1928-06-09

Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move, seconded by Mr. Coote:
That twenty thousand copies in English and five thousand copies in French of the evidence taken by the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization on the consideration of the subject of the grading and inspection of wheat be printed in blue book form, and that distribution be made thereof free of charge by the Department of Trade and Commerce, and that standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to object to the putting out of the evidence if the agricultural committee determined that its distribution is worth while; but I submit that we are introducing a precedent that later on may, to say the least, create embarrassment and add materially to the expense of carrying on the affairs of this parliament. I have no recollection of parliament ordering the printing of

Grading of Wheat
twenty thousand copies of evidence. It is customary to order the printing of a reasonable amount of such information as is desirable for members of both houses and for distribution to their constituents. But if it is necessary to print this number of copies, why should it not be done by the department interested? The proper procedure, it seems to me, is for the Department of Trade and Commerce, to which we give a considerable vote for printing, to take the responsibility of putting out this evidence, if it is considered worth while to do so. If I understand the motion rightly, Mr. Speaker, it is questionable whether it is an order on the Department of Trade and Commerce to do this work. If it is,
I doubt if a private member has the right to move such a motion.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I was about to say that if it is intended that the printing shall be at the expense of the Department of Trade and Commerce, the motion must be introduced by the minister of that department; and it is not very clear that the department shall look after the distribution. I will read the motion once more:
That twenty thousand copies in English and five thousand copies in French of the evidence taken by the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization on the consideration of the subject of the grading and inspection of wheat be printed in blue book form and that distribution be made thereof free of charge by the Department of Trade and Commerce and that standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.
It is not clear whether the printing is to be done at the expense of the House of Commons. If it is so intended, I must, as head of this department, advise the hon. gentleman that we have not sufficient funds to print such a large number of copies. We have already sent in a requisition for 1,500 copies. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce is willing to do the work, well and good. But he must say so.


John Millar: The intention of the resolution, Mr. Speaker, is that those copies shall be printed from the general fund and distributed by the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Will my hon. friend state what he means by the general fund?


John Millar: Well, the consolidated revenue fund. It all comes out of the same pocket anyway.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, but there must be an appropriation to take even five cents from the consolidated revenue fund.


John Millar: I am not much worried about that so long as we get the printing done. I desire to point out that we have been dealing with a question on which very little information is available in printed form. It is related to an agitation that has extended over the last twenty years; during all that time our farmers have been asking that their wheat should be graded according to its milling value. Your committee went very fully into this matter, and took the evidence of witnesses who are experts in their particular lines, and the information so brought together will be of very great value to the Western farmers.
Now, twenty thousand copies may seem a large number, but with fifty-four constituencies in western Canada, practically all of which will be keenly interested in this question-as I will show in a moment-it means a very small number of copies to each constituency; further, it means that there will be about only one copy for every seven or eight thousand farmers. Some time ago when the evidence was completed, but before the report was issued, I took the trouble to secure from the printing bureau a statement of the cost involved. It did not include the report, nor did it provide for the translation into French. It amounted to only a little more than eight cents a copy. Making allowance for the translation and including the report- 'this resolution does not provide for it but I hope it will be included-the cost would amount to only ten cents a copy. When we consider that the information deals with a subject of great interest to western Canada, I think it is reasonable to expect that all those copies will be ordered.
I hold in my hand half a dozen letters from farmers who, having seen by the press that this matter was discussed in this house, of their own accord wrote for further information. One asks for a dozen copies, another, the secretary of an organization, asked for a dozen copies of the discussion which took place in the house on this subject some months ago, and so on. I have received probably a dozen letters, showing that the fanners are keenly interested in this matter. I believe other members have had the same experience. I do not think I have discussed in this house any question about which I have received so many inquiries, and which seems to have created so much interest. The evidence is quite complete, but unless that information is made available to the farmers so that they may have a chance to study and apply it I am afraid a large part of the benefit of the committee's work will be lost. I
Grading oj Wheat

would refer again to the fact that the proposed distribution covers the three prairie provinces. The number is small, but in view of the fact that a few hon. gentlemen seem to think it large, I am personally willing that it shall be reduced, respectively, to 10,000 in English and 2,500 in French. That is reducing it by half. I have no authority from the committee to make that suggestion but I believe a number of the members of the committee are of opinion that we might do with less. I would move, therefore, that the number be reduced as I have indicated, and the amendment will embody words to that effect. I shall be quite satisfied with that.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: My hon. friend suggests
a reduction in the number of copies. May I point out that there is a committee which has to do with the printing of the House of Commons. My hon. friend might agree to amend his motion in such a manner as to omit altogether reference to the number of copies to 'be printed and leave the number to the committee of the house to determine. I suggest that the motion be simply that copies in English and copies in French be printed1. The committee might confer with His Honour the Speaker <as regards the number of copies necessary.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: When is that committee likely to meet if we prorogue this afternoon?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It might meet this morning or during the course of the day with a view to conferring with His Honour the Speaker. I should not think there would be any difficulty.


Edward Joseph Garland: I cannot
for the life of me understand the opposition to the request for a certain number of copies to be printed, the cost to be taken out of the revenue. We have no hesitation in expending $10,000 on invitations and menu cards for Rideau Hall, but when it comes to a small amount for the printing of valuable information for the farmers of western Canada there is opposition.


Ernest Lapointe: There is no opposition; it is only a question of procedure.


Edward Joseph Garland: 
Ernest Lapointe: Did the hon. gentleman hear Mr. Speaker say that he was afraid he had not sufficient funds for the purpose? Is it not wise to confer with His Honour in that regard? If my hon. friend wants a new sheet of estimates no doubt the amount could be increased. But I think it is only elementary wisdom to confer with the Speaker as to what can be done.


Edward Joseph Garland: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) overlook one fact in relation to this motion:	I do not
know who is going to call a meeting of the committee. And if the committee is called how shall we get results before parliament prorogues? I do not think it is wise to follow that course unless the Prime Minister can assure us that we shall obtain a quorum and come to some agreement before prorogation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My endeavour in the matter is to ensure copies being printed. His Honour the Speaker has mentioned that with the figures suggested it is not possible for him to authorize the house to pass the motion as it stands. I conferred with His Honour to ascertain whether it would facilitate matters if the figures were left out. And as I was conferring with His Honour I heard the hon. member who moved the resolution suggest that the numbers be reduced to 10,000 and 2,500 respectively. I thought the better course of procedure would be to leave it to the committee in conference with His Honour the Speaker to determine how many copies it might be possible to print. I have not the least doubt that the disposition of the committee will be to print all that are required. At any rate, if a limited number of copies are printed I think I can undertake to say that, in the event of the funds of the House of Commons being insufficient to provide the larger number required, we shall manage somehow to meet the situation out of unforeseen expenses or in some other way until parliament meets again.


John Millar: My suggestion to cut down
the number was because of opposition to the number.

Public Expenditure-Mr. Bennett


Mr. T. S. DONNELLY (Willow Bunch):: I desire to move an amendment:
That the words "together with the report of the committee" be inserted after the word "wheat" in the fourth line.
The object of the amendment is to ensure that the report will be incorporated with the evidence in the printing.


Hewitt Bostock: Is the mover agreeable to the reduction in the number of copies to be printed?


John Millar: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Motion as amended agreed to.
Hewitt Bostock: May I observe to the
house, inasmuch as we follow British practice as far as possible, that in England only a limited number of copies of reports are authorized. As regards publications for public use, anyone who has been in England knows that he can find, at certain bookstalls in the city of London, copies of various blue books which are available at a minimum charge. The time has come in Canada, I think, when we should adopt a similar practice.


John Millar: I wish to move a motion which will require no discussion. I move that the ninth report of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
['I was paired\nwith the hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough (Mr. Duff). Had I voted I would have voted in support of the amendment.']
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: I desire to move in amendment:
That all the words after the word "that" in the motion be left out and the following substituted therefor:
"This house is of opinion that the expenditures for the year ending March 31, 1928, and the proposed expenditures for the year ending March 31, 1929, are excessive and extravagant, and that the country has not received, and cannot expect to receive, any adequate returns therefrom."
Mr. Speaker, I offer no apologies for moving this motion at this time. Those members of the house who have the main estimates before them will observe that we voted $366,071,314.22 for the public service last year, in addition to certain supplementary estimates. This year again, however, although we voted these very large sums of money
which were essential to take care of the demands made by the public service, the extravagant demands in my judgment, we were asked to vote a further sum of $7,777,747.89 in two supplementary estimates embodied in Bill No. 155 already passed by this house. So our expenditures, which we thought to be large when we passed the estimates last year, in fact have been swollen not only by supplementary estimates passed last year but by an additional sum of over seven and three-quarter million dollars which was found to be essential for the purpose of taking care of the commitments made by the government, including governor general's warrants which amounted to nearly $200,000.
I submit that this expenditure is entirely beyond what should be expended by this country at this time, and I find my vindication for the observations I am about to make in the statement made to this house over a quarter of a century ago by Right Hon. W. S. Fielding, the then Minister of Finance. Meeting a motion deprecating large expenditures and swollen budgets, the then Minister of Finance used these words:
Let me say that so far as my hon. friend's object was to utter a word of warning as to the need of moderation in our expenditure, as to the need of looking to the future, I entirely sympathize with him and welcome that word, no matter from what quarter it may come. There is always a tendency, whether in personal or in national affairs, for men in times of great prosperity to forget the future, and it is always well that some cool head should be found to call attention to the conditions of the day, to the possible change of these conditions, and to the necessity of adapting our policy not only to things as they are, but to things as they may be at no distant day. I am always glad to find any one calling attention to that phase of our public affairs. So strongly impressed have I been with the necessity of at all times keeping that in mind, that in the various statements which it has been my privilege to present in the form of budget speeches, at the moment when we attained the greatest prosperity, I had deemed it well to call attention to the serious view which my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) presented to-day, and which I have presented from time to time, as to the necessity of looking to the future.
Now, sir, on more than one occasion during the progress of this session I have ventured to point out to the house that the conditions existing at the present time indicate very clearly to those who read the commercial barometers and to those who are concerned about the future that we should exercise great prudence and foresight in connection with our expenditures. I have already directed attention to what was done during the year which ended on March 31, 1928, and it is only necessary to turn to the Canada
4040	COMMONS
Public Expenditure-Mr. Bennett
Year Book and to look at the total expenditures of this country during the last few years to observe that while we are prosperous, in the sense that we are collecting large revenues, we are also making enormous expenditures, which it would have been thought impossible for this country to make a few years ago. If any hon. member will refer to the Canada Year Book for 1928 he will find the total expenditures indicated at page 765, and it will be seen that in the last year before the war, the year ending March 31, 1914, the total expenditures of this country for all purposes were $186,241,048. By the year 1926 these figures had risen, in that short period of only twelve years, to $355,186,423. Included in the latter figure were sums of money advanced to the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine but it will be observed that hi previous years the sums expended for these services were larger than in the year 1926. Therefore we have the conditions to which I have referred,- namely enormously increasing expenditures, increasing it seems to me beyond all possible opportunity for us to overtake them by any revenues we may possibly hope to collect, if we are to bring about that reduction of taxation which is so essential to the development of our industrial life. If a citizen of this country had been told ten or fifteen years ago that the Dominion of Canada, with its population so little increased in that period of time as the figures indicate, would increase its expenditure by almost 100 per cent, he would have thought it impossible that it could be so, yet there are the figures before us.
When we turn to the revenue statements at page 761 we find that the total consolidated revenues of this country were as follows :
1922		 $382,271,571
1923		 403,094,210
1924		 406,582,840
1925		 351,515,392
1926		 382,893,009
At pages 3037 and 3038 of the Canada Gazette for this year we find that our revenues for the year ending March 31, 1927, amounted to $385,668,925.31, and that for the year ending March 31, 1928, they rose to the largest sum we have on record in this country, namely, $417,127,500, in round figures. Our expenditures for 1927 amounted to $324,239,424.97, including $10,000,060' for the Canadian National Railways and $426,817.14 for the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. For the year ending March 31, 1928, the last fiscal year, our expenditures amounted to $329,966,715.67, including a million dollars for the Canadian 
Government Merchant Marine, or in other words an increase of $5,727,290.70 over the preceding year.
Under present conditions, Mr. Speaker, is there anything to warrant the enormous increase of over five and three-quarter million dollars in the expenditures of this country in 1928, over 1927, when the expenditures during that year had reached the enormous figure to which I 'have referred? Any expenditure of this country in excess of $325,000,000 is an enormous expenditure for the Dominion of Canada with its limited population. If this government were more anxious about the practice of economy, about seeing that one hundred cents of value is given for every dollar of expenditure, the conditions would be mudh better than they are now. What Mr. Fielding said twenty-five years ago is more than true to-day. We are getting into the habit of dealing with thousands and millions of dollars as though they were a mere bagatelle, and we think that for some reason we may make these vast expenditures without any regard whatever to the future. I think the time has come when we should take stock of the situation. I know how pleasant it is for governments to spend money. Their supporters demand that they shall spend money; the Minister of Public Works is besieged by applications for public buildings, and every department of the public service is asked for money. And yet this was the condition which prevailed in the United States when President Coolidge took charge, when he appointed General Lord and his successors to the position of director of budgets, and brought about a saving, as has been pointed out by me, of over one million dollars a day in interest charges alone. In his message to congress he referred to the debt of the country as being the greatest economic menace that threatened the life of the United States. I have directed attention to it already, and bearing in mind the vast expenditures to which this country committed itself in 1927, for the year ending 31st March, 1928, I again direct the attention -of my fellow members to the language of Mr. Fielding. You may possibly say to me, "But what are the particulars; what are the details? Why is it that you say these expenditures may not give an adequate return to the people of this country?" I refer the house to the language used by the then leader of the opposition, Mr. Borden; and I might mention that in his view he was supported by an eminent English statesman whose utterance I shall not delay to read. Mr. Borden said:
Now, where an opposition are not able to get, within a reasonable time, and without

Public Expenditure-Mr. Bennett
unduly protracting the session, information which would enable them to discriminate between hundreds of items brought down to this house, when they are unable to get information which would put them in the same position for forming an opinion that the government are in, the proper duty for an opposition is to protest against excessive expenditure, to throw upon the government the responsibility of making it, knowing as they do that the government have within their power the means of reducing that expenditure by eliminating from it items which are less worthy of public appropriation than those W'hieh are necessary to be made. That is the view which has been put forward in the English House of Commons as a sound principle, that an opposition in protesting, as we have protested, against undue expenditure, have discharged their duty without dealing in detail vuth the particular items of the expenditure brought down by the government.
Let us then, in the light of that statement and the observations which I have just made, look at the expenditures to which we are committed for the years 1928-29, in other words the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1929. I wonder if this house has considered what money we have voted; I wonder if the Minister of Finance has taken due cognizance of the extent to which we have made commitments for the future. Let me read them to this house. The main estimates for this year committed us to an expenditure of 5373,796,856.24. The first supplementary estimates committed us to a further expenditure of $10,583,611.91, and the further supplementary estimates committed this country to the expenditure of $1,000,200. Then let us look at the other sums to which we are committed. First there are the railways-well, I will not take them first-


