Irene Matilda Ballinger.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 316 for the relief of John Hare.- Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 318 for the relief of Francis Mar-maduke Steele.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 319 for the relief of Rose Tlustie. -Mr. Bowman.
Bill No. 302 for the relief of Thomas Joseph Warmington.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 317 for the relief of Helena Marty-niuk.-Mr. Jelliff.
Bill No. 320 for the relief of Robert Anderson Traill.-Mr. Jelliff.
Bill No. 329 for the relief of Bernice Alberta Haight.-Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 330 for the relief of Rose Eadie Harris.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 331 for the relief of Mildred Florence McGowan.-Mr. Smith (Stormont).
Bill No. 332 for the relief of Gabrielle Norton.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 333 for the relief of Grace Elizabeth Parker.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto).
Bill No. 334 for the relief of Charles St. Clair Parsons.-Mr. Young (Toronto).
Bill No. 335 for the relief of Ivy Reader.- Mr. Hay.
Bill No. 336 for the relief of James Ramsey Sloan.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto).
Bill No. 337 for the relief of Harold Wilfridt Vivian Vincent Turner.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 338 for the relief of Gordon Thomas Wilson.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto).
Bill No. 323 for the relief of Violet Claire-McCredie.-Mr. Sanderson.
Bill No. 324 for the relief of Garnet Britten Walton.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto).
Bill No. 325 for the relief of Rebeina Pear! Bolingbroke.-Mr. Pettit.
Bill No. 326 for the relief of Manassa Fretz. -Mr. Anderson (Toronto).
Bill No. 327 for the relief of Charles Henry Gifford.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 328 for the relief of Joseph James Harold Graham.-Mr. Clark.
Motion for third reading agreed to on division.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
National Revenue - salaries, including appointment of Miss Ellen Kerr at $1,860, notwithstanding anything contrary in the Civil service Act-contingencies, $793,870.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: As this is a vote in respect of the Department of National Revenue, perhaps I may be allowed a few moments to call attention to the fa)ct that the customs and excise enforcement officer at Notre Dame des Bois was dismissed for partisanship. In the reply to an inquiry which I made of the minister I find that this officer, who was dismissed on December 6, 1926, had been for seven years and seven months an efficient officer of that department, and that during that time he had paid 5 per cent of his salary as a contribution to the superannuation fund.
Supply-National Revenue

No inquiry was granted; in his reply the minister stated that an inquiry was asked for by the service bureau of the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League and I am informed, although I have not the documents here, that this official also asked for an inquiry. Whatever may happen in regard to the Post Office department, I say that an officer who has served for seven years, who has paid several hundreds of dollars into the superannuation fund, and has been an efficient officer without any complaint being made against him during that term of years, should not be dismissed without an inquiry, on the word of any member of parliament or any supporter of the government.
If I am not mistaken,, the alleged political partisanship of this officer-I 'trust I am not confusing him with another dismissal, but unfortunately I have not the documents of the file in my desk to-night-took place when he was not at the office at Notre Dame des Bois, but when he was absent performing a special duty at the bolder. I am informed that the office of the customs department at Notre Dame des Bois is in a building which is used in part for the customs office, another part being rented for other offices, and the upper portion of the building being used as a residence. During the election campaign when this officer was absent, not in town at all but miles and miles away, the proprietor of this building allowed the Conservative candidate, who had his campaign quarters in a (building on the opposite side of the street, to stretch a line on which hie put a flag indicating to the passers-by on the street where the Conservative headquarters were. I am informed that this official had absolutely nothing to do with that. As I said, he was away on special service at the border, and if the facts as reported to me are correct an inquiry should certainly be granted, and I am surprised that none was granted.
He was dismissed on the complaint of partisanship made by a member of parliament. If the government are going to dismiss officials of long standing, with competent and efficient service, without an inquiry when asked for, they at least should have the sense of justice to hand back their contributions to the superannuation fund. I think the matter is one that should be inquired into carefully, and I trust that the minister, despite the fact that, he has taken action on the word of a member, will! inquire further. I am not imputing any dishonesty to the member, but I know that in my own constituency I have often received information by word of mouth which I found to be utterly unreliable. There should be some ways and means of getting

behind mere gossip and inquiring into the facts to ascertain whether this man has really been a political partisan during the election.
For my own part, I entirely disagree with the practice that has been followed by both political parties with regard to dismissals for partisanship. I have felt that way ever since I wias a young man in Nova Scotia. I went to address a political meeting in Tusket, Yarmouth county, and my mother was lying ill at the village where I was born, some four or five miles out. I wenit to see her and had dinner with her, and when I got off the train, it being a small village, I had difficulty in finding someone to drive me across country. I asked a relative of mine, who happened to be the village postmaster, to drive me to the place where I was to meet Sir Charles Tupper and address the meeting, and the result was that that relative was dismissed because he had done me the kindness to drive me across country from my mother's place to the village of Tusket. As a young man, the thing rankled in my mind for many years, and ever since I have been opposed to dismissals of that class for so-called political partisanship.


Mr. EULER:: I will admit that the matter
to which the hon. member has just referred has given me some little concern. The dismissal took place entirely in accordance with the principle that has been observed by all parties. The complaint of a member of the house that an individual has been exercising partisanship in elections has always been accented by the minister as a reason for dismissal. I have followed that principle, but I am glad to say there have not been many instances in my own department. I am not going to express an opinion as to whether that is a good practice to follow, although perhaps I might be just so bold as to say that I have a good deal of sympathy with the position 'taken by my hon. friend. Although many members may differ with me, I can see no particular reason why, where a man happens to be in the service of the government, he should not be allowed to exercise any influence he may have on behalf of any political principle in which he believes. However, I will have to take any responsibility there may be in following out the .practice that has always been followed.
So far as the complaint of the man is concerned, I do not recall that he himself made an application for an investigation. So far as my memory serves me, an application for an investigation did come from some soldiers' organization. A reply was sent to the effect that an inquiry would be granted, but I under-

Supply-National Revenue
stand that no further application was made, and that the man disappeared entirely from the neighbourhood in which he had been employed.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am informed that he had to go to another district to earn a living for himself and some others who were dependent on him.


William Daum Euler: If the man has returned and desires an investigation I shall certainly comply with his wishes. I will be quite frank and say that once an officer has been discharged in accordance with this particular custom-I am referring to the word of a member-if it is found that he has not been guilty of such practices, I do not know just how he could be restored. The Civil Service Commission, of course, would have to reappoint him.


Mr. JACOBS:: Supposing it were found on investigation that the man was a Liberal, what would you do then?


William Daum Euler: I will say very frankly, to
my hon. friend, and I think he will believe me, that it would not make any difference. The Civil Service Commission is the body entirely in control of that matter.
Another point was mentioned in regard to this matter-the return to ithe discharged employee of the sum which he had paid into the fund. Personally, I am of the opinion- I am not speaking for the government-that no matter what the reason might be for discharging an employee, he is entitled to receive back the actual amount of money he has paid into the treasury.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: Surely it would
be a comparatively simple matter to reimburse a man the amount he has paid in, and surely a man is not to be turned out without even the semblance of a trial. That, I understand, is what the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) is contending. If this house is to accept as a guiding rule in the future that the government is going to act upon the basis of turning men out without an investigation to get the particulars, let us know it, and let us be guided by it, but let the position be definite.


William Daum Euler: I would say to my hon.
friend that it has been very definite in the past, as the member for S't. Lawrence-St. George stated a moment ago, and the practice that was followed in this case has been the practice for many years under all governments. If the practice is wrong and the house decides so, it might be well to change it.


Leslie Gordon Bell: That is what I
am asking the minister. It being wrong, let us change it.


Samuel William Jacobs: I agree entirely with the
hon. member for West Hamilton and with the remarks made by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. The fact that a rule of this kind was established by a Tory government does not mean that it is right. I believe in following the Tory party when they are right but certainly not when they are wrong. This seems to be a flagrant case of injustice in dismissing a man from his employment on the mere statement of a member of parliament. Sometimes even members of parliament make mistakes. After all I do not consider that the word of a member of parliament is to be looked upon as Holy Writ. This case is unusual and it seems to me1 that it behooves the Liberal party, which always claims to be a little better than the other parties, to change the rule and to see that justice is done to this man, be he Liberal or Conservative or even Progressive. My good friend the Minister of National Revenue is not bound by rules which he found in the department when he came in, whether they were laid down by Liberals or by Conservatives. He is a man of pretty independent views and I am surprised that, having a case of this kind before him, he would be willing to follow in the footsteps of former ministers who were not quite so punctilious as he is in matters of this kind. If this rule was wrong, I do not care whether it was inaugurated by Liberals or by Conservatives, surely we ought to have manliness and independence enough to set it right. An investigation ought to be had into the case and if the facts are as stated by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, the man ought to be reinstated.