An hon. MEMBER:: But they are coming?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are coming, yes.
The hon. gentleman seems to think it is a matter of very little importance, and yet I think, when he calmly considers the situation, he will realize what it means not only to himself but to his family, to place these increasing burdens upon the people of this country. The three items which I have mentioned make a total of $385,380,668.15.
But we did not stop there. We voted $3,000,000 to the Federal District Commission for the improvement of Ottawa, by Bill 218. We voted a $200,000 annuity by Bill 218 to the same authority. We voted an annuity of $75,000 to the National Battlefields Commission by Bill 34. We voted $200,000 per year for two years for level crossings by Bill 220. These items make a total of $388,855,668.15.
But we did not stop there. What further sums has this house committed this country
to? At the initiation of the government and at their request, we have voted $8,500,000 to the harbour of Quebec. It is admitted that the money is a direct charge upon this country and that it will not be repaid by the harbour itself; that was admitted by the hon. gentlemen w'ho assumed responsibility for that expenditure. We have voted $5,000,000 to the harbour of St. John, and $500,000 to the harbour of Halifax. These items total $14,000,000. It is perfectly true that all these items will not be expended this year, but it is also equally true that the money must be found some time by the taxpayers of Canada, at least in respect to the item of the Quebec harbour. We have committed this country to those expenditures, whether the money be paid to-day or to-morrow or next year or the year after.
But did we stop there? We did not; we went further. Last night we were voting, and to-day we will be called upon to vote-the government has the requisite majority behind it to vote it -$47,156,644.50 for the Canadian National Railways and for the Canadian Government Merchant Marine.
Does this house realize just what these stupendous figures mean in the way of taxation? But in addition to these sums, we also voted $3,500,000 for the terminal at Toronto, and voted a further sum, in excess of $22,689,575, in connection with the Canadian Northern Income Charge Act. These bonds were originally an obligation of the Canadian Northern railway, but they have become an obligation of this country because we know these companies cannot be allowed to go into liquidation or into the hands of a receiver because of our investment in them during the past ten years.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is that total
again?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is $22,689,575, under
Bill No. 153. We have the stupendous total of nearly $450,000,000 outside of that obligation in connection with the income securities of the old Canadian Northern. I wonder if this house realizes that we are now faced with a budget of nearly half a billion dollars with less than ten millions of people who are already staggering under the burden of a debt of two and a half billions of dollars? In these buoyant days it is easy to talk in millions of dollars and find the money to meet these appropriations. We have not had the op- . portunity, as Mr. Borden pointed out when leader of the opposition, of considering the items in detail.
4042	COMMONS
Public Expenditure-Mr. Bennett
Take the votes, for instance, concerning expenditures west of the great lakes. How many of us have been afforded the opportunity to read all the necessary papers, documents and reports on these subjects, to discover whether these undertakings will serve any useful public purpose? Take the vast expenditures for civil government; take the expenditure, as shown by the return brought down to this house, in connection with the fleet of government automobiles in this city; take that alone. You say, "Oh, that is a piffling thing," but there it is. It runs into thousands and thousands of dollars increasing as the days go by, and yet no one seems to care. The other day I heard a gentleman who, it is true, is only an observer, a man who has lived in the capital a long time and who is not interested in politics, say that he had never before seen such reckless expenditures of public money in this country. If you walk down yonder, you will see a vacant piece of land which the Minister of Public Works has bought for a large sum of money to put a pavement on which will cost nearly three-quarters of a million dollars before it is finished. Land and buildings have been purchased just to secure a small area of land in the centre of the city. We look at the wreck of an old hotel and there is an expenditure of three millions of dollars with the commitments for the adjoining areas. We have a sum of $950,000 in two annuities alone in respect to the national battlefields and the improvement commission of this city, and to this there is added an annuity in connection with level crossings, making a total of $1,150,000.
Take the railway expenditures. What member of this house has any adequate appreciation of the railway figures? We sit here and laughingly vote $47,000,000 and we are voting by these supply bills nearly $100,000,000 more than the national debt of this country was before the war began. That is only fourteen years ago. Think of the commitments that have been brought about in that time. In England, France, continental Europe, the United States, with all their riches, they have approached these problems as men who are intent upon bringing about a shrinkage in expenditure and it is no answer for the Minister of Finance to say that every member who sits on this side of the house has been anxious to have additional sums spent in his constituency. Why would he not be when he sees the government recklessly throwing money away in every direction? Has one particular community to be singled out for

expenditure and the other left alone? The reason why hon. members on this side rise and ask that their constituencies be protected is that there are public buildings falling into decay, public works that are not being maintained, because, forsooth, the patronage evil is abroad in this country and the exchequer of Canada is being used to advance the political fortunes of the supporters of the administration. That is the real reason. There is no thoughtful man who travels by automobile throughout this country; there is no man who goes on our highways and observes the expenditures for post offices, wharves, docks, dredging in counties and districts that are returning supporters of the administration and then notes the lack of them in other communities. but realizes that if there is no necessity for them in the latter, there certainly is no excuse for them in the former. If, in other words, the public necessity does not demand that money should be expended for public* works in the sense I have indicated in constituencies that do not return supporters of the administration, that in itself is an indication that there is no public necessity for these expenditures in the other communities to which I have referred. That is patronage to the eyes of the most superficial observer.	_	_
I am not unmindful of the fact that it is easy to brush these things aside; that it is easy to say that this country is entering upon an era of unexampled prosperity and that there will be more revenues than ever before we have heard of available for our purposes. One of the premiers of the provinces within the last forty-eight hours, dealing with his experience in Canada under our profitless prosperity, said: "Your remedy is to obtain reduced taxation from the federal authorities." This country is groaning under the burden of present taxation. There are few more highly taxed countries than we are with such a vast area and such a small population.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: What premier was that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The premier of Quebec
is the gentleman who made the observation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That was to
abolish the income tax.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He suggested that as one thing that would have a very immediate beneficial effect on industry.


James Alexander Robb: What does my hon. friend
think of that?
404;



[Stage Direction]
Public Expenditure-Mr. Bennett
Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not charged with
responsibility.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Once more it is the old
story of my very courteous and, in some particulars, easy-minded friend, the Minister of Finance, who asks: "What do you think about it?" When I have responsibility, I will tell him what I think about it. That is the reason this motion is before the house. It is because the government seems to shirk responsibility by asking somebody else what they think about the matter. It is easy to look at bank returns, at the returns of industry under profitless prosperity; it is easy to look at your statistics; but a Minister of Finance who would assume responsibility in this country for bringing about a policy of real economy, would be regarded with the greatest possible affection by the people. This might not make for popularity for the moment, but it would bring about that enduring admiration for his achievements in promoting thrift and economy which are the bases of all prosperity in the country.
Listen to what we heard this morning. The Minister of Finance this morning rose in his place and talked about the difficulties in connection with a slight expenditure for printing a few pamphlets to distribute over the country. There is more money spent here in a single month for automobiles for those who should not have them than would pay for the whole of this expenditure. If you look at the return that was brought down, it is calculated to make any Canadian blush with shame to see the expenditures made in connection with automobiles in this capital city of Ottawa. That is the minister's conception of economy. He is not going to print 25,000 copies of a report on the protein content of wheat. Why, he says, we must be economical; we must see how we are going to save our money, and then we are voting $39,000,000 for the national railways and duplicate hotel facilities at Halifax with an estimated loss, according to their own manager, of $100,000 per annum on one hotel. That is the government's idea of economy-lose $100,000 a year, but be economical in the matter of printing a few hundred pamphlets.
Look at the returns that have been brought down during the last few months; study them, and you will be convinced that no business man could for a single month maintain his business if the conditions indicated in those returns were allowed to continue. That is the position with respect to the matter. Is this a business administration or just a taxcollecting administration, gathering in the money for the purpose of disbursing it amongst its supporters? That is the question. Is this a business administration or not? I put the question to the committee last evening; I pointed out as carefully as I could-and I have not yet finished with respect to that- what is involved in regard to the expenditure in connection with the hotel at Halifax.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not, not by any means. I am pointing out what that involves. It involves a loss, as admitted by the technical adviser to this country's railway, of $100,000 a year with respect to one hotel, and now the minister says: Give us $1,250,000 and we will build another to duplicate the one already in existence. The government has either gone mad with extravagance or else is drunik with power and is without any sense ol responsibility. The administration thinks there will be no end as long as it can spend the money. Study the budgets in England and look at the economies they have effected; or if you are not governed by British precedent, go down to Washington and you will find that with all their wealth they would not think for a single moment of spending money in the manner in which we do. I have a considerable number of columns of figures that I might read to the house to show exactly what is going on in connection with various matters mentioned, but I will content myself with merely making this motion, because I cannot at this stage of the session take longer time in which to direct attention to the details. But I follow the time-honoured custom mentioned by Sir Robert Borden as the precedent for British statesmen in opposition dealing with matters of this kind, to protest against these swollen budgets, protest against these unnecessary expenditures, to protest in the name of the people who will have in the end to carry the burden and pay the taxes.
It is all right to rejoice in these days of seeming prosperity and say we have ample moneys and let us spend them. But there comes a day of reckoning, and that day you can almost see in the distance now. The trade returns of this country for the last month for which we have the figures show that our imports are, I believe, higher than they had been in any corresponding month in our history, and our exports had fallen to the lowest figure for years. There was an adverse balance of trade against us of $20,000,000 in round figures. That merely indicates that under the existing conditions created by the government opposite you have in Canada,
4044	COMMONS
Public Expenditure-Mr. Bennett
what? You have the possibility, nay, more than that, you have issued an invitation to the great mass producing industries to the south of us, now that there has been some slackening in their activities, to maintain full production in order that their overhead may be' taken care of, and their surplus products sent at cheap prices to the Dominion. We imported in April, 1928, more, I think, than we ever did in. any corresponding month in our history, $78,000,000, and our exports dwindled to $58,000,000. Is not that a warning to the minister?
Let him consult the financial heads of great institutions to the south of us. It is true that we have a vast, untouched estate, and that new wealth may be produced much more readily from that than from an old and cultivated estate. But it is also true that where we cultivate, it is necessary that we should sell, and if we find a curtailment and shrinkage of trade among the nations of the world, we find a limitation placed upon our ability to dispose of that which we produce. The minister knows that. He (has been, told time and time again by the great heads of financial institutions to be cautious, to look ahead. Every thoughtful business man is doing it; everybody is shortening sail except the' speculators. Do you realize, sir, that this great speculative era that we now have on the American continent is one fraught with possibilities of the gravest disaster for this country? The brokers' loans alone in New York last week were over $5,000,000,000, an unheard of figure. In this country speculation is rampant. Some people imagine that trading in pieces of paper upon which there are engraved words and figures constitutes the creation of new wealth. It is not so. The new wealth of the country is being created by the application of labour and capital to the natural resources of the country, and this trading in stock certificates, this great era of speculation in this country and on this continent, is one fraught with possibilities of the gravest danger to Canada, because we have not as they have in the United States a vast accumulation of wealth that will enable us to meet the approaching conditions with ease.
Look at the movement of securities; look at the movement of gold; look at every indication there is with respect to speculation in this country. I know great brokers' houses that have declined to take new accounts in this country for over twelve months, one perhaps the greatest brokerage house in this country, because they fear what they see in the distance. But no one in the government seems to care, and if we point out the con-

ditions we are " pessimists ", if we venture to direct attention to the conditions we are " decrying our country ". That is the talk that hon. gentlemen opposite hurl at us and before the country. But I recall the language of one who was regarded in after years as one of the very greatest of British statesmen, who observed that when their orgy was through, when they had at last recovered from the debauch in which they were then enjoying themselves, possibly then in their sober and quiet moments they would look back and recall the warning that had been given by those who, looking into the future as best they could, guided by those economic signs that were apparent, and by beacon lights, warning of the future, had pointed out the conditions as they also had come to pass. You perhaps will look back upon our warnings, and perhaps remember with at least some degree of fair-minded justice the observations that were made by those of us who have pointed out the national disaster that is inevitable if this orgy of mad expenditure continues.
It is for these reasons, sir, that we make this motion, hoping and believing that at least it will have the effect of directing the attention of the administration to the seriousness of the condition that is involved in the vast expenditures of public moneys that must be raised by the taxpayers, that is by the people of Canada.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) closed his very interesting speech by giving us as a reason for the introduction of this amendment that he wanted to advise the government to go slowly in the expenditure of public funds. It occurred to me 'as I listened to my hon. friend's speech, that it was more of a lesson to his own followers that he was presenting because I have in mind that in recent weeks we on this side of the house have been attacked, not because we were spending too much money, but' because we were not spending money enough in certain parts of the country.
I find no fault with the amendment introduced by my hon. friend. It is a part of party etiquette that at some time just before prorogation the leader of the opposition should attempt to present a resolution broad enough to allow everyone to come in under it and 'vote for it, and so to-day he has presented 'what might properly be termed a blanket [DOT]resolution.
My hon. friend, like myself, is an admirer of that great finance minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Mr. Fielding. He has quoted

Public Expenditure-Mr. Robb
Mr. Fielding frequently this morning. There was one observation that Mr. Fielding generally made in answer to all such speeches that my hon. friend did not quote. I recall it very well, as will my hon. friend and all of those who sat in the house with Mr. Fielding. Mr. Fielding used to say that every person was in favour of economy for the other fellow, but no one wanted economy applied to his own particular constituency.
After all, Mr. Speaker, I am not finding any fault with the statement that my hon. friend has made regarding the wisdom of Canada going slow in the matter, for instance, of speculation, and in Canada going slow in expenditure, but there is a reasonable attitude to take. There was a time in the history of Canada when it was very necessary to go slow and to economize, but as the country grows and progresses, the government that does not take care of the growing needs of the country is falling down in its duty. It seems to me that the real test as to how wisely the finances of a country are being administered is to make a comparison of the expenditures with the revenue; to ascertain the taxes that are imposed upon the people, and then to determine whether the government, in carrying on the affairs of the country, have been doing so economically, and in such a way as gradually to reduce the burden of taxation bearing so heavily upon the people.
I welcome the opportunity of a comparison of this government's administration with the administration of our predecessors, but before proceeding may I point out that all these statements that we sometimes hear and sometimes read of the government-or rather parliament, because it is an attack on all parties- railroading through three hundred million dollars odd of estimates, contain a good deal of rubbish. Parliament has already authorized a substantial part of these estimates-they are statutory. For instance, if hon. gentlemen will look at the summary on pages 4 and 5 of the estimates they will find the amounts authorized by statute. The statutory estimates this year amount to about $150,608,000. Civil government estimates total $12,363,000. These civil government estimates are the result of the Civil Service Commission appointed by parliament, and parliament guards very jealously any encroachment on the rights of that commission. It is the Civil Service Commission that increases or decreases the salaries of civil servants throughout the country. Then there are the war pensions. Those already authorized by parliament total some $39,000,000 odd. In other words, sir,
parliament is called upon closely to scrutinize about one hundred million dollars of government estimates; the balance had already been scrutinized by parliament, and parliament itself had authorized the expenditure.
I said a moment ago that the real test of administration was a comparison as between revenues and expenditures and reduction of taxes under Liberal and Tory governments. At this late hour I have no desire to delay the house. I know hon. gentlemen are all anxious to proceed with the business yet remaining to be dealt with. But may I just briefly put on record a comparison of the revenues and expenditures under this government and under our immediate predecessors? For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1921, the total estimates were $535,790,643. For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1922-the Conservatives were in power for nine months, but they were wholly responsible for the estimates which were prepared in the previous year-the estimate? were $446,747,947. And what were the receipts in 1921 when the total estimates were over $535,000,000? In that year the total receipts were $436,292,184. In the following year when the estimated expenditure was over $446,000,000, the total receipts were $382,271,571. Those years showed a deficit and an increase of taxes. The duty of this government on its coming into office and resuming responsibility for carrying on the affairs of the country was to pay off the debts of our predecessors. We have succeeded in doing that, and at the same time materially reducing taxation.
Now, what sort of balance sheet did these hon. gentlemen show when they were in office. I welcome this change of heart on the part of the Conservative party as demonstrated this morning by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. But our Tory friends in opposition are always strong for economy. When they are charged with the responsibilities of office I recall the famous words, to be found in Hansard, of a distinguished representative from one of the maritime provinces, who, after this party had been in office for some fifteen years and had accumulated surpluses, and wa3 succeeded by the Tory party, said one afternoon when the estimates were under discussion-my colleagues the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice will remember his words:
Why economize? Let us speed away and spend the money.
That is the attitude.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Dash away.