Mr. HANSON:: I should like to ask the
minister whether under the regime of this government, if not under himself, it has not been the practice to take the word of a defeated candidate and to have a man dismissed without investigation. I am not at all sure about the matter and I am asking for information only.


William Daum Euler: I can speak only for myself. It has never been done so far as I am concerned. The word of a defeated candidate or anyone else is not taken, but a commissioner may be appointed who makes an investigation and upon his report an official may be dismissed. So far as I know a dismissal never takes place except on the word
Supply-National Revenue

of the sitting member. I presume the theory of taking his word is that an hon. member is responsible to the house for his actions.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Is the defeated candidate's word not taken just as readily as that of the sitting member?


William Daum Euler: No.


Milton Neil Campbell: It has been done regularly in post office positions in my district.


Mr. SHORT:: It has been in the Post
Office department in my constituency in a number of cases. It was done in the case of a candidate who was defeated three times in my constituency. He ran four elections and won one, and his word is taken as gospel in regard to positions in the Post Office department. I do not know about the Department of National Revenue. While I am on my feet I should like to ask the minister why the recommendation from the Civil Service Commission for an appointment to the Digby customs house a year ago this month was not accepted. The minister will remember that we had a conversation last year with reference to an assistant in the Digby customs house and he stated to me that an appointment would be made, but that it would have to come through the Civil Service Commission and that he would ask the Civil Service Commission to ask for candidates. A competition was held in Digby a year ago this month and eight competitors wrote the examination. Three of them passed the examination and the one who passed with the highest marks was a returned soldier. He was recommended by the Civil Service Commission for the appointment, but he was turned down; no appointment was made and the collector has had to do his own work there for the past year and a half, being overworked all the time. This spring, only a few weeks ago, an assistant from the Halifax customs house was sent to Digby, while a local man, a returned soldier, was turned down. I should like to have the minister's explanation.


William Daum Euler: The explanation is very
simple. Very serious charges were made against the first two of those who had passed the examination. An investigation is being held and in the meantime a relieving officer is being placed in the port.


Harry Bernard Short: The young man who was
turned down was afterwards employed by the Dominon Atlantic Railway as an employee in their station at Digby and he is serving the public there. This is a private corpora-

tion. There is absolutely nothing against his character or his ability. He is well qualified for the position and he was so recommended by the Civil Service Commission; but I can tell you why he was not appointed. The defeated candidate in Digby-Annapolis was the man who said that he should not be appointed. That is the whole and sole reason. It is all very well for the Minister of National Revenue to say that his department is free from politics, but in my constituency they have been playing politics in regard to every appointment that has been made.


William Daum Euler: If the investigation shows
that there is no ground for the complaint, the Civil Service Commission, so far as I am concerned, will be allowed to go on and make the appointment.


Harry Bernard Short: It will not be a non-partisan investigation that will take place.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a point that ought to be cleared up. Who is to be the investigator and who raised the charges against this returned soldier? What are the facts?


William Daum Euler: It is not going to be a
partisan investigation at all. The investigation will be made by officers of the department, not by any partisan commissioner.


Harry Bernard Short: Why has the minister taken a whole year to look into the matter? He has known for more than a year that the collector of customs at my port has been overworked. He has had no assistance whatever since his appointment some two years ago, while other officers that have no more business, and indeed not as much business to deal with as there is at my port, have two or three assistants. This man was not appointed simply because he was not satisfactory to the defeated candidate in the constituency. That is the whole reason. There is nothing against his character or ability. He is qualified in every particular for the position.


Mr. BROWN:: I have been greatly interested in some of the discussion to-night. Personally I have never been in favour of the principle of dismissing men for partisan reasons. Had I taken that position I could certainly have had a number of men dismissed following the election of 1921. In that respect I have differed with many of my friends at home, men who have voted for me. They say that the Liberals do not take as good care of their friends as the Conservatives do. When I went home at Easter I had some criticisms made of myself just on that score.

Supply-National Revenue
la communications that I have had with the Minister of National Revenue in relation to some complaints that have been made, reasons were urged why certain officials should be dismissed. I may say that the Minister of National Revenue was very careful about the investigations he made and he did not show any willingness to dismiss men without cause.
I am glad to hear these protestations of high principle coming from the opposite side and I hope they will be followed in the future. Certainly I know the condition of things in the past, particularly in regard to the election of 1911, were different because the Conservative candidate during that election campaign carried around in his pocket dismissals and appointments. The practice then was very different from the principle which has now been proclaimed as the proper one to follow. Personally, I agree absolutely with the principle that has been enunciated that men should not be dismissed simply because they have seen fit to exercise their privileges as citizens. I hold to that, and I have held to it both in opposition and when I was supporting the government of the day.
Mr' MANION: When was the hon. member in opposition?


John Livingstone Brown: That is not the question at the present time. I have been in opposition to governments of the day, and I have supported governments of the day, just as the hon. member has, and I have always advocated that principle, thereby bringing upon myself the displeasure of some of my friends who took the ground that the Liberals had not taken as good care of their friends as the Conservatives had done in the past. I hope the protest that has been made by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George will have some weight, and that the principles which he has enunciated will be applied impartially by all parties in this house, and by this as well as and by successive governments.


Leslie Gordon Bell: In connection with the case mentioned by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, is the minister going to make the investigation asked for, or is he not?


William Daum Euler: I have answered that. If
a man makes an application to have an investigation, he will certainly have it.


Harry Bernard Short: What is the minister going
to do about this case? He must certainly remember the conversation we had last year,
in which he stated that he would ask the Civil Service Commission to hold examinations, and that he would ha.ve a local man appointed. The examinations were held, and the one that passed the highest-and only three out of the eight passed- was a returned soldier, who was well qualified in every respect for the position. The Civil Service Commission recommended his appointment, but he has never been appointed, and an outside man has been sent there instead. The people of Digby resent that, because we have hundreds of well qualified people capable of filling the position. I want to know what the minister is going to do in connection with that position.


William Daum Euler: I am not sure that I can
add anything to what I have said. Complaints did come-


Harry Bernard Short: From whom?


William Daum Euler: If the hon. gentleman will
permit me, I will answer him. Complaints were made, and they were of a serious nature. If they are true, whether the Civil Service Commission recommends that man or not, he will not be accepted by this department. If they are not true, and the investigation is going to be made by men who are not partisan, then the commission may make the appointment, and I shall not interfere.
Just one other word. The man who has been sent there has not been sent there as a permanent official at all, but merely as a temporary official to take the office until a permanent appointment can be made.


Harry Bernard Short: I have known this young
man for twenty years, and there is absolutely nothing against his character. I have never heard a word against him, unless the fact that he may have voted for me is against him. If that is going to be the excuse for keeping him out of the position to which he is entitled, it is time this house knew it.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Would the minister be good enough to inform the committee when these complaints were made, and by whom?


William Daum Euler: I have not the data here.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Approximately,
how long is it since they were made?


William Daum Euler: I think they came in some
months ago, speaking from memory-last fall, the commissioner tells me.
Supply-National Revenue


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Then, why has not the investigation taken place long before this?	.


William Daum Euler: The place was not filled because during the winter the officer was not required.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: But why was not the investigation of these complaints held sooner?


William Daum Euler: It is being held now.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Why is it being held now, and not months ago?


William Daum Euler: We have lots of work to do.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I am not going to enter into a discussion regarding the dismissal of officials. I was amazed at the statement of the minister that his predecessors had dismissed officers on the recommendation of the members. I know that that is not true so far as the Conservatives are concerned.


William Daum Euler: I said nothing about my predecessors at all.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: The minister said that that was the habit and custom of the ministers holding portfolios in the government.