Public Expenditure-Mr. Robb


James Alexander Robb: Yes, that is right. My hon.
friend recalls the words.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not come back
any more.


James Alexander Robb: That was the attitude of
the Conservative party when entrusted with responsibility in 1912. What was the change in the debt position of the country during the administration of the Tory party? According to the public accounts they increased the national debt in 1920 by $674,337,591; in 1921 by $92,010,359; in 1922 by $81,256,818. In the first year of our administration the national debt was increased by $31,641,067. But let us keep in mind that we had inherited some contracts that had been given out by our predecessors and we had to provide for them. What has been the record of the departmental finances since that day? In 1924 the reduction of debt was $35,993,593; in 1925, $345,589; in 1926 $27,706,586; in 1927, $41,896,729; and for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1928, when the books were closed the reduction of debt was $51,125,436. And notwithstanding that, we have been able to reduce the taxes bearing so heavily upon the people.
Under these conditions with growing surpluses, with the reduction in taxation, it is perhaps very natural that throughout Canada there should be increased demands for expenditure. I recall, about a year ago I think, one of the biggest of the big financial men of this country, himself a strong advocate of economy-he had been preaching it for some time-saying to me: "I am afraid, Mr. Robb, that Mr. Ring s government may be carrying this economy a little too far; this country is growing, and you must provide for the carrying on of the affairs of Canada in a reasonable way." I suppose he voiced public opinion fairly well. At least he voiced the opinion that we have heard in this chamber during this session. I am wondering who is going to vote for this blanket resolution for economy. Who is going to vote against these estimates that we are presenting to-day? Are the hon. members who come from the great city of Toronto going to vote against these expenditures, and for greater economy? Are hon. members from Hamilton going to vote for a reduction in the estimates? No cities in Canada have received more by direct votes than these two cities in Ontario. No person will say that they are ardent supporters of the government; but the growing demands of those cities did require some additional expenditure. And my hon. friends from the maritime provinces, are they going to vote for this blanket resolution for economy? If so, 
they are going to vote against all the speeches they have made within the last month. They held up this house for the better part of two days telling us that we had not been providing sufficient expenditure to carry on the affairs of the country. But it is not the province of Ontario and the maritimes alone who have been asking for increased expenditures. My hon. friends down in yonder group have been chiding the government because, forsooth, we have not been spending money enough in their part of the country. I have under my hand a statement showing that just one day, when my colleague the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) was presenting his estimates, seventeen gentlemen opposite rose each in his place and demanded an increased expenditure in his own county. We were chided because we were not providing for public buildings or wharves or something in the counties those hon. gentlemen have the honour to represent. A few days later my colleague was again before the committee, and again there were demands for increased expenditure. It is possible there were some demands from this side, but it so happens that on the list I have in my hand there are seven names of hon. gentlemen, one from the city of Quebec, but all the others, gentlemen now facing me, very genial chaps. And would you believe it, among those asking for increased expenditures was my hon. friend who has presented the resolution this morning.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is hardly a correct statement. What I pointed out was that the city of Calgary, with its large revenues, was without a public building although other places had public buildings, because they had returned government supporters 'and Calgary had not.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend pointed out
that Calgary was entitled to a public building and he was on sound ground. He was no worse than other members in that respect. I was in Calgary last fall and I am bound to say I think my hon. friend was right. But surely he cannot chide us for having increased expenditures when he and his friends are finding fault because we have not been spending money enough.
I have no desire to delay the house longer. The policy of this government is to live within our means; to provide annually surpluses instead of deficits; to reduce annually the taxes bearing so heavily upon the people. Our record is good in that regard and we have succeeded in reducing the public debt. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that so long as a country is able to present in its an-

Public Expenditure-Mr. Irvine
nual statements a surplus of revenue over expenditures, a reduction in the national debt .and a reduction in taxation, blanket resolutions such as this, coming from hon. gentlemen opposite who individually are urging the government to spend more money in their own constituencies, are not very weighty. My hon. friend is making a brave attempt to rally his friends around him to get them to vote on a resolution which might possibly send the government to prorogation with a little less majority than we have been having recently. But back in the country gentlemeu who vote against these expenditures will be met by their constituents with this comment: "Well, you will have to do some explaining as to why you are voting against a government that is providing generously for carrying on public works within our different counties."


Richard Bedford Bennett: On a question of privilege, may I mention one matter? The Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) has sent me a slip indicating that under Bill 204, which increases to $10,500,000, the amount of security that might be issued in connection with the Toronto terminals, $7,000,000 had already been issued and the new amount would be only $3,500,000. The act calls for $10,500,000 but $7,000,000 has already been issued and the additional amount, as I have stated, is only $3,500,000. I thank the hon. gentleman. I had not the information as to the exact amount.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: I desire to make an observation or two on the motion which has been presented by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). It is of course not an opportune time to attempt to analyse the entire budget of the nation, especially when there is such anxiety evinced on all sides of the house for a speedy closing of the session-an anxiety which I share. I think I might say at the outset that there are very grave charges indeed involved in the leader of the opposition's resolution, charges which perhaps merit a great deal more attention than we shall be able to give them at the present time. It is true the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) has characterized the motion as being a part of party etiquette, and in that regard the charges, judging by the past at least are well founded. Then the minister replies in party etiquette style also by pointing out to us that this is not the only government whch has made large expenditures. That too I regard as party etiquette. I want to point out that I was one who urged
the government for larger expenditures at a time when Canada was passing through a very difficult period of depression. At that time I found that the house generally had caught the gloom, and everywhere was insisting that the government should restrict its expenditures and thus further force the country into depression. Following the same policy I would say that this is the time when Canada should restrict her expenditures as far as possible and start no new exploits which could be postponed for a few years, knowing that the depression will return. I do not wish to charge the government with not having followed that policy, for that policy has never been followed, and it cannot be followed until there is a sounder view perhaps of the expenditure of money in relation to the general prosperity of the country. There may be extravagance in many of the items which have passed the house; there may be extravagance in any one or other of the departments; and to that extent no doubt the charge of the leader of the opposition may be very well taken. On the other hand we are not in a position to know just whether there have been extravagances or not. For several years we have pressed from this section of the assembly that there ought to be a better method of examining the expenditures of the country. We have asked from time to time that estimates be either allocated to various standing committees of the house, or that special committees be appointed to attend to this matter. So far we have not received much encouragement. I do not know whether the present way of dealing with the estimates is also party etiquette and affords an opportunity for partisanship in this house. If that is so, it does not apply to this particular government but to all governments.
But I do insist that the government give us now some assurance that at subsequent sessions an attempt will be made to deal a little more efficiently with the examination of the expenditures of the country. Sitting here in committee of the whole, with party etiquette reigning on each side, wasting time asking foolish questions, putting the minister into a corner where he cannot answer and has not the information-all this is absolutely absurd, and for an intelligent assembly like this to proceed in that manner to vote the expenditure of approximately $500,000,000 is something I cannot understand.
While I am not supposed to be a business man, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, I would not proceed in that way. I think there are better
4048	COMMONS
Public Expenditure-Mr. Mackenzie King
ways to do it, and if the Prime Minister is going to have anything to say on the amendment I hope he will give us some assurance that this question will be looked into and that in the future the estimates will be more carefully examined.
I agree to this extent with the Minister of Finance, that the amendment of the leader of the opposition is a blanket charge. There are many expenditures which we all agree must go on, and of course there may be some which should not be made. However, I say we have not the means of getting accurate information with respect to these matters. Of course I realize that perhaps the leader of the opposition could not do otherwise at this time than make a blanket charge, but in respect to the other point which the Minister of Finance brought out, when he asked who was going to vote against this amendment, I could tell him of people who might very well vote for it. I refer to the people of the western provinces, because when you look over the expenditures of the country you find that a very small percentage of them has been made there. So I think we could surely justify ourselves if we decided to support the amendment of the leader of the opposition. I do not know the exact percentage of the total expenditure which will be made in the western provinces, but I do know -that in other years less than 10 per cent went to those four western provinces, and I do not know that that percentage has been increased. I also know that in the west there is a growing feeling that in the eastern provinces large expenditures are made which are regarded by the man in the street as being for party purposes. I do not say that that is true; we do not know whether or not it is true because we have not had the opportunity to investigate. However, I will say that I have made no request to the government for the expenditure of money in my constituency. I did have an idea that we should have a new post office in the large, flourishing city of Bentley; I once thought I might ask for $5,000,000 or so to dredge out a harbour below my house on Blindman river, but not being persona grata I thought I had better not present those requests.
I will conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that in a growing country such as Canada our expenditures necessarily must grow with our increasing obligations. If we merely make a blanket charge that too much money has been spent I do not know that I could conscientiously support that view unless I had the information which, as I have indicated, we do not have. I hope that in the future we

will make larger expenditures, providing that they are made for the welfare of the nation and to meet the needs of the public service. I do not believe the people will be averse to the expenditure of the present budget, provided they are assured that the expenditure is made in a proper way. That is all I desire to say at this time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) has just spoken with regard to the advisability of adopting a different method of considering the estimates. In particular he has suggested that the estimates should be submitted, as I understand it, either to a special committee for the purpose of considering all the estimates of the departments, or by departments to standing committees of the house which have to do with the different subjects to which -the estimates relate. 'May I say to my hon. friend that his suggestion is -one which the government had under consideration at the opening of this session. My hon. friend the leader of -the opposition (Mr. Bennett) will recall that at the beginning of the session I discussed with him the advisability of the different parties in the house adopting some more effective method of scrutinizing the supply requested by the government, some method which would enable members to hear what the officials of the departments had t-o say with respect to the several items included in the estimates. I entirely agree with my hon. friend that the system at present in force, under which a minister of the crown is necessarily dependent in the House of Commons on his deputy for much of the needed information with the deputy, also of necessity, often not wholly familiar with all the details of particular branches, is most unsatisfactory. Speaking for the government I would say that we would welcome a change in the present method, a change which would not only afford fuller opportunity for discussion but which would carry with it an obligation on the part of the heads of different branches of the public service to appear before a committee of the house and explain fully the reasons which have occasioned the recommendations which find their place in the estimates submitted to the house.
Having said this I would like to supplement my remarks further by saying that if we are not voted out of office as a result of this blanket amendment and if when another session comes around we still retain the confidence of the House of Commons, one of the first matters to which we will ask the house

Public, Expenditure-Mr. Evans
to give its attention and consideration will be the one mentioned by my hon. friend, namely that of arranging some method by which the estimates may to a greater or less extent be considered by a special committee or by the standing committees of the house.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: If this amendment comes to a vote we will be placed in one of those awkward situations which come about as a result of the party system of government. We have been placed in this position more than once before, and the house need not be surprised at the way any hon. member of this small group may vote in connection with this amendment. We are now asked to decide between the tremendous expenditures and some of the votes which are made for party purposes only. Not long ago an amendment was debated on this side of the house condemning the government for not implementing the Duncan report 100 per cent. That whole report is the result of a false fiscal system, and so long as special privilege is catered to in this country situations of that kind will develop in the future more rapidly than has been the case in the past.
To-day if we vote for the government we vote for millions and millions of utter waste this year in connection with the demolishing of splendid buildings in this city which were built for permanent use, without the construction of one highway in western Canada where the people cannot even go to market or get their mail for certain weeks in the year. Next year we must have some new method for consideration of our public expenditures.

Public Expenditure-Division
Hepburn,
McMillan,
Vallance,
Kay,
McLean (Melfort), Fiset,
Sinclair (Queens), Lacroix,
Mercier, (Outremont), McPhee,
Rinfret,
Cahill,
King (Kootenay), Bowman,
Wilson (Soulanges),
Y erville,
Dionne,
Dussault.
Raymond,
Howard,
Auger,
Boivin,
Allan,
Cayley,
Motherwell,
McPherson,
Bissett,
Spotton,
Fraser,
Clark,
Wilson (Wentworth),
Macdougall,
MacLaren,
Jones,
Rowe,
Geary,
Macdonald (Kings), Cahan,
Simpson,
Black (Halifax), Hodgins,
White (Mount Royal), Price,
Garland (Carleton), Cotnam,
Bell (St. Antoine), Casselman,
Ernst,
Hocken,
Cowan,
Smoke,
Tolmie,
Ladner,
MacDonald (Cape Breton South),
Mr. A. K, HODGINS (East Middlesex): I was paired with the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Bowman). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. T. E. SIMPSON (West Algoma):: I
was paired with the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: I
was paired with the hon. member for Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Mercier). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. E. W. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: I
was paired with the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. T. H. STINSON (Victoria):: I was
paired with the hon. member for West Lamb-ton (Mr. Goodison). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. VENIOT:: I was paired with the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was paired with the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. RINFRET:: I was paired with the
hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Queens):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Jones). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. KAY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: I was paired with
the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. MacLaren). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. McPHEE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kings (Mr. Macdonald). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Vaocouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. CAYLEY:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Brant (Mr. Smoke). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. TAYLOR:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Brantford (Mr. Ryerson). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough (Mr. Duff). Had I voted I would have voted in support of the amendment.