William Daum Euler: I was speaking of all governments, not of my predecessors in this particular office. I made no reference to them whatever.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Well, predecessors in other departments. I for one object to allowing that statement to go unchallenged. I know it is not correct. I know Conservative ministers who were asked to dismiss men on the Liberal side because of their interference in politics in my riding, and the government of the day refused to dismiss them, and in some cases I think they were right. But I did not rise to discuss that feature at all. I rose to say one word in support of a remark that was made by the minister. He claimed that there is something wrong and something unjust in allowing a civil servant to contribute to a fund for a number of years, and then to be dismissed and receive no refund of his contribution or any part of it. I have in mind the case of a man who had paid into this fund for fifteen years, and was dismissed a year or so ago. I am not going to complain because he was dismissed; I am not going to discuss that at all. He committed an offence which most men would regard as a pardonable offence, and this government dismissed him. My point is that having paid into the fund for fifteen years he applied to have his contributions returned. It took one year to get the government to agree to make this refund

of his contributions. Probably they had some justification for the delay; I am not going to discuss that point, but in refunding his contributions nothing was allowed by way of interest on what he had paid in. I think that is wrong. I claim that that provision in the act should be amended, and I hope the minister will bring in an amendment next session to provide that no matter what a man may be dismissed for, if he has contributed for a number of years to the superannuation fund he shall get his money back. The minister himself spoke somewhat to that effect, and not much attention was paid to it. I consider that it was a very important declaration, and I desire to commend the minister for it, and I hope that he will carry out that idea. There is something absolutely wrong in deducting five per cent of a man's wages for five, ten or fifteen years, and then dismissing him for some simple offence and not refund to Ihim, what he has paid in. I trust that an amendment will be made to the act next session to wipe out that injustice.


Peter McGibbon: I want to reinforce, if I may, the remarks that have just been made by the member for Ontario. I raised* this question the other night when the estimates of the Postmaster General were up. I am not concerned now so much with the man who is dismissed as I am with the man who voluntarily resigns from a position in the civil service. I Was told by the Postmaster General that if a man had been in the service two years, he would get his money back if he resigned, but upon inquiry I find that that is not the case. I was talking only yesterday to a man who had been in the employ of the government for four years and had been paying into the superannuation fund. He resigned to go into another business. There was not a single thing against him, but when he applied to have the money refunded that he had paid in, it was refused. Now for the life of me I cannot see how any government can justify an action of that kind. I should like to ask the minister whose statement is correct.


William Daum Euler: Under the act the man has to have ten years' service before we oan pay back what he has paid into the fund. The law would have to be changed to meet my hon. friend's wishes.


Peter McGibbon: That is the information I got from the man himself. The deputy of the Postmaster General also told me that the other night. But surely this parliament cannot justify such a thing. You take the man's money while he fe serving the people of

Supply-National Revenue
Canada, and then when, he resigns to go into another occupation you keep his money. It is absolute robbery.


Thomas Cantley: It is legalized robbery.


Peter McGibbon: What does the minister think about it?


William Daum Euler: I have expressed my opinion upon the point already, Mr. Chairman. I am in agreement with what the bon. gentleman gays. I do not think that even the limitation of ten years should apply, but it is so provided in the act evolved by a committee of this house. I say quite frankly that I think any man who has paid out of his wages towards the superannuation fund, and is dismissed from the service, no matter for what reason, has a good moral claim for the return of his money.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, it is only fair to say that the matter has been before the treasury board on numerous occasions, and always we have been referred to the report of the committee which evolved the present Civil Service Superannuation Act. I think the act came into force before the present government took office, but that has nothing to do with the matter, because the whole house interested itself in that legislation. It has been pointed out to us that if the principle of giving back contributions to the superannuation fund in the case of resignations up to the ten-year period were recognized, it would operate to change the scale of the contributions generally, and that scale would have to be increased to make up for those refunds. I am not arguing the question, I am merely putting before the committee the information conveyed to the members of the present treasury board as to the origin of the practice under the Superannuation Act. Personally, I hold the view that as a matter of justice it is pretty hard to take away from a man the contributions which he makes to such a fund. I draw some distinction between the man who is dismissed and the man who voluntarily resigns.


Peter McGibbon: So do I.


Charles Avery Dunning: He resigns voluntarily to better himself; but for the man who is dismissed and is thereby deprived entirely of the opportunity of benefiting from his contributions to the superannuation fund, a good deal is to be said in favour of some further consideration being given to him. But I am sure some members on both sides of the house will recall that the actuarial basis of the fund was very carefully examined by the committee at the time the act was drafted.


Peter McGibbon: I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the frankness of the minister's opinion. But surely this parliament cannot hide behind the excuse that because some committee made a wrong recommendation to this house on one occasion this injustice is to be continued. That used to be the policy of the insurance companies; a man who quit after paying premiums for three or four years lost everything that he had paid in. But that is not so to-day; he gets a refund. I agree with the Minister of Railways that there is a distinction between the man who is dismissed and the man who voluntarily resigns. But surely those who stay in the service should not be content to profit by the honest contributions of the man who steps out of the service with a clear record. I am sure there is no justification whatever for this parliament perpetuating an injustice on honest servants of the state. I hope the government will see to it that the law is changed in this respect.


George Reginald Geary: May I ask, if the member for South Toronto, on his responsibility as a member, were to lay a complaint against some Liberal partisan, would that partisan be dismissed?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


George Reginald Geary: Well, the member for South Toronto could cause a great flutter in the dovecote if he wanted to. How the member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) is in a position to do it I do not know. Is he a Liberal1 member?


John Livingstone Brown: The member for Lisgar has never made any recommendation for the dismissal of a partisan.


George Reginald Geary: But the member for Lisgar has been blamed for not doing so. He mentioned that some Conservative candidate in 1911 carried appointments in his pocket. That must have been a smart candidate-the Conservative party was not in office at that time.


John Livingstone Brown: Figuratively speaking. The appointments were made after the Conservatives were in power.


George Reginald Geary: After all it might not be so very difficult, for even cabinet ministers in the last election were known to be carrying around wharves and post offices in their pockets.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National Revenue-$13,473,506.
Salaries and contingent expenses of the several ports in the Dominion, including pay for overtime of officers notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act,-and temporary buildings and rentals, $7,538,460.
Supply-National Revenue
[Stage Direction]
Salaries and travelling expenses of inspectors of ports and of other officers on inspection, and in connection with the Board of Customs; the latter including $500 for the secretary and amount required to create positions, make appointments and pay salaries and_ expenses t of Dominion appraisers, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, and the said positions and staff so appointed to be wholly excluded from said act, $1,137,725.
Miscellaneous-Printing and stationery, subscriptions to commercial papers, flags, dating stamps, locks, instruments, etc., for various ports of entry, express charges on samples, stationery and legal forms, legal expenses, premiums on guarantee bonds, and uniforms for customs officers, $600,000.
To provide for expenses of maintenance of revenue cruisers and for preventive service, including $6,000 salary F. W. Cowan and an amount required to create positions and make appointments, by the Minister of National Revenue, of officers for the prevention of smuggling, and to investigate reported frauds against the revenue, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act and the said positions and staff so appointed to be wholly excluded from said act; also to provide for expanses of such officers and for the purchase or charter of vessels and for the purchase or hire of automobiles to be used in the prevention of smuggling or other offences against the revenue laws, $1,896,821.
Amounts to be paid to Department of Justice to be disbursed by and accounted for to it, for secret preventive service,

amount required to create positions and make appointments of officers for the prevention of smuggling and to investigate reported frauds against the revenue, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, and the said positions and staff bo appointed to be wholly excluded from said act, $100,000.
To provide for the administration of the Business Profits War Tax Act, 1916, and the Income War Tax Act, 1917, and amendments thereof, and authority for this purpose to create positions and make appointments, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, and the said positions and the staff so appointed are hereby wholly excluded from the operation of the said act; and salary of $7,000 for the Commissioner of Income Tax, $2,200,000.
To pay Mrs. Turner Ingalls, widow of the late Turner Ingalls, a Customs Excise Enforcement Officer who was accidentally killed while on duty, $500-Total. $13,473,506.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This item, Mr. Chairman, really comprehends the total vote of the National Revenue department. There are one or two things I desire to bring to the attention of the minister, and perhaps I might as well do so now in a general discussion, for we will probably get into such a discussion in any case. By the way I notice that there is an increase of something over a million dollars in the vote, presumably made necessary by the increased service. Just in passing I should like to say to the minister that it seemed to be pretty well established during the investigation by the royal commission, as well as by the inter-departmental and by