SUPPLY-INDEMNITY OF MEMBERS

[Stage Direction]
On the motion to go into committee of supply:
['Let me continue with\nmy argument. Other employers pf labour have in some instances refused to take back striking employees. That is a perfectly understandable position to take, but when they did take them back they paid them at the current rate of wages. If, for instance, an iron master took back a mechanic, he paid him the wages that were payable to a mechanic. He did not pay him the wages that an apprentice would receive; he paid him as a mechanic and not as an apprentice. But the Dominion government, taking advantage of the position in which the men were placed, .stated that they would take them back only -as apprentices. Yet when they did take them back they put them in positions that they Rad formerly occupied; they used their services, their training, their experience. The suggestion that is made in this vote is that even at this late date justice should be done and the men should be paid in accordance with the value of the services rendered by them.\nAnd Mr. Speaker having resumed the chair.']
Mr. H. E. LAVIGUEUR (Quebec Montmorency) :: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
discuss the question of an increase in the indemnity of members of the House of Commons. It is almost one o'clock, and I wonder if, with the consent of the house you would call it one o'clock.


Hewitt Bostock: There does not seem to
be unanimous consent, so the hon. member had better proceed.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: This question has been the subject of discussion, and petitions have been presented from time to time. I noticed in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen, a declaration made by the right hon. the leader of the opposition and I would like to read what the hon. gentleman is quoted as saying.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: What is the hon.
gentleman talking about? .


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: About an increased
indemnity for members of the house.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We cannot hear you at this end of the chamber.

Indemnity of Members*-Mr. Lavigueur


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I can speak in French
if my hon. friend prefers it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is not a question of French or English, it is a question of sound; we cannot hear a word.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I am sorry for my hon. friend, Mr. Speaker, he is at the other end of the house and I am at this end.
This declaration as published in the Ottawa Citizen of yesterday morning may lead the people of this country to believe that a request has been brought before this house and refused. I will read the declaration:
The move for an increased indemnity for members, of parliament and, incidentally, senators, has failed. On Wednesday night some Conservative members joined with Liberals and Progressives in interviewing the Prime Minister, a procedure which, so far as Conservatives was concerned, was not with the approval of the leader. Mr. Bennett has informed a delegation that he is against an increased indemnity or allowance as applied to this parliament, but, if passed before dissolution, and applicable to the next parliament after being pronounced upon at a general election, he would not have the same objection. Hon. J. A. Robb is also opposed.
According to this article the leader of the opposition has made a declaration in regard to the matter, and so has the Minister of Finance. A move has been organized by the different parties in the house and I have been told that more than ninety-five per cent of the members-


Hewitt Bostock: It being one o'clock, I
do now leave the chair. In accordance with the motion made by the Prime Minister this morning and agreed to, the house will meet at two o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at two o'clock.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at one o'clock, I was dealing with the question of increased indemnities for members of parliament, and drawing the attention of the house to an article published in yesterday morning's Ottawa Citizen, which in my opinion did not do justice to the two hon. gentlemen whose names it mentioned, the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) and the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). I think in justice to them, and also in justice to the large numbers of the members of this house who are in favour of an increase in the indemnity, which I consider is one of the most important questions and should be treated as an important measure by this house, I should say a few words.
I have no hesitation in stating that at least ninety or ninety-five per cent of the membership of this House of Commons are in favour of an increase in the indemnity. I am myself in favour of it, not only on my own behalf but on behalf of large numbers of hon. members. I am not exactly one of the oldest members of the house, but I come pretty near to be one of the oldest members, and I consider that in justice and fairness to the members of this house, and in the interests of the country at large, it would only be fair and right that the indemnity should be increased, and if the thing is to be done, I do not see why it should not be done this year as well as at any other time.
In 1920 I had the honour of speaking in this house when the question of an increased indemnity, proposed by the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden, came before us. The great majority of the members were in favour of that increase, which was concurred in by both political parties and by the house. At that time it was very clearly stated that the indemnity was not adequate remuneration for the sacrifices and expenses that had to be borne by the members who had to sit here in Ottawa for five or six and sometimes seven months in the year. The members of this House of Commons, representing the people, are supposed to make pecuniary sacrifices, and in some instances they can well afford to do so. We have in this house some of the wealthiest men in the country, who can well afford to give up their private business and devote their lives to the service of the country. But, on the other hand, we have representatives of the people in this house who belong to the farming class, men representative of labour, industrial representatives, and merchants, and for these classes it is well known that there is not much reward in politics. After a man has given years of service to his country, and his private business has been ruined, he is left at home, and sometimes his family has to suffer as well as himself for the sacrifices that he has made in political life. We have lost many valuable men who have had to leave the political arena and go into private business, or seek employment in the civil service or on the bench, simply because they could not afford to stay in politics. On both sides of the house at the present time there are many members who are looking for a judgeship or some other position for the reason that they cannot afford to remain in politics. I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is in the best interests of this country that this question should be brought before the house, and that the house
4052	COMMONS
Indemnity nf Members-Mr. Lavigueur
should express its opinion upon it. Everybody is cognizant of the fact that there has been a move on the part of hon. members for an increase in the indemnity. The matter has received great publicity in the press, and therefore I think it would be wise under all the circumstances to have the house express its opinion on the question. Much might be said on this question, but I shall not detain the house in view of the fact that a great majority of the members have signed petitions asking the prime minister to increase the indemnity-not only a great majority of the members on this side of the house but there were as many on the other side who signed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: That is not right.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: An official delegation from this side and an official delegation from that side of the house met the Prime Minister and laid before him their demand. So, Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to have the opinion of my fellow members. For myself, I am quite ready to take the responsibilty for what I have stated.


Mr. WHITE (London):: Does my hon. friend say that an official delegation from this side of the house waited on the Prime Minister?


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Yes.


John Franklin White: I object to that statement.


Hugh Guthrie: So do I.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to take full responsibility for what I am now stating. In 1920 I was in favour of an increased indemnity; I spoke in favour of it and I voted for it. I am quite willing to take the same stand now and to explain to my people that when a man assumes the obligations of a member of parliament it is only reasonable that he should be reimbursed the expenses he has to incur during the six months or more in the year that he is absent from his family. In 1921 my opponents in the county of Quebec-Montmorency reproached me for having voted in 1920 for an increase in the indemnity. I frankly acknowledged to my people that I had done so, and I declared that I would do the same thing again, for I thought the increase was well merited, and I told them that if they wanted a cheaper man they were at liberty to select my opponent. They sent me 'back to this house with a majority of fifteen hundred-the largest majority that Quebec-Montmorency ever gave to any member. I think this measure should

be fully discussed by the house. It is not a party question; both parties are committed to the increase. For my part I agree with my colleagues that we should proceed in the matter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Hewitt Bostock: It is moved by Mr. Robb, seconded .by Mr. Rinfret, that I dio now leave the chair.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply.



[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Health-the administration of the acts respecting food and drugs, honey, maple products, opium and narcotic drugs and proprietary or patent medicines, $130,000.
Mr. McGIBBON:: When this vote was under consideration on a former occasion I asked the minister some questions. Probably he can now give me the answers.


Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Health):: When we were on this item the other night my hon. friend complained about the administration of the narcotic division of the department. At that time I indicated to the house the activities of the division during the past year. I advised that there had been 459 convictions of males and 31 convictions of females, and that we had succeeded in Montreal and also in Vancouver-two of the largest centres of the narcotic drug traffic-in securing important convictions. We have been similarly successful in Winnipeg. I have reason to believe that the division has done excellent work in this respect and also in checking the interprovincaal trade in narcotics. I think my hon. friend was rather severe in his criticism. The figures I have mentioned speak for themselves, and we also have evidence from abroad that the work being done by this branch is considered effective in other countries. In confirmation of this I wish to read an extract from a letter written to me by Sir Malcolm Delevingne of the British Home office. He says:
The effective action which your department has succeeded in taking and the information which you have been able to communicate are of first rate importance for the campaign against the illicit drug traffic. The minister will have pleasure in calling special attention at the opening meeting of the advisory committee to the important work which Canada has done in this connection. He can honestly say that there are few countries indeed which have done so much, and he conveys his warm congratulations.

Supply-Health
Sir Malcolm Delevingne was speaking for the Minister of Health of Great Britain. We know that the officers of our division through their activities have succeeded in effectually curbing the international traffic in narcotics.
Mr. MoGIBBON: The other evening I asked the minister to tel'l me the number of commitments, the charges on which those commitments were secured, and the occupations of those committed to gaol.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Outside of those who were engaged in the practice of medicine and pharmacy, the persons convicted appear to have no other occupation but that of trafficking in narcotic drugs.


Peter McGibbon: I do not know whether the minister caught <my question. I asked him how many convictions there had been, for instance, for illegally selling narcotic drugs, and the occupations of those so convicted.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have just informed my hon. friend that we have secured 159 convictions. If he would like the figures by provinces I can give them. Besides the 459 convictions of males there were 31 convictions of females. As I have said, outside of those engaged in the practice of medicine and pharmacy, we think the principal business of those convicted is this illicit traffic.


Peter McGibbon: I have a statement from the Bureau of Statistics under the head "Selling narcotic drugs," and I see 30 males and 5 females, making a total of 41, were convicted. Then there is another list of sentences with and without the option of fine-21 and 20. I do not know how the figures correspond with the minister's.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know
where my hon. friend secured his information. If it is information supplied by the department I have no doubt it is correct and I cannoit understand why my hon. friend should doubt it. The information given me by the department shows the total number of convictions male and female, also sentences; and I see that 327 of those convicted had the option of a fine, 159 were without that option, and theTe were 4 cases deferred. I have given the nationality of the persons convicted.


Peter McGibbon: Probably the confusion
arises in this way: the minister has grouped them all. For instance, there are convictions simply for the frequenting of opium resorts. My question does not refer to that. There
are something over 300 there. I am speaking about those convicted of illegally selling narcotics and not of frequenting say, Chinese dens or places of that sort.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is different.
I was dealing with those who had been engaged in the traffic and were convicted of infractions of the narcotic act. The figures I have given are correct. As for the conviction of those engaged directly in selling, so far as the federal government is concerned we have had 77 convictions under the act.


Peter McGibbon: For what length of
time?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The year ended last March.


Peter McGibbon: How many of those
were medical men whose conviction was due to ignorance of the law and not to the fact that they were engaged in the traffic? For example, giving a man half a dozen tablets to carry away with him, a physician is convicted: his conviction is due to ignorance of the law and not to the fact that he is participating in the traffic.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: During the year ended March 31 there were seven physicians, two veterinary surgeons and three druggists committed, not as my hon. friend says for giving two or three tablets-


Peter McGibbon: Some were.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Our experience
has been this-and my hon. friend will be so advised: it is not the desire of the department to persecute physicians, but we do get information from time to time that certain physicians are engaged in this traffic for profit, and once that information comes to the department it is our duty to make an investigation. We make out own inquiries and if we' think there is ground for the complaint-and complaints come from many sources-then the mounted pol'ioe and the chief of the Dominion police force are asked to make an investigation. AfteT they have made their investigation, if the case is one that should be proceeded with it is proceeded with. That has been done and will continue to be done. I do not think we have any apologies to make in regard to the activities of the Dominion officials or of the mounted police in the carrying out of this work. There are many difficulties. People have complained regarding the class of operators we have employed. Now the ordinary healthy man cannot walk into a physician's office and get a tube of morphine or a tube of heroin, but the addict will go into the office of the physi-
Supply-Health

aian who is trafficking for profit and obtain one, two or (three tubes. It has been the custom, or was the custom of the police to employ men who were addicts. I had many complaints made and we found one case where the addict when he was out of employment went to one office after another and tried to build up a case to report to the department. That man is not employed by the department to-day; he is serving two years in the penitentiary.


Peter McGibbon: I have no brief for any doctor trafficking in drugs and I want the minister to understand that perfectly. His department are1 justified in going to any extent at all if this condition exists. But I have in my hand evidence that rather contradicts the minister's statement. In fact, there are two doctors in my own constituency who, I am quite certain, were never in the drug traffic at all, but who were convicted and fined. They were threatened to have their license cancelled. But I am not pressing that point for the moment. The minister says that he is using drug fiends to get these people.
An horn. MEMBER: He said "addicts".


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are not at
the moment, but I would not say that we would not.


Peter McGibbon: Has the minister in the past, or has his department or the mounted police, used such men?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, the mounted police have used them but they have not supplied them with drugs and have not used them when they were taking drags. At least, that is the information supplied us. I have spoken of one individual whom they had employed and when we found that he was operating with a view t-o being in continuous employment, we advised the police that we would not accept information from that individual. And as I say, he has been convicted and is now serving two years in the1 penitentiary.


Peter McGibbon: I want to ask further- and this is the gravamen of my question: Were the mounted police allowed to give morphine to these addicts?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We had this mat-j0r under consideration with the commissioner of police a year or more ago and he advised that the department had never employed an individual whom we know to be actually using narcotics at the time, and

should it be subsequently learned that such an agent is addicted to narcotics every effort is made to restrict the use until the case is completed, when he is immediately let go.


Peter McGibbon: Did the minister ever
read the evidence given at a trial in Timmins of a doctor there? The name of the mounted policeman is Fraser.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That case came
up a year or two ago.


Peter McGibbon: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I went into the files at that time. The operator then used by the police is the individual I speak of. He is not in the employ of the department or of the police at the present time.


Peter McGibbon: It is a fact, then, that the department on occasions have allowed mounted policemen to take human beings and use them as spies to to speak-dose them up with morphine? It seems to me


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Peter McGibbon: I have the sworn evidence that they did.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not care
where you got your evidence; it is not true


Peter McGibbon: It came out in the court.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not care
where you get your evidence; it is not true.


Peter McGibbon: It came out in court.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have the statement of the commissioner in which he absolutely denies anything of the sort. My hon. friend knows that we are dealing with an abnormal traffic, and sometimes we are compelled to use extraordinary means. As far as the department is concerned, if we find people engaged in this traffic we try to secure convictions.


Peter McGibbon: I want the minister to
get my point correctly. I say it is a disgrace to this country and an insult to the intelligence of the people that human beings should be victimized in this way and have morphine dosed into them by the mounted police.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is making a statement in which there is no truth; he has not the evidence to support it.


Peter McGibbon: I have a copy of the
sworn evidence given at this trial in Timmins.

Supply-Health


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That does not
mean anything; the mounted police say that is not so.


Peter McGibbon: But this is the evidence given under oath at the trial of the doctor who was convicted. I hold no brief for the doctor; the charge I am making against the Department of Health is that they allowed human .beings to be dosed up with morphia by the mounted police.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I claim that is
not true. My hon. friend says he has the evidence. Who gave the evidence? Was it the addict?


Peter McGibbon: He was one of the witnesses.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend
is an experienced practitioner and he knows that no one will believe the word of an addict. I am surprised that he should bring such evidence here.