the parliamentary committee of 1928, that a very substantial reduction might be made in the ports of entry, and thus reduce very largely the cost of administration, and the number of employees so released might be used in the enlarged preventive service. I simply point that out at this stage in reference to this increase, which perhaps might have been obviated had such a course been followed.
But what I wish to bring to the attention of the minister particularly is a reference made at pages 10 and 11 of the final report by the Roj'al Commission on Customs and Excise, dealing with the enforcement of the laws relating to national revenue. One of the problems disclosed in the two major investigations was the difficulty of securing the proper enforcement of those laws. Various reasons were assigned, but one of the reasons which seems to stand out more clearly than others explains a failure that can perhaps be most *readily corrected, that is, the failure of those who were appointed, on the part of the Justice department, to deal in efficient and proper manner with the cases given to their charge. Let me read from the report of the royal commission at page 10. Under a subhead, " Enforcement of Laws Relating to National Revenue", the following statement is made:
Closely allied to preventive work is the enforcement of the laws and regulations. We see no reason why parties committing frauds on the revenue should not be proceeded against with the same degree of promptitude and efficiency as usually characterizes prosecutions for enforcement of the provisions of the criminal code. This, according to the evidence, has not been so in the past.	t
I emphasize tihat.
This, according to the evidence, has not been so in the past.
Then it continues:
For this purpose competent counsel should be retained by the department throughout the Dominion to act in such matters. _ They would thus become familiar with the national revenue laws and regulations and be prepared to act promptly when called upon, and could be consulted by the preventive officers and other officials having similar responsibility in making seizures and in instituting and conducting prosecutions.
The report closes thus:
It would also appear advisable, at least so far as smuggling is concerned, that instructions from the chief regional preventive officer for prosecutions should be sufficient.
Those are extracts from the final report of the Toyal commission. I have also a report from Messrs. Clarkson, Gordon and Dilworih dated February 9 respecting the reorganization of the Department of National

Supply-National Revenue
Revenue. I shall read from this report just a brief extract which will at once be recognized as very similar to the one I have given from the royal commission's report. This extract
reads:
It is very desirable that wherever possible the legal representative should be familiar with the customs and excise act and regulations and that where one case has been handled to the satisfaction of the department it should be free to use the same legal agent in other cases; and that where the outcome of one case has indicated the unsuitability of the agent the department should be able to secure promptly a more suitable representative.
I pause to ask the committee to note that it refers here to the department-that is, the officers in charge of the responsible work of this very important branch of the national service. The report suggests that the department should be free to act as indicated; while in the royal commission's report it is recommended that instructions from the chief regional preventive officer should be sufficient.
Now I desire to direct the attention of the committee and of the minister to a report presented and adopted at a meeting of the Commercial Protective Association, Ottawa, Tuesday, May 15, 1928. This is the report of an association of business men of the Dominion and contains a reference to the enforcement of law. At page 4 the report states in part:
It has always been the practice of all governments to select lawyers to prosecute in these cases on the basis of past political services rather than on competency to conduct these important prosecutions. All four reports referred to condemn this practice;

That is, the two reports I have read and two others to which refeernce is made.
-and yet there never has been a greater abuse of it than at the present time. Cases which should have been prosecuted in open court are known to have been settled secretly. Firms and individuals who have defrauded the revenue out of many thousands of dollars are able to escape altogether, or make monetary settlements and escape the publicity of court procedure, which is such an important factor in the prevention of this type of offence. Cases are allowed to drag through the courts for years; in many oases, even when prosecutions are entered, no serious effort is made to obtain convictions. Certain incidents of recent months reveal shocking conditions in this regard. Responsibility for this condition of affairs rests with the Department of Justice and not with the Department of National Revenue. The whole question of the administration of justice in regard to customs frauds continues to be far from satisfactory and should be the subject of immediate investigation.
Then .there is the statement of an eminent lavryer, a man of very high repute at present occupying a seat in the other chamber. The Hon. N. K. Laflamme, K.C., described in this
report as one of the most eminent criminal lawyers in Canada, and now a senator, who appeared as counsel in a recent very important prosecution under the Customs Act, describes the court proceedings as:
A melancholy burlesque, carried on for the last eighteen months in three courts of justice.
It must be clear, from the report of the royal commission, the report of the parliamentary committee, the report of Clarkson, Gordon and Dilworth on the reorganization of the department, and the supporting statement of the Commercial Protective Association, that there is something seriously and radically wrong with the method of procedure against violators of the law. I know full well the tremendous task that has been laid on the shoulders of the Minister of National Revenue. There is undoubtedly a very difficult and complex duty imposed on him in enforcing the law. I shall in a moment make another reference as to how, in my judgment, some relief might be secured in the way of minimizing the incitement to violate the law. That is another question, however.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Lower the
duties.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend from Weyburn treats it rather as a joke; I do not think it is. The point I am making at the moment is this:	There are very serious infractions of the law; this is recognized. But it is abundantly clear from the reports that the present system through the Justice department is not a success. In other words, in the language of one of these reports, these solicitors are chosen more from the standpoint of political patronage, using that term in its real sense, than for any other reason; and all these reports indicate that this practice should be abandoned and that solicitors or coujnsel should be otherwise selected and appointed for the purpose of prosecuting these cases. I happen to know of one instance where one individual was retained for a number of years by the income tax branch. I am not referring to the last two or three years but to a time four or five or six years ago. This gentleman became very proficient in his duties-


William Daum Euler: Still there.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Hie was in my city, I think, and was very efficient. He was on the outside. But generally the practice is to spread this business amongst lawyers in different localities. I submit to the minister that that practice should be changed, and that the committee and also the government should take notice of the very serious charge made by the Commercial Protective Association,
Supply-National Revenue

and also the reference of Hon. N. K. Laflamme in dealing with this matter, that cases are allowed to drag through the courts for years and that very often secret adjustments are made rather than have the person charged exposed to prosecution in the courts. One of the most important and' most salutary deterrents to crime is the danger a person faces of being exposed in open court. If it is made possible and indeed customary to escape prosecution for an offence for which a person should be prosecuted, through monetary considerations or through the surrender of certain sums to the department, then it becomes merely a question of what it is going to cost him to escape the penalty for a practice which is exceedingly remunerative to him. Nothing will deter these people more than to face prosecution and exposure in the courts, with a possible sentence other than that of a mere fine. I place these facts before the minister, and I think we should hear from him and from the Minister of Justice in this regard. I think we should also have a statement from the minister as to what prosecutions have been already undertaken. I hold in my hand the interim reports of the royal commission, and I find that there is one series of prosecutions recommended, which I do not think have been carried out as ydt.


William Daum Euler: Which ones?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am quoting directly from the report, under the heading "Bronfman Interests". I will just read what the commission have to say:
We have dealt in this report with the activities of several firms, syndicates or companies owned or controlled by members of the Bronfman family, so far as the scope of our inquiry warrants. It would appear, however, to be incumbent on us to consider matters of a general character not related specially to any one concern, but arising out of the combined concerns.
Then I will just refer to the recommendations of the commission, and I am not now making any comments on them:
It was admitted by Harry Bronfman in his evidence that none of the firms or companies in which this group of individuals was interested had made any returns or payment of taxes under The Business Profits War Tax Act, 1916, which was in force ....
Then they go on to say:
Recommendations: (1) That the income tax branch review the whole matters involved and take action to recover all arrears due by the parties interested;
(2) That the department take action to recover any arrears of taxes due by the parties mentioned ....
Referring to one of the subsidiary companies, the report proceeds:

This report is to be used in conjunction with the report on other concerns owned or controlled by the Bronfman interests.
With reference to another company, the report has this to say:
As already stated the evidence indicates that this company or syndicate was guilty of many infractions of the Excise Act, but apparently the limitations respecting prosecutions for such offences would bar convictions, and in view of that we make no recommendations but merely cite the facts as part of the history ....
Then they go on and refer to one of the principals in the case, and recommend:
That prosecution be instituted against Harry Bronfman for the aligeed bribery of Inspector Knowles.
With reference to another company, the Atlas Shipping Company, they say:
That the same action be taken as is recommended in the report on the Dominion Gresham Guarantee and Casualty Company.
That is one of the previous companies referred to. Then, in connection with still another company, they recommend:
That the same action be taken as recommended in the report on the Dominion Gresham Guarantee and Casualty Company.
In other words, there are eight companies enumerated in the report in connection with which prosecutions are recommended. I do not know whether these prosecutions have been begun.


William Daum Euler: Every one has been begun.


Henry Herbert Stevens: With what result?


William Daum Euler: They are still in the courts.


Henry Herbert Stevens: When were they started?


William Daum Euler: Some months ago.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That bears out the point I mentioned a moment ago; the minister says these prosecutions were started months ago, but they are still in the courts. It would be interesting to get the history of these cases, as to how they are proceeding, in what courts they are being tried, the counsel in each case, and what progress has been made; these facts should be laid before the committee. As I say, this illustrates the point brought out in the report, that these prosecutions are not being dealt with satisfactorily. This is a serious matter, after all; if our courts functioned properly and if the cases were handled properly I think we would see a vast difference in this very difficult problem facing the country to-day, namely the problem of smuggling.


William Daum Euler: I am not sure that I can recall all the points brought out by my hon. friend, but if I miss any of them I should be glad to

Supply-National Revenue
have him remind me. With regard to the prosecutions, I would say to the committee at once that in every one of those cases reported upon by the parliamentary committee action has been taken. I think seventeen of the cases are in the courts.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was not referring to the parliamentary committee; I just want to set my hon. friend right. I was quoting from the interim reports of the royal commission.


William Daum Euler: Then perhaps my statement can be taken to cover those reports as well. Every recommendation with regard to action against any concern-and there are over one hundred in the report of the royal commission -has been acted upon; there are no exceptions.


Hugh Guthrie: Does the minister mean that civil action has been taken?


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend referred to the Bronfman case, and I explained to the house as long as two or three months ago that criminal action had been taken with regard to that individual, and that the only reason why the action had not been proceeded with was the fact that one witness, who was absolutely necessary for the prosecution of the case, was ill. He is an officer of our own, and in his absence it was not possible to proceed.
A statement also has been made, I think by Mr. Sparks rather than by the Commercial Protective Association, that secret settlements have been made. I want to deny that state-men in the most emphatic terms possible. There has not been a single secret settlement of any kind; as a matter of fact there were only two settlements made, and that action was taken on the recommendation and advice of the solicitor acting for the department, of the auditors, Messrs. Clarkson, Gordon and Dilworth, of the departmental solicitor and of the commissioner himself. They were for small amounts.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What were the two cases settled?


William Daum Euler: The Royal Cloak Company and the Alco Dress Company. The reason settlements were made was because our solicitors assured us that there was no possibility of our succeeding if we maintained an action. There are some five or six other cases from which the lawyers have withdrawn because they believe there is no possibility of our succeeding. Perhaps that may be a complete answer to those points; there is not a single recommendation in the report of the royal commission which has not been dealt with in
one way or another. I will admit that I am not satisfied with the way prosecutions have been delayed, but I do not think the blame rests upon the department; no blame rests upon the Department of National Revenue or upon any other department. I think some blame rests upon the courts themselves, and possibly there would be cause for dissatisfaction with the lawyers. Without intending to be offensive to my hon. friend, in a number of cases a certain lawyer was appointed by himself, and those cases have not yet been proceeded with. I have urged that solicitor time and time again to proceed with these cases, and I have a letter from him in which he takes all the blame for the delay. I admit, Mr. Chairman, that I am sometimes discouraged at the delay in prosecution.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister is not
suggesting that I am to blame simply because a lawyer appointed three years ago to prosecute cases has not done so?


William Daum Euler: I am not laying any particular blame, I am merely pointing out the circumstances. The thing is pretty general and it is very difficult to get action. If I may say so in this parliament, which is the highest court in the land, some of the blame is to be placed on the courts themselves. I just received a notice this week of one case which was postponed thirteen times, the offender was finally found guilty, but sentence has not been pronounced and the case has been further adjourned three times.


Hugh Guthrie: Where is that case being
prosecuted?


William Daum Euler: In the city of Montreal.


Hugh Guthrie: What is the name of
the offender?


William Daum Euler: Giroux.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Who is acting for the government in that case?


William Daum Euler: I have not that information before me. The statement has been made that the government has not proceeded with prosecutions. We have had some three hundred prosecutions within the last year?


Hugh Guthrie: How many convictions?


William Daum Euler: Some two hundred of those
were successful, I think, I thought I had the correct figures before me, but I cannot find them just at the moment. In some provinces -I need not enumerate them-it is very difficult to obtain oonvictions in certain cases,
Supply-National Revenue

in fact it is almost impossible. Then again, we had a case in the city of Montreal where a certain official was found guilty of stealing something like $26,000, and the judge gave him one day in gaol.


Hugh Guthrie: What judge was that?


William Daum Euler: I do not recall. There was another case in western Canada, where I personally ordered prosecution of an officer of our own who had taken some $1,200. He had not even made restitution, and there was no doubt of his guilt, but the judge dismissed the case and rather censored the department for being so harsh in prosecuting a matter of that kind.
I am quite willing to take responsibility so far as it falls upon me. It may be that we can make some changes that will help this condition, and I think we will, but we are working along as well as we can. We have given our officers in the preventive service instructions that in cases of direct smuggling, where the man is caught and they can proceed summarily, they are to prosecute without any instructions from the head of the department.
Since my hon. friend has mentioned the Commercial Protective Association, I would like to make a reference to it. I think this can be described as the organization of a certain Mr. Sparks. I am not in the habit of making any offensive reflections upon any person, but I would say that the report or the statement that was given to the press by that association through Mr. Sparks, is either a betrayal of the most colossal ignorance, or sheer malice.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Both.


William Daum Euler: I rather think ^that it is
both. Among other statements he referred to the report made by Messrs. Clarkson, Gordon and Dilworth. This firm was employed in the department for a very considerable length of time. Mr. Sparks reported that 135 recommendations had been made by that firm and that only 19 of them had been proceeded with. I am citing this matter, although it is a relatively unimportant one, because of the impression which may have been given to the house or to the country that we have taken no action. Mr. Sparks mentioned the 19 out of 135 as being five per cent, which anyone can see is mathematically incorrect in the first place. There were really only some seven definite recommendations in the report of Messrs. Clarkson, Gordon and Dilworth, and I will refer to them a little later. One hundred and thirty-five more or less unim-

portant recommendations are made, and just to give the committee some idea as to how relatively unimportant they are-I use the term "relatively" advisedly, because practically all the recommendations are of some value, but most of them have to do only with the internal administration and perhaps the bookkeeping of the various branches of the department-I will give some examples. One was that there should be a rearrangement of offices to give the chief clerk visual control over the staff. I suppose that would mean tearing down the interior walls of the customs buildings and putting in windows. Another one was that the work re customs duty stamps and franking notes should be transferred to the stamp branch and accounts branch respectively, and travelling or other appraisers should be consulted in unusual cases. Nothing very definite about that. Just to show that I am not selecting special cases, I will take the accounts branch and give the entire list of the recommendations covering that department, and the members of the committee can judge for themselves whether they are of supreme importance in the carrying on of the work of the department and the reorganization work of the department.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What page is that?


William Daum Euler: I am reading from a typewritten copy of the report. For instance, it says:
Certain records should be transferred from the expenditures to salaries section.
That perhaps is of some value but it is not of very great importance. Then they mention taking over certain accounting work from the preventive service, and certain changes which dhould be made in that regard. Then there is a question of reverting to monthly payment of salaries instead of paying every two weeks. I leave it to the committee whether that is of supreme importance. Then there is the question of the payment of salaries through a chartered bank and the payment of refunds and drawbacks by departmental cheque direct to the claimant instead of through the collector-a mere mater of routine. Then:
Receipts for salary payments not necessary. Customs and excise seizure sections to be consolidated.
Those are all the recommendations made in regard to one branch.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend surely
does not suggest that that is correct. He has read a very brief summarized statement at the end of the recommendations.

Supply-National Revenue


William Daum Euler: I said for one branch.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The recommendation
covers six pages for one branch.


William Daum Euler: I was giving a summary, I
did not pretend to read the whole report. I gave the gist of every one.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will have a word or two to say about that. That is not a fair statement and does not do the minister credit.