Peter McGibbon: I am trying to get the
minister to understand that this evidence was given at the trial and was confirmed by a mounted policeman. Does my hon. friend place the policeman in the same class? On the sworn evidence of these two men the doctor was convicted, and it was admitted by the policeman that he administered morphine to the addict.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The mounted
police did not advise the court of that fact. As I have explained, we advise the police to avoid the use of these addicts as informers if possible, and we are trying to get on without them. I would not say, however, that it would be possible to proceed without them in some cases, because the ordinary healthy man cannot go into the office of an ordinary doctor and get away with it. The report I have here shows that since April 1, 1927, only one agent has been employed in connection with cases against members of the medical profession, and particular pains were taken to insure that at the time of his employment he was not an addict. He worked for us for several months, and was periodically examined by a physician to insure that he was in good physical condition, and free from narcotic addiction. At the conclusion of a number of cases in the Toronto district, but before they came to trial, this agent fell from grace. The moment it became known to this department he was immediately placed in hospital, and remained there until cured of his addiction. Upon his leaving hospital, orders were issued that under no
circumstances was he to be in future employed in cases against professional men to avoid even the possibility of his being addicted while engaged in that class of work.
I think we have taken fair measures in this regard, and I am not impressed by the evidence given by this addict at Timmins.


Peter McGibbon: But my dear man, the
mounted police admitted it.


Mr. ANDERSON (Hal ton):: I was rather
surprised to hear the minister say he would not take the evidence of drug addicts in these eases. I would refer him to a question which I placed on the order paper in February, in reply to which he indicated that none of these addicts were being used.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not now.


Robert King Anderson: And not at
that time?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not for the last
year.


Robert King Anderson: At the time
this question was answered the minister said none of these addicts were used, yet he had in his possession the evidence taken in a case where an addict was used. I refer to a case in my own riding where a doctor was convicted on the evidence of a drug addict, and if the minister will look through the evidence which he has in his department he will find that it includes the evidence of an addict. This was the case of a young man who had been in practice less than three years. This drug addict came to him and told his story, and we all know what kind of story a drug addict can tell; it would bring tears to the eyes of a crocodile. This young doctor, having no morphine in his office, in order to relieve the sufferings of the addict went to the drug store across the street and bought some. The addict came back in a few days, presented the same argument and got a little more morphine, and on his third visit the mounted police came and arrested the doctor, who was convicted and sentenced to three months in prison. He was a young man with practically no knowledge of the law, but he was convicted on the evidence of thi3 drug addict.
In my question I asked:
How many physicians were convicted for violation of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, in each province during the year 1927?
The answer was:
Quebec, 4; Ontario, 10; Alberta, 1.
Smpv^V-Health

My question then went on:
How many physicians were convicted through the use of drug addicts as spotters?
The answer to that question was "none". Yet at that time the minister had in his own office the evidence which was given at that trial. I am not blaming the minister; I think something should be done to prevent people from selling these drugs, but I do not believe it was the intention of the act that young medical men throughout the Dominion should be tempted to violate the law by men who present very specious arguments as to why they should have a little morphine or cocaine.
This young man to whom I have referred has been convicted and has served his sentence; he is now prevented from practising medicine, and the federal department-I am not saying the minister himself-is making an effort to have his license cancelled so that he cannot practice in the province of Ontario. I think that is a species of persecution, and the minister should look into the matter very carefully, because I do not think he himself is responsible for the action which has been taken. This is the first time this young man has been convicted of anything, and I think he should be allowed a second chance. This act was not particularly passed to catch medical men; its purpose was rather to get the regular traffickers in narcotic drugs, and I think the department should turn their efforts in that direction instead of tempting medical men throughout the Dominion to violate the act.
It is not a crime for a medical man, after properly examining a drug addict, to give him some medicine to relieve his suffering, and there are very good reasons why a certain latitude should be allowed the average doctor. Only a few years ago I had quite an experience in that regard; I refused the drug to a young woman, with the consequence- that she ended her life in the river. These people do suffer very acutely; I have seen them on more than one occasion, and their suffering is extreme. Something should be done for them; they are human beings. As the minister says, you cannot believe their evidence under oath, and why convict medical men on the evidence of this kind of people? Of course the police were present in this ease; they sent the man there with a marked bill which they could trace in order to see if the doctor received it; the third time the addict visited the doctor the police came in, arrested the physician and found the money in his possession. That was evidence enough, of course, that he had received it from this man, but the evidence 
as to the amount of the drugs which changed hands depended entirely on the evidence of the drug addict himself. This drug addict has since skipped the country. He had served a term in prison in the United States and has gone back there and cannot be found at the present time; he left the department's service on his own account. I should like to know just how that corresponds with the return made by the minister or his department, which says that no drug addicts are being used by the department to convict medical -men throughout the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. HOWDEN:: As a medical man and a member of this house I feel that I should protest against the use of stool pigeons or decoys against medical men. It is a medical man's business to deal with suffering and sickness. Every day of his life he comes in contact with human emotions, -and the emotion displayed by a drug addict suffering from the want of drugs is incomparable to anything I know of. Drug addicts have come to my office from time to time and have been relieved, but I never sold a tube of morphine or took payment -for any injection in my life, and I never will. But I would hate to think that a man might -come to my office at any time suffering from the pangs of the drug habit, and if I undertook to give him some relief I would be subjecting myself to the penalities of the law.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: You would not if you did it yourself.


John Power Howden: I did not know that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If you give it for self-administration, then you might be liable.


John Power Howden: I have never given it for
self-administration. It seems to me that it is very unfair to the medical practice, because, taking them as a class, the medical men are a pretty fair bunch of citizens so far as Canada is concerned. They try to keep the law. It is true there are exceptions, but it does not seem fair to have a stool pigeon sent into a doctor's office in order to secure a conviction against him of selling drugs.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is not done, and a doctor is not investigated unless there is very good evidence that he is trafficking in drugs. As I explained to the committee this work is done by *the mounted police, and they use the agencies they think necessary. Prosecutions are not started against men who are carrying on their practice in the way my hon. friend suggests. A doctor can administer to the addict the required dosage to relieve the symptons, but the doctor may not sell drugs to

Supply-Soldiers' Re-establishment
that addict for; self-administration. The medical profession should know that, because I am advised they have 'been circularized more than once. I think the number of convictions would indicate that the profession are not engaged in this traffic. My hon. friend has referred to a particular case. We were advised by the father of a young boy in Toronto that he was associating with a person whom he thought was an addict, and this addict was getting his supply from a doctor at a certain point. We investigated and found that the addict was1 going from day to day and getting his supply. The police took up the case and they sent their investigator in and he was able to buy cocaine at one dollar per grain, and the evidence was secured. Thp unfortunate young man was convicted and I was appealed to. As regards his right to practice medicine, that rests entirely with the Ontario council of medicine. We report to the council any convictions that are made, and it is up to the provincial council to deal with their members as they see fit.


Robert King Anderson: In connection with this particular case, I should like to ask the minister if he thinks it is the duty of the department to make an effort to get this license cancelled by the council?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have made no effort.


Robert King Anderson: It is my understanding that an effort has been made and is being made now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my hon.
friend is mistaken.


Robert King Anderson: I should like
the minister to look into that feature of the case.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will.


Robert King Anderson: I think the
medical council is able to look after a case of that kind without any interference from the department at Ottawa. That is what I am complaining about.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The only thing
we did was to notify them of the conviction. We do this with all the provincial councils and then it is for them to proceed as they see fit.


Robert King Anderson: I agree that
the minister has a perfect right to inform the council of Ontario or of any other province, but in this particular case I understand that a special effort is being made to have the license cancelled.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should be very
much surprised to find that to be true. We have no desire to do anything of that kind, and I will have that checked up.


Peter McGibbon: I want the minister to
understand distinctly that I am not criticizing any attempt he may make to convict those who are in this business. But the point I am raising is this: the mounted police were allowed to administer drugs to human beings. I will read the evidence given at the trial at Timmins. The following is the cross examination of the constable:	*
Q. At what time would you give him shots?
This refers to the drug addict.
A. I arranged my shots about four times a day; one in the morning; one in the evening and before going to bed-all depending on circumstances.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who was the witness?


Peter McGibbon: The witness was a
mounted policeman.


John Power Howden: Is a mounted policeman
a medical man?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Peter McGibbon: Later on the witness
makes this statement:
I have had him knocked out after coming out of a doctor's office.
That is the evidence of a mounted policeman admitting that he was administering drugs.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This case happened two years ago, and I would suggest to my hon. friend and the committee that instructions were issued to the commissioner that we did not wish to employ people under those conditions, and the practice has ceased.


Peter McGibbon: I am glad to know that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment-unemployment relief, $250,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the minister be good enough to give us just a few words of explanation as to how this appropriation is operated? I am bound to say that on one or two occasions matters of unemployment in connection with returned soldiers were brought to my attention and I found it impossible to get any relief from the fund. It would be very much appreciated 'by those who may be compelled in the future to make demands upon the fund if the minister would be good enough to give in colloquial terms an explanation that the public would understand.
4058	COMMONS
Supply-Soldiers' Re-establishment


James Horace King: The policy of the department in regard to issuing relief is to assist necessitous cases who are unemployed and who are pensioned by the Board of Pension Commissioners for disabilities incurred while serving with the Canadian expeditionary force in the great war.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is given only to pensioners?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As a matter of fact persons who are not pensioners do in certain cases receive relief, but generally it is pensioners. Second, it is to assist those who have received a final payment by agreement from the Board of Pension Commissioners as above for disability rated between five and fourteen per cent. That is, some men who have commuted their pensions are still considered pensioners. Third, it is to assist former members of His Majesty's imperial forces and former members of His Majesty's allied forces who have been pensioned as above and who are now resident in Canada, provided, however, that disabled members of His Majesty's imperial or allied forces who arrived in Canada subsequently to the first December, 1924, are not considered eligible for this assistance. It was found that in 1924 many pensioners were coming to Canada and were asking for relief. An order was passed debarring pensioners coming from other countries after that date.
This assistance is provided mostly during the t winter months and after investigation which indicates that distress would be occasioned if such help were not forthcoming. The rate of relief is as follows:
Single men	$30
Man and wife	 45
Man and wife and one	child	 57
Man and wife and two or more children 67
The relief is given in the form of orders for groceries, fuel, rent, and not in cash.


Mr. MANION:: By whom?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: By an officer of the department.


Hugh Guthrie: To whom is application made for such relief?
iMr. KING (Kootenay): It would be made directly to the officer in the unit. Then the investigation is made. If the conditions are as stated, the man would come in and receive relief.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the minister mean the general officer commanding the unit?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: An officer under the officer commanding the unit.
[ Mr. Bennett.]


Robert James Manion: Under the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the minister
would indicate what, for instance, a man in Calgary who is disabled and who is absolutely without employment, would have to do to claim the benefit of this fund?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He would make application through the unit medical officer who would advise bis officer to investigate the circumstances, and if the man came within the provisions and required relief, it would be granted on the basis that I have stated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The statement made by the minister at once indicates why there has been so much complaint. For instance, a man is in desperate circumstances and he makes this complaint. Two or three weeks after he may receive $30. In the meantime he may have suffered the pangs or starvation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There may some delay, but generally speaking I am advised that our people to-day know pretty nearly the families who will come in the winter asking for this relief and they are making suggestions how we can do something to prevent these people from coming each year. The families are pretty well known, I am told, in the various units, and it has been suggested that we should endeavour to do something more to give them some kind of employment and get them away from this idea. We are going to try to do something this year in that regard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How much was expended last year?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: About $388,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then we over-expended the vote of last year?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The main vote last year was $250,000; we had a supplementary vote of $200,000, and we spent $388,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the minister the
figures to indicate just where those sums were disbursed? This is a matter that became of some Interest recently.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will give the amounts by units.
Unit District	Amount
"C" Eastern Ontario	 $ 45,000
I am giving t'he figures in round numbers. That is the Ottawa unit.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Is "C" unit only in Ottawa?

Supply-Soldiers' Re-establishment


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Ottawa and eastern Ontario. That would take in Kingston and that area.
"D"	Western Ontario	 $171,000
That would take in Toronto.
"A" Quebec	 $ 54,000
"B"	Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island	
7,000"G"	Manitoba	
47,000"H"	Saskatchewan	
5,000"I"	Alberta	
9,000"J"	British Columbia	
43,000"K"	New Brunswick	
2,767


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Operating expense and working capital, $250,000.
Hugh Guthrie: What is this for?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is for administration service, general and medical; travelling expenses of the staff; hospital and Red Cross shops; telephone, telegraph charges and postage; stationery; Ottawa insurance; mechanical transport; advertising; legal costs; other operating costs and contingencies.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there any revenue in the department arising out of the use of this working capital?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have a revenue from the Yatcraft operations. That comes under another item. That would be the only source of revenue.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Working capital has in business a well-defined meaning, but I cannot quite understand what is meant by it in this appropriation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: lit refers really to the contingencies of the department; telephone, telegraph charges, postage, light, heat, power and so on, making a total last year of $171,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Employers' liability compensation, $100,000.
Robert James Manion: Would -the minister explain this item?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have a number of returned men who have certain disabilities. In the case of a twenty-five per cent disability man, for instance, we will undertake to pay the compensation board.


Robert James Manion: The full amount?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, and in that
way the employer will give consideration to that case which he otherwise probably would not give.


Robert James Manion: And in some cases you
pay part?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mounted police, Prince Albert volunteers and police scouts on account of the rebellion of 18S5, $970.90.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I would like to ask the
Minister of Justice a question under this item. I think perhaps he appreciates the difficulty that has been urged very strongly upon me by the few remaining members of the old mounted police who for a time were receiving pensions on a basis of pay and allowances which have since been very largely increased. The same applies with respect to those who were pensioned within a particular period, for within a year after that, certain living allowances were discontinued and an increase was made equal to the then pay and allowances, and the pension of these few being based only upon the salary, and not upon the living allowance, has worked a bit of a hardship upon those who did not receive this additional pay. I mentioned this matter to the minister last year, and I think he had it under consideration. Possibly he could indicate whether there is any likelihood of anything being done, because some of these men are certainly very deserving.


Ernest Lapointe: I know they are, but
the line had to be drawn somewhere, and that was the trouble. I think we have been dealing rather generously with the old mounted police. However, I shall be pleased to look into the matter again and see if it is possible to do anything, with the support of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Soldiers' Civil	Re-establishment-salaries,
Mr. FANSHER (Last Mountain):: With
respect to the inspection of immigrants coming to this country from Great Britain, would the minister be good enough to give the committee a detailed statement with respect to the regulations under which the medical officers conduct their examinations? We have heard rumours as to certain humiliating circumstances, and I should like to have a short statement from the minister on the matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Instructions are
issued to the medical officers to ascertain whether the applicants who come before them will rnee-t the provisions as set out in the Immigration Act; in other words, they try
4060	COMMONS
Supply-Soldiers' Re-establishment
to discover whether the applicants are suffering from conditions that would prevent their entering this country. That is done in the ordinary way. My hon. friend spoke to me yesterday in regard to this matter, in connection with a complaint that he had received from one of his constituents in regard to the exposure of a member of the family who had gone up for examination. I do not know why we should worry so much. These men are trained medical men; they are all graduates and have had experience, and I think we are all sufficiently familiar to-day with the work of the profession and the facilities that are used by the profession, to ascertain the conditions that exist in the individual who comes before them. If a physical examination is necessary, then the one to judge as to the extent of that examination is the examining officer. If an individual walks into his office with a good firm step, he can almost be sure that that individual has not flat feet or bunions or other deformity, and he would not worry about that; but if the individual hobbled in, the examining officer would probably want him to expose his extremities to see what defects were there. In the examination there should be, I think, an examination of the vital organs, such as the heart and lungs. That means a certain exposure of the chest if it is done properly. If the examining officer finds, as he proceeds that there is reason to believe that there is some deformity or unusual condition of the spine, he should examine the spine. If he thinks there is some condition involving the gall bladder or liver, that should be examined. I think we shall have to leave this matter entirely to the examining officer, and our only concern is to see that the examination takes place under proper conditions. If a female immigrant is going before the medical examining officer, and there is not a female medical officer, there should be a female attendant, and I think that is the practice. I do not think we should be very sensitive in regard to these matters, because in our everyday life we go to our own physician, and there is no question in regard to giving him the opportunity to make the proper examination.