William Daum Euler: I am open to correction if
my hon. friend can show me to be wrong, but I was honestly giving the gist of every recommendation in regard to one particular branch, namely the accounts branch. It may be another matter as to whether the recommendations are more important than I think they are, but I wanted to deal with the lack of knowledge or veracity, whichever you want to call it, on the part of the man who made that statement. In the first place, the report of Messrs. Clarkson, Gordon and Dilworth was not submitted until February of this year. The house was then in session and, as the members know, the minister of any department is very busy during the session, as well as the officers of the department. As soon as we had this report I had placed in the hands of the chief of every branch a copy of that portion of the report which referred particularly to his own work. I asked them to make such changes as they saw fit after examining the recommendations, and later on these were all to be reviewed, and if they have not made the changes that we think should be made, they will be made later on. Mr. Sparks assumes that, because at the time the report itself was submitted only nineteen of these had been made, now, three months later, only the nineteen have been made, having no knowledge whatever of the work that has been done in the intervening three months.
What has been done? I have gathered these from the officials of the department. In the customs department seventy-two of the recommendations that have been made have actually been carried out. In the excise department fourteen have been carried out; only one is disagreed with and three are still under consideration. In the customs department we do not agree with eighteen of the recommendations; four require legislation; fifteen are under consideration; five are matters of policy; one is a matter for the Civil Service Commission and two would be matters of reconstruction of the Connaught building. The point I want to make is that, instead of nineteen of the changes recommended, 56103-224
we actually made eighty-six out of one hundred and thirty-five. I am correct in what I say-and I am correct-I say that the report made by the Commercial Protective Association, or rather by Mr. Sparks, is just about as unfair in the other criticisms as it is inaccurate in this particular matter.
A good many other matters are referred to. Perhaps I have not dealt with all the questions raised by my hon. friend. It is not my desire to delay the committee but if there are any other questions they desire to ask I should be glad to answer them so far as I am able.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I am sure every member of the committee must be well aware of the fact that when the Minister of National Revenue took upon' himself the office that he now holds, he addressed himself to the work of dealing in a very whale hearted and enthusiastic way with the abuses that then existed. I do not think any member of the house would wish for one moment to deny to him that credit which is rightly his for the work that he has done or the reforms in which he has been successful. It seems to me, however, that on the question brought up by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), we are dealing with something more than that. The matter before the committee now for inquiry and decision is the extent to which existing abuses have actually been remedied and the position in which we find ourselves at the present time in regard to them. The minister has said that out of a certain number-I do not recall with certainty the exact number-there were some seventeen cases that had been dealt with which had been specially reported by the Royal Commission on Customs and Excise.


William Daum Euler: The parliamentary committee of inquiry.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Yes. Let me deal with that for a moment. I do not know exactly just what those seventeen may be, but surely it. must be of importance to the committee that so long ago as June 18, 1926, the report of that committee was made and that at page 4696 of Hansard of that year we find that, there were in one paragraph alone, beginning at the bottom of the page, the names of some twenty-six firms which were reported for action by either the Department of Customs and Excise as it was then, or the Department of Justice. I would be interested in knowing which out of those twenty-six the minister had reference to to-night. I find that that list is headed by the John Gaunt Company and that the second on the list is

Supply-National Revenue

the Dominion Distillery Products and Associated Enterprises. There are then no fewer than twenty-four companies which stood before that committee convicted of fraud in connection with their operations at Rock Island. It would be interesting to the committee to know at this time what claims have been prosecuted against those twenty-four firms, to say nothing of the two first mentioned, in connection with those frauds # which, it will be remembered, were represented to the house in 1926 as causing to the Dominion of Canada an annual loss of more than $10,000,000. I should like to know which of these firms thus recommended for summary dealing, have been sued, what proceedings have been taken and what are the results of those proceedings. The minister will agree with me that in making this request I do not take him b}' surprise because I asked for this information across the floor of the house upwards of a month ago. I would like to ask the minister to inform the committee whether or not the recommendations of the special committee reporting on the Department of Customs and Excise on the same page in regard to J. A. E. Bissaillon, the former preventive officer, have ever been acted upon in any way. In connection with the report of the committee of the same date, namely, June 18, 1926, I find this:
The committee recommends that the evidence of J. A. E. Bisaillon given before this committee with reference to his bank account for the amount of $69,000 be transmitted to the Attorney General for Quebec, for the purpose of comparison with the evidence given by him on the same point at preliminary inquiry at Quebec, P.Q., in the case of Rex vs. Symons et al, and for such action by the said Attorney General as the evidence may warrant; and further that the evidence in connection with the Morris Delage motor car case be transmitted to the said Attorney General for such further action as the said evidence may warrant.
Those were direct charges of falsification, theft and forgery. I have followed as carefully as I can the proceedings in the house down to this hour and so far as I can discover we are without a reply to any inquiry we have addressed to the government as to what has been done in connection with those matters. It may be said by the minister that the recommendations to which I have just referred were made to the Attorney General of Quebec, but surely the matter would not rest there. Surely a committee of this house, having reported, through the mediium of the house itself, to the Attorney General for Quebec that proceedings on those very grave and serious charges should be taken, was at leaSt entitled to feel that if thht attorney general took action, it should be advised of
[Mr. C. W. Bell.l
that action and if the attorney general refused to take action, it should be advised of his refusal.
That leads to another point which the minister mentioned in reply to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre a moment ago. The minister, having in mind doubtless the difficulty that is sometimes experienced in having the law properly enforced, said that although the process of the courts had been invoked in a number of instances, the courts apparently did not co-operate with the department in carrying out their own duties as they should have done on what was reported. The minister instanced a very extreme case in which a man who had been convicted was sentenced to but one day in gaol. I do not know whether the minister wishes us to conclude from that that the Justice department is so helpless that when a court goes on such lines as these that are here under criticism, it throws up its hands and surrenders, but I cannot imagine what other construction can be placed upon what the minister has said. Let me suggest to him that if the Justice department of the Dominion of Canada is as helpless as all that, it may well take pattern by the Justice department of Ontario presided over by the Hon. W. H. Price. In that department during the last two or three years there have been ten or a dozen oases where it was felt that the courts were lax, were overly lenient in the way (they dealt with 'the eases, whereupon the Attorney General demanded that these oases should be remitted to the courts, that other charges might be laid and the cases properly considered. It may be suggested that the Department of Justice of this dominion is not as powerful as the department of the Attorney General of Ontario. I would with reluctance accept that rather humiliating confession, but even if it were so I would like at least to have it shown to this house that an attempt was made by the Department of Justice of this dominion to see that the law really was enforced, even if the previous attempts had failed. I ask, Mr. Chairman, that before consideration of this item has been concluded, we be informed authoritatively from the Department of Justice why it is that that which the minister himself has pointed out as being a ridiculous farce in the administration of justice whs not at least sought to be corrected.
The suggestion is further made that:
The department is rendered helpless in the efforts that it makes by reason of the fact that there are repeated postponements of cases.
When the question of appointing a committee of this house to investigate the Department of Customs and Excise was first broached

Supply-National Revenue
in 1926, one of the things that was brought before the house was the fact that those who had charge of prosecutions had entrusted them to counsel who did not press them to a conclusion, and that the department had sat down under the laxity of these counsel and had not attempted to make them do their duty. Apparently, notwithstanding the revelations before the special committee investigating that department, notwithstanding the revelations before the royal commission that followed that special committee, we are to-day confronted with the same condition of laxity, the same unwillingness to do their duty on the part of counsel whom the government appoints. Surely it does not lie in the mouth of a minister of the crown charged with the duty of administering this department to say: We retain counsel to prosecute violators of the law, and we are helpless because they are not successful in doing so. It seems to me elementary that those who find that their instructions are not carried out should at least have the enterprise and the courage to retain counsel who will do what they are required to do, and bring before the courts the matters with which they are entrusted. So I say that the explanation which the minister has been good enough to give, while it does indeed testify to the energy he has shown and to the good he has accomplished, shows that we have but begun to remedy the abuses that existed in that department, and that we are very far from being able to congratulate ourselves upon having made any real progress down to this date.


William Daum Euler: I think the hon. member for West Hamilton is hardly fair when he intimates, as I understood him to do, that we had refused to answer any inquiries made from the other side of the house.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I did not say that. I said that I had asked my hon. friend if he had not had plenty of time to make those answers. He should be in a position to give the list asked for.


William Daum Euler: It was a misunderstanding
on my part. My hon. friend has asked with regard to the status of the cases recommended for action by the parliamentary committee of inquiry. I have a record of them all before me. It is a lengthy list, but if the committee desires I am quite prepared to read it. I have already summed it up in this way, that seventeen of these cases were in the courts; in two other cases we have settled on the advice of our solicitor, the departmental solicitor, also Clarkson, Gordon and Dilworth, and the commissioner of customs 56103-224J
himself. There were five or six cases in which it was absolutely impossible to proceed. Perhaps I might read those.
The O. B. Earle Company case was placed in the hands of counsel, who reports inability to effct service upon any representative of the company, which has disappeared leaving no trace and no visible assets.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Who was the solicitor in that case?


William Daum Euler: Mr. Spence, of Toronto.
The Royal Cloak Company, of Toronto; that case was settled. The Miracle Dress Company; this case was placed in the hands of Arthur Geoffrion, K.C., who finally reported that he could see no prospect of successful action. The available evidence is now in the hands of Paul Ranger, Esq., advocate, who reported that the firm wound up its business in 1925. We were not quite content with Mr. Geoffrion not going on with the case, and we gave it to another solicitor. The case of Hollinger and Packer is in the same position as that of the Miracle Dress Company. The Payanner group of companies is in liquidation, and it is not deemed advisable to proceed pending the result of the liquidation proceedings. The case of Woollens Limited was placed in the hands of Mr. Geoffrion, who reported that he could do nothing in the matter. That case was then placed in the hands of Mr. Ranger, who has issued a writ for the recovery of $25,000. Perhaps that will dispose of the case to the satisfaction of the committee.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister give
the cases that have been proceeded with, and the state they are in?