Robert James Manion: They know him.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is true. I think my hon. friend will agree with me-he has had wide experience-that if we are to carry out this work properly it must be left to the judgment of the officer to decide as to the extent of the examination.


Robert James Manion: Yes; but I think the minister touched one point that should not be left to the officer's discretion; there should be a female attendant.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. I understand that is the practice.


Robert James Manion: I notice in the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment $4,500 appears for the deputy minister for nine months, and in the Department of Health $8,000 appears also for the deputy minister. I thought Dr. Amyot was deputy minister of both.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes; but these estimates were prepared some months in advance of our reorganization.


Robert James Manion: This $4,500 is not needed?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, in respect to the retiring deputy minister, Mr. Parkinson. When he retired he was given leave of absence. It is taken care of in this estimate.


Robert James Manion: One year?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


William Russell Fansher: Do I understand that the examination applies only to people coming out from Great Britain as immigrants to this country?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: People from Great Britain, no matter of what class, can be examined. We are trying to examine those who come here with the idea of settling permanently.


Mr. SPENCER:: I take it that the examination takes place whether the immigrants pay their own fares or come out under the assisted passage scheme.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We examine all who come here with the expectation of settling. The visitor or tourist is subject to examination only when he disembarks.


William Russell Fansher: The question T asked yesterday is n.ot to be slighted, i do not think it is necessary to carry it further, but I want the committee to understand that the explanation given by the minister of the case I brought to his attention has caused a good deal of turmoil and suspicion. The minister has given his word that he will inquire into the case. I hope he will give me full particulars. In certain instances I think the authority is being exceeded- I am fully convinced of that or I would not have brought the matter forward.

Supply-Justice


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am very glad to have had the discussion. It will be forwarded to our men in the field. There is no difference of opinion as to how the examinations should be carried on.


Hugh Guthrie: I desire to ask the minister if there is no way of securing some reasonable retiring allowance for a former member of the staff of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, Dr. W. A. Groves. I have had correspondence with the department in connection with the case, but so far I have not been able to secure results. Dr. Groves complains that he has not been treated on retirement as have other officials of the department. From the letters he has sent to me and from conversations I have had with him I think he has a good claim for some compensation-I do not know how much. Will the minister explain why Dr. Groves is not placed on the same plane as other medical officers who have been retired and paid a retiring allowance?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have had correspondence with Dr. Groves, and I have had my officials go into the case. I am advised that he was a part-time official, and that on his retirement he was given two months' leave. I think he contributed-


Hugh Guthrie: He had been a contributor to a fund.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -under a plan which he thought was going to give him superannuation. The Finance department never accepted the money contributed under those conditions. Last year I advised that these moneys be returned to the officials who had contributed them, as they could not come under the provisions of the Superannuation Act.


Hugh Guthrie: Was not Dr. Groves entitled to much more than two months' leave of absence even under the existing scheme?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I am advised that he received what had been customary in the practice of the department. I have had correspondence with the doctor and have so advised him.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Salaries, contingencies, including the Solicitor General's office, $302,690.
Arthur Edward Ross: I desire to bring
to the attention of the Minister of Justice the criminal statistics of Canada. We have been led to believe that our penal institutions are
being flooded with foreigners, but in looking over the statistics I find that suggestion is absolutely unfounded. Taking the penitentiaries report, I notice these percentages. From 1917 to 1926 the percentage of Canadian-born in our penitentiaries was 63.4; in 1926, 66.6. The percentage of those from Great Britain and other British possessions occupying our penitentiaries was, from 1917 to 1926, 14 per cent; in 1926, 14.2 per cent; and of those from the United States, for the same periods, the percentages are 6.4 and 5.1 respectively. Taking the foreign-born in our penitentiaries, from 1917 to 1926, the percentage was 16.2; in 1926 1 4.1.	I am not going to take up
the percentages according to proportion of population, but I desire to direct the attention of the committee to the fact that the only percentage increase in the population of our penitentiaries occurs in our Canadian-born. As to education, we have for years been led to believe that the illiterate form the main percentage of our penitentiary inmates, but this is not borne out by the figures. Taking the illiterate criminals, in 1924 the percentage was 2.7, in 1925, 3.1 and in 1926, 2.8. Of the next class, the elementary, that is, those educated up to matriculation, the percentage was 81.7 in 1924, 78.4 in 1925 and 75 in 1926. Coming to the superior educated, that is, those who reached a higher stage, the percentage was only 1.2 in 1924, 1.2 in 1925 and .9 in 1926. Let me point out this: the illiterate were not increasing in percentage; the superior educated were not increasing but decreasing. Rather, the increases came from those who had gone through our public schools up to the threshold of higher education.
Then we come to juvenile delinquency. In 1925 the total was 8,739. Of these, 8,064 were boys and 675 girls. In 1926 the number was 8,846. Of these the boys numbered 8,245 and the girls 601. The total increase in the juvenile delinquents is 107; while there was a gross increase in boys of 181 there was a decrease in girls of 74.
Now to summarize. So far as the penitentiaries are concerned, I have a few points which I wish to direct to the attention of the minister. I will not touch the jails and asylums because the same considerations will apply to any increase there. First, the increase is coming from our own Canadian born; secondly, the increase is coming from the class who have received elementary education; thirdly, our juvenile delinquents are increasing. I think the time has come when the Justice department, in conjunction with our provinces, should take into consideration this serious

Supply-Justice
situation. It is very grave when you consider that the boys going through our schools -those boys who have not gone on to higher education-are increasing in delinquency, and the further fact that the boys are increasing in delinquency while the number of girls is decreasing. In my opinion the time has come, if we are to meet this situation at all, when the Justice department should enter upon some investigation of the cause for such a state of affairs. It is terrible when you think of the increase in delinquency amongst our boys. There must be some cause for it, and the Department of Justice and the departments of the attorneys general in the provinces should now take the matter up.


Ernest Lapointe: What suggestion has my hon. friend to offer with regard to the method?


Arthur Edward Ross: In the first place
I would advise the minister that the time has come when he should put his foot down upon the present practice of sending boys to the penitentiary. There is no use in saying that it is not going on; it is going on and the boys are there. There are to-day in the penitentiaries boys of fifteen, sixteen and seventeen.	I know the minister will tell
me that they are sent there by the police magistrates, and that this is a matter over which he has no control. These boys are placed side by side with life inmates of the penitentiary. That is something that the minister can control-


Ernest Lapointe: Quite so.


Arthur Edward Ross: -iif he cannot control their admission. Then there is another situation. In Ontario we owe a great deal of the improvement in the province to the late Hon. W. J. Hanna. He provided an institution to which these boys might be sent. It worked well for a while but it is not working out at the present time. There is a little of the devil in these boys; there is no question about that. As soon as they escape from the institution they are taken and sent to the penitentiary. Ninety boys out of that institution, because they escaped, have been sent to the penitentiary.
There are two things which I want to impress upon the minister. First, the minister should have his officials, or the official in every institution, take up this matter with the younger people and find out just what was the beginning of their career. That he can do in the asylums and a few other places. He can then cooperate with the provinces, and that is something that can be done in the

prisons, jails and so forth. We ought to be able in that way, far better than by taking the matter up through clubs and other institutions, to ascertain the cause in every case. We can thereby discover whether it is due to the shows or to books, literature that has influenced them, or anything else. We should be able to find out in the majority of cases what started the boy in his course of crime. The second point is this: the time has come when there should be a more modern treatment of boy offenders than there is today. I do not agree that the Justice department or the attorney general's department in any province should ever let out of their hands the treatment of a boy after he has been delinquent. That is done now. There are private persons running schools and so forth, and I will mention one circumstance which will show how ridiculous the treament is. Two boys in my city were convicted. One never had a crime recorded against him and the other was a chronic offender. The police magistrate and the chief of police did not want them back in the city. These two boys were sent up; the one who was thoroughly under the influence of the chronic offender had never committed a crime. How did they treat these two boys? The boy who had never committed a crime was sent up there on the understanding that if he served a few months he would be sent home, but when he got to this school the Department of Justice and the department of the attorney general took the ground that they could not interfere because this was a privately run institution for the treatment of boys. They insisted that this boy who had never before been in trouble should be retained in that institution the same length of time as the chronic offender. Finally they are sent home and if that boy ever had a chance he did not have it then. He was thoroughly under the influence of the chronic offender.
This is a serious situation and in my opinion the Department of Justice and the departments of the attorneys general should cooperate with a view to solving the problem. If there is a cause it should be removed. I think I have demonstrated to-day that the foreign born element is not flooding our penitentiaries at least: the percentage there according to population is .02 in the case of the Canadian bom and .04 in the case of the foreign born. So that there is no flooding on the part of the foreign born. In the second place the increase in delinquency is coming from our own Canadian bom. Now we ought to be able to handle the situation and find a
JUNE 9, 192a
Supply-Justice
solution for it, and I suggest that the Minister of Justice take the matter into his serious consideration. Let him cooperate with the provinces and devise a more modern treatment of the difficulty.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend from Kingston has
certainly called the attention of the committee to an important and serious condition and I may assure him that anything I can possibly do to decrease the number of offences among young people, or at least to check increases in crime, I shall be only too glad to do. Of course, as he says himself, these young people come under our department only after they have been convicted. We are not in contact with them in any way prior to their having been sentenced by the courts. However, I am quite willing to discuss this matter with the attorneys general of the various provinces and to cooperate with them to effect any reform which would remedy this condition of things.
I am glad my hon. friend has directed attention to the untruth of the statement so often made that the large proportion of inmates in the penitentiaries are foreign bom. I think wre may modestly confess that in this country we are breeding our own criminals, and we should not charge other countries with sending them here.
I am strongly in sympathy with my hon. friend in connection with the reform he suggests having to do with young offenders, and I have already stated in this house that I do not think it fair to put young people sixteen, seventeen or eighteen years of age in continuous contact with hard-boiled criminals. They are not given a chance to reform, and I thank my hon. friend for having spoken on this matter to-day. When the estimates are being prepared next year this will help me to convince my colleagues that the money will be well spent to provide for the construction of special institutions for young offenders. We should segregate those young people and give them a chance to reform. I do not know whether one institution would be sufficient; personally I think there should be two of them, one for eastern Canada and one for western Canada. This wall mean quite an expenditure of money, but I think we owe it to out young people that this money should be spent. So far as I am concerned I can assure my hon. friend that I am in sympathy with his suggestion and I will try to convince the government and parliament next year that money should be provided for this purpose.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am sure we have all listened with interest to the remarks of the Minister of Justice, but some of us have listened to somewhat similar statements made year after year; we are told something is going to be done, yet years pass by and there is very little change indeed.
I hold in my hand the annual report of the superintendent of penitentiaries. For some years he has been asking the Minister of Justice to make certain changes; the Minister of Justice has assured us that he will try to persuade the government to make these changes and parliament to endorse the necessary expenditures, but I am quite sure that parliament is more than ready to make these changes now. I do not see why it should be such a tremendous task to persuade the government to carry out the recom-mendatioms of their own officials, especially when they are so reasonable and When they have been adopted in other places. Even on this busy day-and I do not think these things should be left to the last moment-I venture to take a few minutes to put on record these recommendations made by the superintendent. First he recommends the segregation and classification of young inmates; again he recommends the opening of a mental disease hospital. These reforms have been urged again and again by different societies throughout the country, and I do not see why they should be delayed for so long. The report also recommends the segregation of habitual criminals. I think that has been agitated for the past ten years, and I wonder how soon the government will take action?
Then it is recommended that more work be furnished to the inmates. Only last year the director of industry held a little exhibition in this very building in an attempt to persuade the members of this house to take some action which would induce the government to provide more work for the criminals. It is an astonishing thing that these officials who are close to the prisoners and who see their needs have to come almost on their knees to the higher officials begging that something be done, while the minister comes a.nd tells us in his turn that he is going to try to persuade the government to do something. Perhaps I am putting it rather strongly, but I should like to see action taken, as indeed t-he government have indicated that action will be taken. Unfortunately such assurances have been given in the past, but year after year we have to face this unsatisfactory state of affairs.
If we could not supply work to the individuals inside these various institutions; then there are roads to be built and ther*'
Supply-Justice

is land clearing work to be done. I was through one of our penal institutions in western Canada last year and saw the need for work of this kind. I wonder why we could not employ some of these men to build some of the roads which are so much needed; I am sure they would be much better off out in the open air under proper supervision than they would be cooped up in their cells. You may say that is not sufficient punishment, but I think it is helpful treatment if they are under proper supervision and are required to work for the state instead of working for their own personal advantage.
Then there is the further question of the payment of prisoners for their work. Some years ago the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) after working for two years, suceeded in having a resolution passed by this house approving of the payment of prisoners. I had rather imagined that a resolution passed by this house after full discussion was almost equivalent to legislation, and certainly that it formed a mandate for the government upon which they might be expected to act. That resolution was adopted two or three years ago, yet prisoners are not being paid any worth-While sum, and their families are still being supported by the municipalities in which they live. Very often the families are punished more than the prisoners themselves.
I do not want to read the Whole list of recommendations; I think we are all convinced of the need for these changes, and I am sure the country would welcome the adoption of these recommendations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supreme Court of Canada
Contingencies and disbursements, including books, magazines, etc., for judges, not exceeding *300, $7,500.	_
Law books and books of reference for library, and binding of same, $10,000.
Printing, binding and distributing supreme court reports, $7,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I had hoped that real
economy would be practised in the expenditure of some money with respect to the library of the Supreme court, because every time I look at it I fear that we will lose it by fire. This library is worth at least $450,000, and in some particulars it could not be replaced at all. I would be derelict to my duty as a member of the profession which is so well served by the books in that library if I did not again publicly direct the attention of the government to this condition. That is economy, to prevent destruction which certainty threatens with respect to that property.


Ernest Lapointe: I will be pleased to submit these remarks to my friend the Minister of Public Works. I have already stated the same thing to him in that respect.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Penitentiaries, $1,811,072.
Mr. GARDINER:: I would remind the
minister of the resolution passed by this house some time ago recommending the provision of work and the payment for work to prisoners in our penitentiaries. I should like to ask the minister what action he is going to take in this regard.


Ernest Lapointe: A resolution was passed in 1926, and my hon. friend must remember that I was largely instrumental in having the house accept that resolution. I am willing to do what is possible towards employment in the penitentiaries. The quantity of work produced is increasing in value every year. For instance, the report of the superintendent shows that last year the revenue amounted to $183,004.02, which is three times the revenue of a few years ago. But something more should be done. Of course, organized labour in Canada would object to articles made in the penitentiary being sold on the open market. The arrangement which is accepted now by organized labour, and which seems to be a fair one, is to have the penitentiaries produce the articles used by the various departments of the government. With this I am very much in sympathy. I intend to visit all the penitentiaries this year if possible, and I will give this question the necessary attention in order to arrive at a possible solution. There are more difficulties in the way than appear on the surface, but it is a noble aim. There is nothing more detrimental to the morale in the penitentiaries than idleness; there must be work provided at all times. On the other hand, it must be productive work. Crushing stone, and things of that sort, as done years ago merely for the purpose of keeping them at work, is not good for the convict mentally, morally or physically. But in order that the work be productive there must be some place where the product can be utilized. With the cooperation of my colleagues in the government, I hope it will be possible to supply more productive work in the penitentiaries, and practice some of that economy of which the leader of the opposition was preaching so admirably this morning.

Supply-Justice


Edward Joseph Garland: I notice
the committee is only now-


Mr. BROWN:: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is it the
practice to take in succession two speakers on the one side of the house? I understood it was always shared around.


The CHAIRMAN:: My hon. friend will
realize that some regard is had to the size of the groups as well.


Edward Joseph Garland: Which
group?


Ernest Lapointe: The Liberal Progressive.


John Livingstone Brown: I was going to ask the
Minister of Justice to take into consideration a question I brought before the house this session in the way of a resolution, but which unfortunately I was not able to discuss at any length because I was crowded into the last ten minutes of the sitting. I refer to the question of holding the sentence of the lash over a man until just before he is to be discharged from the prison. I have discussed this matter with many people and they all agree that any efforts made to reform a man must of necessity be ineffective if this sentence is being held over him. If the minister is visiting the penitentiaries this year I would like him to discuss that matter with the men who are accustomed to dealing with criminals. As I said before, I had the opportunity of discussing it with the chaplain of one of the penitentiaries and he agreed heartily with the position I take.


Ernest Lapointe: I shall be pleased to
consider that matter.


Edward Joseph Garland: This question of productive work for prisoners appears to be one of those long dragged out things upon which we all agree but cannot get any satisfactory result.


Ernest Lapointe: I beg my hon. friend's
pardon; we did not all agree until 1926, and then it was rather an achievement to have the house accept it.


Edward Joseph Garland: I think it
was in 1925 the house accepted the resolution.


Ernest Lapointe: No, 1926.


Edward Joseph Garland: Going
back to February, 1921, I find the report of a committee appointed by the Right Hon. C. J. Doherty, then Minister of Justice, to
advise on the revision of penitentiary regulations and the amendment of the Penitentiary Act. The following appears on page 21 of that report:
The committee, therefore, most emphatically recommends statutory provision to provide productive labour for all convicts.
And further on, clause 26:
The mere provision of work is not, in the opinion of the committee, sufficient. That the heaviest penalty for a crime is paid not by the criminal, but by his dependents has been chiefly emphasized before the committee, not by philanthropists and charitable workers, but by judicial, police and penitentiary officers of long standing.
And again:
If anything but evil is to follow from punishment by imprisonment for long terms, it is, in the opinion of the committee, essential that such provision should be made as will allow the convict to earn at least something toward the support of his dependents during his confinement or of himself after his release.
With that I think the Minister of Justice agrees in principle, and I believe the government and the members of the house agree also. As the minister said, they agreed back in 1926 to the resolution moved by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) which was carried successfully and1 I think without a dissenting voice.
Turning to the statutes of this country, I find in the act respecting penitentiaries, subclause 3 of clause 62, the following:
The convicts may be employed in labour under the control of the crown.
I have no hesitation in stating that considerably more labour could be diverted to the penitentiaries in this country by the government than is being done to-day. If the government is in earnest about this matter there is no need to draw the herring of the labour organizations across the trail. Later on the time may come when there will be an excuse for it, but as long as the government is going outside the penitentiaries for work that can be done just as efficiently within, work done in an excellent way and under excellent supervision, then I submit the Minister of Justice has not made out a case for delay. I most earnestly urge that the recommendations of the superintendent, Mr. Hughes, and the recommendations of this house dating away back to 1921, be carried out without further delay. There are cases of hardship and cruelty arising out of the non-action of the government in this matter.
In my own particular riding I have a case of a man committed to gaol. He probably deserved to go there, but he left a wife and three children absolutely dependent upon

Supply-Justice

charity. They had almost to go round from door to door, and were forced to seek assistance from the municipality and board of trade. This man was a sort of transient prize fighter, and he could have been employed at most useful work. As a matter of fact I understand he became an excellent shoemaker while in prison, but received nothing for his work. He should have been paid and that money could have gone back to his dependents and relieved them of the stigma of having to look to charity for their existence. The wife and children were punished much more than the convict, and I most earnestly urge on the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister that no further delay should be permitted in increasing the amount of crown work for penitentiaries.


Mr. BANCROFT:: While this vote is before the committee I would like to say a word regarding the Manitoba penitentiary, which is situated in my constituency. First of all I want to pay a tribute to the very capable and efficient manner in which this institution is being run. The warden and officials seem to realize their responsibilities and appreciate the fact that they are dealing with human beings, and appear to be doing their best for the unfortunate individuals who are under their care. I agree in large measure with the words of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland). I visit this institution very often, and I have seen the men at their work. It seems to me that when a man is doing some constructive work, when he is creating something, he takes an interest in it and from that time on it is easier to make progress in reforming him.
A great deal of the work that is being done at this institution at the present time is in the nature of building. The inmates have constructed some very fine buildings in the last few years and they are a credit to the institution. But I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of Justice to the houses that the government own at that institution. They own in all some thirty houses which are not a credit to the government of Canada. They are old houses; they are a disgrace to the community and they disfigure the landscape. They are not modem in any way; they are without basements, and without furnaces. I suggest to the minister that when he goes west he look into this and see if he cannot agree with me that it would be advisable to have a nice group of cottages or bungalows, fully modem, that could be heated from the central steam heating plant of the institution.


Ernest Lapointe: We will visit it together.


Leland Payson Bancroft: Yes. These houses
could be rented to the guards and officials of the institution and interest on the money invested in them could be earned in that way. Without a great deal of outlay some houses could be constructed there that would be a credit to the department, which certainly cannot be said of the present buildings.
Another matter to which I wish to refer- and I have mentioned it in the house before- is that the f'arm in connection with that institution might well be run in connection with or under the supervision of the experimental farm as a demonstration farm. I am sorry to say that we have a great deal of labour in that institution which is well situated in every way to make an ideal demonstration farm for that district. All I would suggest now is that the work be supervised by the officials of the demonstration farm at Brandon, and in that way it would become an object lesson to the farmers in the district. At this late stage in the session I will not detain the house by saying any more on the matter, but I hope the minister will look into it when he goes west this summer.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: I should like to
say in regard to the observations made by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) that the matter, so far as Ontario is concerned, has already been dealt with by the court of appeal which decreed that sentences of the kind of which the member spoke are invalid and will not be operative as to the administration of the lash towards the close of the serving of the term. The court of appeal for Ontario has set aside more than one sentence imposed under those conditions and it has decided that for that province at least there shall be no more of them.


John Livingstone Brown: I saw in one case that the
court of appeal had so decided, but the decision referred1 only to one case in which the man, as they thought, had been wrongfully convicted.


Leslie Gordon Bell: They followed that up with others and decreed that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-expenses of litigated matters. Department of Justice, $20,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I was astonished to see
this item and then in the supplementaries another item of $60,000 with respect to one legal matter, namely, the Labrador-Newfound-land case. Why should they not all be in one item?

Supply-Justice


Ernest Lapointe: When the main estimates were prepared we had not received the bill of our agent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-to complete the revision of the Dominion statutes; payments may be made notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act or regulations thereunder, $15,000.
Hugh Guthrie: What has this revision
cost up to date?


Ernest Lapointe: 

Item agreed to.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Pay of force-further amount required, $186,130; Maintenance (including billeting, travelling expenses, forage, fuel and light, clothing repairs and renewals, horses, ammunition, stationery, etc., medical, hospital, etc., transportation and freight, building repairs, contingencies and criminal investigations, and establishment of new detachments and renewals)-further amount required, $334,692.-$520,822.


Ernest Lapointe: This is based on figures
to confirm an agreement between the Dominion government and the province of Saskatchewan and the proposed agreement with the province of Alberta. At the last interprovincial conference the question arose as to over-policing. The attorneys general and the premiers of those two provinces called attention to the fact that there seemed to be overlapping and that the work could be done more economically by one police doing the work of the other. As a matter of fact, I think the Canadian mounted police had been doing that work until the war, when the services of the whole force were required elsewhere, and the provinces had to establish police departments of their own. We had a conference first with the provincial authorities of Saskatchewan, and we came to an agreement to take over the work of the province as it had been done until some time during the war. The amount which the government of Saskatchewan will pay is based on the salaries of the additional number of men which we shall require in the force to do that work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did you absorb the old provincial force?


Ernest Lapointe: No. We need in Saskatchewan about 70 more men than we have at present. Speaking from memory, I think they had over 140. The province is going to pay us $175,000 annually, and also reimburse us for the cost of transporation of the prisoners. We are doing the work at cost really, but we shall not lose anything by doing it, and it will be a relief for the


S6103-257J
[Stage Direction]
provincial authorities. We are willing to do the same thing for Alberta, and the premier of that province has already had conferences with me in that regard, and it is more than probable that an agreement will be reached with Alberta. We are therefore providing for an amount for Alberta as well as Saskatchewan. Of course, the government will not really be spending any money, because this amount will be paid back to us by the provinces, but it will go into consolidated revenue, and we have to come to parliament, in the first place, to vote the money.
Robert Gardiner: It is represented to me that there are different scales of pay in the mounted police force even for the same ranks. Is that correct?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think it is
correct, for the same ranks.


Robert Gardiner: Is the minister quite
sure of that?


Ernest Lapointe: Of course, the length of service is taken into consideration.


Mr. ROBINSON:: What is the total
strength of the mounted police?


Ernest Lapointe: The estimates provide
for a strength of one thousand of all ranks.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: That is up to the old strength?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Adjustment of war claims-Secretary of State, $12,000.
Robert James Manion: What is that for?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: This is the balance of the item we had for a number of years covering the work of Commissioner Friel and also the clearing office in London. The vote is now cut by half because Commissioner Friel has completed his work, but we have retained a secretary and small staff in order to prepare for a settlement of the question next session.


Robert James Manion: What did Commissioner
Friel get altogether?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: He was appointed on
June 19, 1925, and his honorarium and living expenses and travelling expenses amounted to $33,015.58, up to January, 1928.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
4068	COMMONS
Supply-Secretary oj State
International office for the protection of industrial property and the international copyright union office, $2,000.
Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Where is this
office?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: This is in connection
with the Berne convention.


Edward Joseph Garland: Why the
decrease in this item?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: We voted $4,000 last
year in the expectation of paying half for the protection of industrial property, and half for copyright, but the payment for copyright will not be required until the coming year. But in future we shall need $4,000 to cover both items.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Patent and copyright office-salaries-to provide for a commissioner of patents, $6,000.
George Halsey Perley: You have got
along very well with an assistant commissioner of patents, have you not?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am glad to have my
hon. friend admit that because our intention is to appoint as commissioner, the assistant, whom my hon. friend has praised. My hon. friend will recollect however, that in the office formerly there were Mr. O'Halloran, an assistant, and in addition, Mr. Ritchie, who was holding quite an important position. Neither Mr. O'Halloran nor Mr. Ritchie has been replaced, and the intention is to appoint the present acting commissioner as commissioner and give him an assistant.


George Halsey Perley: Do you really
need a commissioner and an assistant as well?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Yes. I might add that
after we get the results of the international meeting in Rome, we shall bring in amendments to the Copyright Act, and the activities of that branch will be considerably enlarged.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for salaries, including promotions and reclassifications made and approved prior to April 1, 1928, $70,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What does that mean?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) ought to explain this item. My understanding is that the Civil Service Commission recommend promotions between the beginning and the end of the fiscal year, but the increased amounts do not go into effect until the be-

ginning of the new fiscal year. This is to cover all those cases which the Civil Service Commission have recommended for promotion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Every branch of the
public service?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Printing and Stationery-salaries, including $500 to Fred Cook as secretary to the government printing and stationery committee, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act, $80,190; contingencies, $15,000.
George Halsey Perley: I notice in this item a rather curious feature: one departmental accountant, grade 6, $4,140, and one departmental accountant, grade 5, $4,140. Is this with the object of putting the first-named person into a higher class and giving him more pay, although the estimate is the same?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The department has
recommended the appointment to the Civil Service Commission, but it can have no effect until after the commission has pronounced upon it.


George Halsey Perley: Has it been
recommended by the superintendent of printing?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Yes, to the commission,
by the King's Printer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Printing and Stationery-printing, binding and distributing the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, $25,000.
Hugh Guthrie: When will the index to the statutes be published, may I ask?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: We are still waiting on the Justice department to complete it. We hope to have it by August.


Hugh Guthrie: What distribution is to be made, for instance, to members of parliament; will it be confined to one set or to two?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: There is to be one set in English and one set in French for members of parliament.


Hugh Guthrie: That is, I shall get two sets, one in English and one in French?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: How are they to be
bound?

Supply-Post Office


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: These indexes will be in exactly the same form as the statutes that have been distributed this session.


Hugh Guthrie: How are the statutes to be bound? In 1906 we received two copies, one bound in half law calf and the other in cloth or paper, as the present volumes are.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: So far we have not provided for any extra binding. I am quite willing to give consideration to any recommendation from my hon. friend in this regard.


Hugh Guthrie: As the minister knows, the cloth or paper binding, while good enough for a year or two, is very flimsy. The half law calf is a very substantial binding. I notice that the statutes in all the departmental offices are so bound. It is not very expensive, and I think one set might be bound in half law calf.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That is a good suggestion. I regret to say we have not provided for any such binding, but during the recess I will consider it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Salaries and allowances, including amount required to provide for salaries, reclassification, revision, promotions and increases, which may be authorized by the Civil Service Commission, $16,955,934.40.	...	.
Mail service, including mail service by air, $15,080,000.
Miscellaneous, including Lucien Pacaud, secretary of the High Commissioner's Office, as the representative of the Canadian government on the Pacific cable board, at $1,500; and $5,000 for the payment of compassionate allowances to employees injured while in the performance of their duties, or to dependents of employees killed while on duty, such payments to be made only on the specific authority of the Governor in council, $1,126,175.
Yukon Territory, $150,000.
Total, $33,312,109.40.
Robert James Manion: I desire to ask the Postmaster General a few questions before I mention some facts that have been furnished to me. Will the minister tell the committee what air mail contracts have been let, and between what points?