William Daum Euler: I am willing to do that. I
can go into it at considerable length.


Robert Gardiner: Can the minister give
us the reasons why Mr. Geoffrion did not proceed with the cases?


William Daum Euler: The company was defunct.
He thought there was absolutely no chance of successful action.


Henry Elvins Spencer: And yet somebody else
was engaged to take his place?


William Daum Euler: The first on the list is the
John Gaunt Company. It is in the hands of R. L. Calder, K.C., who, as I mentioned before, was appointed by my hon. friend, I think.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Just on that very point,
Mr. Calder certainly was appointed by me, but surely the minister does not take refuge behind the fact that Mr. Calder was appointed
Supply

National Revenue

by me nearly two years ago. If the case has not been proceeded with, and if it is Mr. Calder's fault, then the minister has it in his own hands to remedy the matter.


William Daum Euler: I think nearly all the cases
were placed in the hands of Mr. Calder by my hon. friend himself, and I have no fault to find with that at all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: By the way, Mr. Calder
was not chosen by me, but he was chosen by the parliamentary committee of which my hon. friend from St. Henri was chairman.


William Daum Euler: He prosecuted the cases.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, Mr. Calder was engaged by the parliamentary committee, not by me; he was not even named by me. I had nothing to do with it except to sit in the minority in that committee.


Mr. CANNON:: After the committee had
sat you appointed him.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He was chosen by the
parliamentary committee of which I was a minority member, and carried on that investigation. He was not-I want to make this clear-a choice of my own. When the question of prosecutions came up, I simply said, as minister of the department for the time, "Let Mr. Calder carry this on, because then there can be no possibility of suggesting that I am indulging in any political expediency in connection with this matter."


Lucien Cannon: No one would ever suspect that.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Not when Mr. Calder was a Liberal.


William Daum Euler: I have no fault to find with that. According to my information, my hon. friend I think designated Mr. Calder to prosecute all the cases.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not all, I think.


William Daum Euler: Practically all the cases,
and I think he had begun only three of them. He was acting with the royal commission 'as their solicitor, and he went to British Columbia in connection with his duties with the commission, and I felt that it was utterly impossible to get any action if he was kept in charge of all those cases, so I withdrew all the cases from him except three, which are still in his hands, and none of which I think has been finally settled.
But to proceed:
The John Gaunt Company. The firm was wound up. John Gaunt is personally insolvent and beyond the jurisdiction. The case is in the hands of Mr. Calder.

Dominion Distillery Products. In the hands of Mr. Calder. Information laid in the exchequer court for the recovery of $830,855.52. Defence filed and litigation proceeding under direction of the Minister of Justice.
B. B. Glove Company. In the hands of Emile Marcotte, K.C. Writ issued in the Superior court of Quebec for $41,612, July, 1927, representing customs duties and penalties under Customs Act. Action defended and litigation proceeding. Case will go to trial at an early date.	-
James A. Gilmour. In the hands of Emile Marcotte, K.C., as above. Writ issued claiming $29,947.41. Defended. Litigation proceeding.
Globe Suspender Company and Eastern Apparel Company. In the hands of Emile Marcotte, K.C. Writ issued for $59,836.29. Mr. Marcotte reports that he has obtained judgment by default. Mr. Marcotte reports Marois' whereabouts unknown and unable to discover any assets belonging to him within the jurisdiction of Canadian courts.


Henry Herbert Stevens: When was that last report made?


William Daum Euler: Perhaps I shall be able to find it later.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It would be well to have it where you make the statement.


William Daum Euler: I have so many papers that I cannot keep them all under my hand.
The Perfecto Garment Company. In hands of	Emile	Marcotte,	K.C.	Writ	issued for
$8,511.21. Case defended. Litigation proceeding. May be advisable to obtain commission evidence in the United States.
Peerless Overall Company. In the hands of Emile Marcotte, K.C. Writ issued for $55,321.20, Case defended. Litigation proceeding. May be advisable to obtain commission evidence in the United States.
R. G. Manufacturing Company. In the hands of	Emile	Marcotte,	K.C.	Writ	issued for
$96,101.01. Defended. Litigation proceeding. May be advisable to obtain commission evidence in the United States.
The same with regard to the Reliable Garment Company. Writ issued for $33,357.40.
The same with regard to the Stanstead Manufacturing Company. Writ issued for $15,366.31. May be advisable to obtain commission evidence in the United States.
W. M. Pike and Standard Manufacturing Company. In the hands of Emile Marcotte, K.C. Writ issued for $67,803.01. Case defended. Litigation proceeding. May be advisable to obtain commission evidence in the United States.
Telford Bros. Garment Company. In the hands of Emile Marcotte, K.C. Writ issued for $30,099.08. Case defended. Litigation proceeding. May be advisable to obtain commission evidence in the United States.
Telford and Chapman. In exactly the same position. Writ issued for $23,691.15.
Jenkins Overall Company Limited. This is the third case of those remaining with Mr. Calder. Writ issued and returnable. Trial probably in June.

Supply-National Revenue


_


George Reginald Geary: When was the writ issued? Mr. Marcotte just says that it may be necessary to get commission evidence in the United States. He puts it in that vague way.


William Daum Euler: I would ask my hon. friend to wait a moment or two; I am almost through.
Snag Proof Company Ltd. In the hands of Emile Marcotte, K.C. Writ issued for $9,517.01. Case defended. Litigation proceeding.
Rock Island Overall Company. In the hands of Emile Marcotte, K.C. Writ issued for $37,206.76. Defended. Litigation proceeding. Probably necessary to obtain commission evidence in the United States.
Also Dress Company. Case settled.
The 0. B. Earle Company. Case placed in the hands of J. H. Spence, K.C., who reports inability to effect service on any representative of the company, which has disappeared, leaving no address and no visible assets. Matter dropped.
Royal Cloak Company. Claim was set up by Clarkson, Gordon and Dilworth, for customs duties and penalties for $8,758.93. Settled on their advice and that of solicitor for crown, the departmental solicitor and commissioner of customs.


Hugh Guthrie: Settled for how much?


William Daum Euler: For 84,000 odd, and about
$3,000 sales tax. The others I have already dealt with.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, in view of certain statements that have been made, I may be allowed to say to the committee what is the practice in regard to these cases. As the committee is aware, the legal work of all the departments of the government extends throughout the Dominion. It has always been the practice to have legal agents in all parts of Canada, because almost every day some department asks for the name of a legal representative in some district to institute proceedings. This is done for the Department of National Revenue as well as for the other departments. It is indeed under those circumstances necessary that there should be in the department a list of legal men who could be employed in any part of Canada for this sort of work. When I became the head of the Department of Justice I found there a list of legal men practising in all parts of the Dominion to whom legal work of the various departments could be entrusted. Obviously that list had been prepared by my predecessor in office, and I had no reason to doubt the qualifications of those legal men; indeed I knew many of them personally. The names of the men who were suggested or recommended or given to the various departments were always taken from that li^t, and as far as possible those
who were more especially qualified for the kind of work which had to be done were always selected.
Now, that list existed in the deparment until 1926, when we went out of office for some time. When two or three months afterwards I came back again as the head of the department I found that that list had disappeared altogether and had been replaced by another list which I now have in my hand. There was a list for every one of the provinces, and not one of the names that were there three months previously appeared in this new list. It may be interesting to my hon. friend from Vancouver-[DOT]


Arthur Edward Ross: May I ask the hon. minister a question.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: Had not those
names been changed before? They had been in my constituency.


Ernest Lapointe: Probably; but not during my time, because I became head of the department in 1923, and accepted the list as I found it. But, as I said, on my return to the department, three months later I found a new list altogether. Starting from the extreme west of the Dominion I have before me a list of legal men to be employed in the province of British Columbia, bequeathed to me by my immediate predecessor in office. Thera is in the margin preceding the name of the legal gentleman the name of the person who recommended that he be employed as a lawyer for the department. There is the name of my friend from Vancouver Centre, Mr. H. H. Stevens; there is the name of Doctor Toltaie; there is the name of Doctor J. W. Rutledge. I think those are the only ones for British Columbia. I have a list also for Alberta, and the legal gentlemen were recommended during that short time by Hon. R. B. Bennett, Mr. J. B. Stewart, Hon. R. B. Bennett, Hon. R. B. Bennett, Hon. R. B Bennett, Hon. R. B. Bennett. I have the list for Prince Edward Island, but as the gentlemen who recommended the names are perhaps not so prominent as those I have mentioned, perhaps it is not necessary that I should name them.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who are they?


Ernest Lapointe: I see the name of the Hon. J. A. Macdonald anyhow. Now the Manitoba list was recommended by Mr. Ahern; he was private secretary to the Minister of Justice at the time. And I see
Supply-National Revenue

Colonel Anderson and the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. Then H. A. Mullins, H. A. Mullins again, Colonel Anderson, W. W. Kennedy, Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. Then New Brunswick: the New Brunswick list was prepared and recommended by Mr. Culligan. I see the name R. B. Hanson, P. T. Ahern,
O.	B. Price, Charles Fish, P. T. Ahem, Charles Fish, R. W. Grimmer, the Hon. G. B. Jones, the Hon. J. K. Flemming-
Mr. MteINTOSH: What about Saskatchewan?


Ernest Lapointe: I am coming to Saskatchewan. I find this peculiar condition in
Saskatchewan, that although a new list was prepared for the entire province it was recommended wholly and exclusively by the Hon. Doctor Tolmie. For Nova Scotia I find a full list of new -recommendations. I find these names: R. K. Smith, H. B. Short, M.P., the Hon. J. C. Douglas, P. T. Ahern, F. MacDonald, M.P., Doctor J. A. Macdonald, the Hon. W. A. Black, H. B. Short, I. D. Mac-dougall, A. de W. Foster. P. T. Ahern, Thomas Cantley,-1 am pleased to see the hon. member's name-J. A. Macdonald, L. W. Johnstone, the Hon. W. A. Black, A. de Witt Foster-


Mr. QUINN:: Are thees recommendations for canonization?


Ernest Lapointe: Canonization? I don't know. Now I come to Ontario


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Read all; don't miss any in Ontario.


Ernest Lapointe: The list is a voluminous one.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Take your time.


Ernest Lapointe: The recommendations
come from R. Preston, W. E. Tummion, Doctor P. McGibbon, R. E. Ryerson, G. H. Pettit, M. E. Maybee, H. A. Stewart, M. C. Senn, A. D. Chaplin, the Hon. R. J. Manion, R. K. Anderson, the Hon. Mr. Chaplin, the Hon. Mr. Guthrie, C. W. Bell,-


Leslie Gordon Bell: If the minister is reading that as a name, it is false, for I never gave one.


Ernest Lapointe: I am sorry, but the name of my hon. friend was evidently unlawfully and miserably put there by some of his friends.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I give my assurance it is false; I recommended no one.


Ernest Lapointe: I am sorry for my hon. friend but I am not responsible for the name being there.
TMr. Lapointe.]


Leslie Gordon Bell: Nor am I; it is false.


Ernest Lapointe: In justice to my hon. friend I will tell him whose name is there as being recommended by him; it is S. C. Arrell.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I repeat, I know no person by that name and I recommended no one. If it is in the record, the record is falsified.


Harry Bernard Short: I want to make the same statement; I never recommended a single person. What does the minister expect to make out of it? Kindly read the names I recommended.


Ernest Lapointe: I expect-


Felix Patrick Quinn: The whole thing is a fairy story.


An hon. MEMBER:: A bed-time story.


Ernest Lapointe: This is what I find in the department.


Leslie Gordon Bell: It only shows you how inaccurate the records are.


Ernest Lapointe: They were not kept by me.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Nor by me.


Ernest Lapointe: No; by someone in the department while hon. gentlemen were in power.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Is the minister accepting my statement that I made no recommendation?


Ernest Lapointe: Absolutely. Not only do I accept my hon. friend's statement, but I sympathize with him.


Leslie Gordon Bell: My hon. friend can keep all the sympathy; he needs it, after having read a false record to the house.


Ernest Lapointe: That is rather hard on my hon. friend's minister at the time-


Leslie Gordon Bell: I can't help that.


Ernest Lapointe: -who was* in charge of the department when these recommendations were made. Now, as the hour has almost expired-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Ernest Lapointe: All right.


An hon. MEMBER:: Finish it.


Finlay MacDonald: You
can't get yourself out of it that easy.


Ernest Lapointe: I am quite willing to read it all, but it will-

Supply-National Revenue


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Read aM of it.


Ernest Lapointe: The Hon. Hugh Guthrie-


Finlay MacDonald: As the time is short now it would be far more interesting if the minister would read the present list.


Ernest Lapointe: A. E. Ross-


Arthur Edward Ross: Right, right, right.
I will tell you the reason.


Ernest Lapointe: P. T. Ahern; R. K. Anderson; Colonel Lennox; G. H. Pettit; John Ferguson, defeated candidate; M. E. Maybee; P. T. Thompson; Doctor T. E.
Kaiser-


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: What name did I recommend, please?


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. D. J. A. Swanson, Oshawa.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: You lost a good man when you turned him down.


Ernest Lapointe: I have no doubt he is an excellent man. I do not say that any one of these gentlemen who were recommended was not perfectly qualified to conduct proceedings for the department.


Mr. THOMPSON:: The Minister of Justice has mentioned my name, so I might say that some man had not paid his income tax and the department wanted to know of a lawyer to handle the case.


Ernest Lapointe: I have no doubt about that.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I do not think it is fair to these men to ridicule their names in this way. I want to say that Mr. Swanson was recommended by me and his name Should be received by this government with respect, because he is one of the best criminal lawyers in our section of the country. I do not think it right that the Liberal party, or any other party, should take so much amusement out of the mention of his name.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I think the minister should go on.


Ernest Lapointe: I am in the judgment of the committee. I do not blame anyone; I am merely stating the practice. I said there was a list in the department which was used by me prior to 1928; I had found that list when I came there and I had used it, but when I came back two or three months later the list was altogether changed. I started to say that it included new men all over the country, and if I am reading all these names it is just because my hon. friends opposite are
asking me to do so. I do not attach any blame to them; I quite agree that any one of the gentlemen recommended by my hon. friends was quite qualified to act as the legal agent of the department.


Robert James Manion: Might I ask a question?
I suppose the list the minister is using _ at present-because of course he is not using this one-is made up in exactly the same way, on the recommendations of his friends?


Ernest Lapointe: Let me tell my hon. friend that when I found that new list, largely composed of men I did not know, I rather reinstated the old list, and surely my hon. friends will not criticize me for using that list which I left there when we took that little holiday of two or three months.


Robert James Manion: I do not criticize my hon. friend at all; I just wanted to show the house that my hon. friend is doing exactly what his party are laughing at us for having done.


Ernest Lapointe: I am using the list which I had prior to July, 1926; that is quite true, and let me say right here that I do not think there are not enough Conservative lawyers all over the country to act as legal agents of the government in a proper way and to carry on the cases of the department in a dignified and reliable way, but there are Liberal lawyers all over Canada who are equally qualified. The idea that because a man is selected by one party he is not qualified, does not appeal to me. As I say, I do not criticize the recommendations which were made by my hon friends or even the List which was prepared; I am quite sure that most of these men were qualified to do the work.


Harry Bernard Short: Then why take so much amusement from it?


Ernest Lapointe: The amusement is caused by the attitude of my hon. friends opposite.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Does not the
minister understand that the criticism which has come from this side of the house has nothing to do with the recommendation of people to do that work, but arises rather out of the fact that when they were appointed they did not do their duty, and the department took no action?


Ernest Lapointe: I beg my hon. friend's pardon; it was stated in the famous report by Mr. Sparks that under the present administration the Department of Justice is employing lawyers only because they are Liberals.


Leslie Gordon Bell: We are not saying that.
Business oj the House


Ernest Lapointe: I think my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre said that it never had been worse than under the present minister. I am simply showing what the practice always has been; as soon as my hon. friends opposite took charge of the government they did the same thing, and I am amazed that they had time to prepare a list covering all Canada in the short period during which they held office.


Thomas Cantley: Will the minister do me a kindness? Will he be good enough to read the names of the gentlemen I recommended, because I would like them to know I was looking after their interest.


Ernest Lapointe: I will do that with great pleasure.


George Reginald Geary: Are there as many new lawyers as new postmasters?


Ernest Lapointe: No, fortunately. Now I will conclude the names of the Ontario list, unless the committee think I have read enough.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Answer the question.


Ernest Lapointe: I have been answering questions all the time.


Mr. GOTT:: I want to ask the minister a question. Will he consider-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, May 30, 1928