Peter John Veniot: I have the information here. Between Montreal and Rimouski, a distance of 330 miles, the contract price was $49,500.


Robert James Manion: Montreal to Father Point
is the same thing?


Peter John Veniot: Yes; we go to Rimouski.
Between Montreal and Ottawa the Canadian
Transcontinental Airways, Limited, cover a distance of 110 miles and the contract price is $8,250; and between Montreal and Toronto, the Canadian Airways, Limited cover a distance of 330 miles, the contract price being $49,500.


Robert James Manion: Were tenders called for in all cases?


Peter John Veniot: Tenders were called for on these routes and after they were received I called in the air board. There was such a diversity of tenders, between the lowest minimum and the highest, that it looked very much indeed as though persons were tendering who did not know what they were tendering on. As I say, I called in the air board of the National Defence department and I had a consultation that lasted two or three hours with the air board superintendent of this service, Mr. Coolican my deputy, and if I mistake not, the Minister of National Defence who was present for a while. We discussed the best methods to ascertain reasonable and proper prices for work of that description, and what machines should be employed to ensure safety and proper transportation. After this consultation we took the two companies who the year before last and last year had made trial flights between Rimouski and Montreal, and Montreal and Ottawa, and we arrived at the price which we submitted to the air board committee which takes all these matters into consideration. We decided upon a reasonable price which was $1.25 per mile, and on the basis of that $1.25 per mile we let the contract to these two companies who had been in our service previously.


Robert James Manion: Was that in accordance
with the lowest tender?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Robert James Manion: Were there not tenders-


Peter John Veniot: I am leading my hon.
friend astray. It was in accordance with the lowest tender, taking into consideration the proper class of machine to be used in this transportation business.


Robert James Manion: Were there not one or two other companies who tendered and whose total tender was lower than the one of the company to whom the contract was finally given at the price?


Peter John Veniot: That is true.


Robert James Manion: And who were also reported on as good companies.


Peter John Veniot: They may have been good companies, but the machines provided at the
Supply-Post Office

time were not such machines as we wished to use. One company-I forget the name- offered sixty cents a mile but it was not organized.
Mr. MAN-ION:	Which was that-the
Western Canadian? No, it would not-


Peter John Veniot: It could not be that.


Robert James Manion: That is one of the older
companies. There is one other question. The minister mentioned different contracts between Montreal and Father Point and he mentioned one between Montreal and Toronto.


Peter John Veniot: That is right.


Robert James Manion: Was there a contract between Montreal and Ottawa?


Peter John Veniot: That is under negotiation.
We cannot definitely decide-although we are pretty close to the point of definite decision- until we have all arrangements concurred in between the Canadian and the American postal authorities. That contract will be called for within a very few days-in a short time, say a couple of weeks.


Robert James Manion: I wish to say a few words on this question. I am going to make a statement of the -case as it has been given to me and I am subject to correction; although the statements of the minister so far absolutely agree with the statement given me. I fancy therefore that the facts are as stated. The statement, as given to me, is that the tenders were called for in December, 1927. There were some five or six tenders. Canadian Transcontinental Airways Limited was the company which was finally given the contract between Montreal and Father Point, and Montreal and Ottawa. According to the statement given me their figure is $57,500, covering the two contracts, or higher than the contract of the Fairchild people by $17,500. The Fairchild people tendered on a basis which would work out, on the trips for which they tendered, at $40,500. But the contract was as I say, let finally to the Canadian Transcontinental Airways Limited for $57,750.


Peter John Veniot: That includes what routes?


Robert James Manion: That is Montreal-Father
Point, and Montreal-Ottawa. I am taking these two-


Peter John Veniot: Those figures are right.


Robert James Manion: Am I right in regard to
the tender of the Fairchild people of $40,500? That is the figure given me, and that is the sum I arrive at on the basis of the tender, a copy of which I looked over.


Peter John Veniot: I would not say from
memory. Had I thought that these figures would be required I would have got them.


Robert James Manion: I will make a statement
and if the minister finds I am wrong, I shall be subject to correction. If these figures are correct-and I have no reason to doubt their accuracy, because the figures the minister has given absolutely agree so far with these-then there is a loss of some $17,500. I take the Fairchild tender and I shall give in a moment my reasons for doing so. Now the minister pointed out that the air branch of the National Defence department were asked for reports and according to the return which I have seen their recommendation was not so strong for the company to which the contract was given as it was for the Fairchild people. The minister shakes his head as though I were not correct. I will quote the return. I do not wish to take up the time of the committee but the facts should be presented to the house. I have in my hand a letter from Mr. Desbarats, the Deputy Minister of the Department of National Defence dated February 9, 1928, in which he says:
As requested in your letter of February 8, I attach hereto report prepared on the tenders received-
And so forth. This clause affects the situation :
You will note that the Western Canada Airways, the Fairchild Aviation Limited-
That is the one to which I referred.
-Canadian Airways Limited and, perhaps, Canadian Transcontinental Airways Limited-
That is the one to which the contract was finally given.
-are the four companies whose offers are considered likely to give satisfaction in the performance of this contract.
Certainly that paragraph in the letter represents the Canadian Transcontinental Airways Limited as the weakest company of the four. It does not give them a rating as high; it states "and, perhaps, Canadian Transcon-tient-al Airways Limited".


Peter John Veniot: That is not the whole statement ; there is some doubt in that regard.


Robert James Manion: 
Peter John Veniot: I do not care what Mr. Desbarats said; we experienced no difficulty with that company in connection with their mail service during the winter season. If ever a company gave satisfaction in carrying on an air mail service this company did so, following air routes just as dangerous as that to Greenly island. Their service along the north shore and the gulf of St. Lawrence and to the Magdalene islands in all kinds of weather; their continuity of service, only missing one trip during the season owing to an accident; their persistent endeavours to give accommodation to the people they served under very trying conditions gave a good deal of satisfaction to t'he department and these were some of the reasons for which I favoured them when the contract was let.


Robert James Manion: I have no quarrel with what the minister says, but he did quote from the air branch of the Department of National Defence and since he quoted one side of the question I am going to quote the other side.


Peter John Veniot: I quoted them as to the choice of machines we should use, but I did not quote them as to the experience of these people, because I had those details before me.


Robert James Manion: Very well. I have quoted their views with respect to the company which received the contract; I am a little afraid that in the passage between the minister and myself this may have been forgotten, so I will quote it again:
Aircraft suitable. This company is a new organization with little operating experience. Difficulty is being experienced carrying out present mail contracts.
Now I am going to read what they say about the Fairchild people:
This firm has had five years' operating experience. Aircraft offered are suitable type. Company's main base is well situated for operation of this particular route.
In other words, their recommendation as to the Fairchild people is considerably better than their recommendation of Canadian Transcontinental Airways, the people who received the contract, whom they said were experiencing difficulty in carrying out their present air mail contract.


Peter John Veniot: There has been no difficulty.
Mr, MANION: With all due respect to the minister I doubt if he knows anything more about aircraft than I do, and I admit that is not very much, so I will have to accept the report of the air branch of the Department of National Defence in preference to the opinion of the minister. That is one point. Here was a company recommended by another branch of the government-


Peter John Veniot: What is the date of that report?


Robert James Manion: It is the same report, dated February 9 last. This company was awarded the contract, and according to this report they are not os well fitted for the work as another company whose tender was not accepted, even though it was for $17,500 less. I do not quite follow the reason of the minister for this action. Then there is another point, more or less a point of ethics. Tenders were called for; I know this is done sometimes in the government and perhaps has happened in the past, but after they were called for they were ignored. Negotiations were carried on between the department and Canadian Transcontinental Airways, whose original tendeT was $1,025 per trip for the Montreal-Father Point trip as against the Fairchild offer of $300. For the Ottawa-Momtreal trip the original tender of these people was $460 as against $75 which was the sum stated by the Fairchild people. So if any negotiations were to be carried on I should have thought they would have been carried on with the Fairchild people. Their tender was not the lowest. I think one or two companies had lower tenders, but I think they were not experienced and were not well reported on. I can quite understand that the lowest tender need not be taken, because we are never bound to do that, but the Fairchild people were reported upon favourably, and I cannot get it through my head-perhaps I am dense-why they should have been ignored, unless there are other reasons which the minister has not yet given, in favour of a company which has not had much experience and which is rather reported against by the air branch of the Department of National Defence. I would be rather glad to hear what the minister has to say.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman said that perhaps I did not know any more about aircraft than he does, and he said he knew very little about it. Let me say that I do possess a little more knowledge than he showed this afternoon, although I have never done any flying. If I am not mistaken the report from which be was reading was dated
Supply

Post Office

last February. When the final decision was made to aiward this contract we had before us the experience of the company which had been flying during the winter along the north shore and the gulf of St. Lawrence and to the Magdalen islands.


George Reginald Geary: To which company does the minister refer?


Peter John Veniot: I am referring to Canadian Transcontinental Airways Limited.


George Reginald Geary: Can the minister tell us who compose this company?


Peter John Veniot: No, I cannot. I know the names of some of the officials, that is all.


George Reginald Geary: Is this an incorporated company?


Peter John Veniot: Yes, but I do not know who are the directors.


George Reginald Geary: Does my hon. friend know the directors?


Peter John Veniot: No, I do not know the officials except from seeing their names on their letterhead but I know the general manager, Dr. Cuisinier, who offered his services to go to Greenly island and assist in the rescue of the men who flew across from Ireland.


Robert James Manion: Of course that was subsequent to the giving of the contract.


Peter John Veniot: That was when we were discussing this contract and looking into the whole question. I have had no experience in flying; I doubt whether I would ever go up in an aeroplane, because I feel safer on terra firma. However, -the experience I have was gained from the reports submitted to the department on each trip made during the winter by this company. This service was carried on under very hazardous conditions, and the experience they have had flying this route in winter time is an experience which no other flying company in Canada has had. They carried on their work successfully; at a time when we were up against it to maintain oommiunications which we desired to maintain on the north shore and the gulf of St. Lawrence and especially to the Magdalen islands, they undertook that work for us and have given absolute satisfaction. They have proved that they are fully equipped in every way as far as flying equipment, pilots and mechanicians are concerned. At then- head they have one of the aces of the world war, and I felt that their experience was sufficient to warrant my doing business with them.
(Mr. Veniot.l


Robert James Manion: I will admit that the minister differs rather materially from the report of the Department of National Defence, because they say this company has had very little experience.


Peter John Veniot: I cannot help that. They began flying in the month of December and flew all winter. They made ten or twelve trips to Seven Islands; several trips to Anticosti; a trip a week to Magdalen islands, and continued that until the opening of navigation. They only missed once towards the end of the season, owing to an accident to their plane. Perhaps at the time Mr. Des-barats made that report they may not have had much experience in flying, but I would like to find one man in Canada who has had more experience than Dr. Cuisinier.


Robert James Manion: I do not wish to take up much time on this question but my ban. friend leaves himself open to a misunderstanding. He said that up to the time Mr. Desbarats made his report this company may not have had very much experience. Would I assume from that that after Mr. Desbarats made his report they got a good deal of experience?


Peter John Veniot: I told my hon. friend that they commenced flying in the month of December.


Robert James Manion: But the report of Mr. Desbarats says that the Fairchild Aviation Company has been flying for five years. Mr. Desbarats is a deputy in the Department of National Defence, and this is his report: Fairchild Aviation Company: This firm has had five years' operating experience. Aircraft offered are suitable type. Company's main base is well situated for operation of this particular route.
Another strange thing is that this contract was given after the tenders were called for and the tenders ignored. About three weeks after Mr. Desbarat's report, on March 20, the minister wires to tire company, as follows :
Your wire received. You are in error touching my agreeing to one fifty per mile for your trips Rimouski to Montreal. What I agreed to was four trips at one twenty five or three trips at one fifty, whichever suited you best, the details to be worked out between you and Coolican. Department's most favourable price for Rimouski-Montreal and Montreal-Ottawa total, $57,750.
I am not admitting that; I think the most favourable price was $40,000, according to my figure. The figures were given to me and

Sup-ply-Post Office
I tried to check them up as carefully as possible. The telegram continues:
In view of near approach to opening of navigation, I will have to make other arrangements unless you come to speedy decision. There is no intention of trying to sidetrack your company, but I cannot accept your figures.
And then the negotiations went on, and the minister closed with these people. But in addition to that, while these people only tendered for thirty weeks, which is during the summer, I assume, a contract was given for four years.


Peter John Veniot: Both companies have got a four year contract, for thirty weeks in the year.


Robert James Manion: If the figures had been
worked out from the original tender, it would show a total of $40,000 for the Fairchild people and $150,000 for the other company, or a difference of $110,000. To show that this company has not done too badly by this contract, I would like to quote from an advertisement appearing in the Financial Post of this week. This is an advertisement for The Canadian Transcontinental Airways Limited, class A stock, which is being offered at $17 per share. I will just quote a couple of clauses, as follows:
The company has already received contracts from the Canadian government covering a number of years' operation. These contracts have been made after the cost per mile of operation for a number of aerial transportation companies in the United States was known. They allow the Canadian Transcontinental Airways Limited, an operating margin which assures large profits. Under the contracts, the company agrees to meet European passenger boats at Father Point.


George Reginald Geary: Does the advertisement
state who they are?


Robert James Manion: No, it does not; I do not know the names of the officers.


Peter John Veniot: Dr. Cuisimier is one of
them, and he is the one with whom I have had a good deal of communication. I think the legal head of the company is Mr. Robert Cannon.


Robert James Manion: I notice some of the telegrams were signed by the company and some by the gentleman the minister has just mentioned. It was the hon. gentleman behind me who was asking who were in charge. I would point out that according to the advertisement the company feel they have made a very good contract.


Peter John Veniot: That is not an advertisement of the company you are reading.


Robert James Manion: It is an advertisement for their shares. Of course, at the bottom appears the usual statement contained in these advertisements:
The statements contained in this advertisement are not guaranteed, but are based upon information, which we believe to be reliable,


Peter John Veniot: That is a broker's advertisement.


Mr. STEVENS:: They are the financial
agents, and they got their information from the company. It would be illegal for them to do anything else.


Robert James Manion: In summing up, the following facts would appear: The contract was given out at too high a price, a higher price than that tendered by a company reported as being a better one by the Department of National Defence; a four year contract was given where the tenders called for thirty weeks; negotiations were carried on with these people after calling for tenders, and those who had tendered lower were thrown aside; an opportunity was apparently given to organize a company which, the minister says had a lot of flying experience, but which according to the Department of National Defence lacked experience; and the proposition in the paper for selling stock rather looks as if it were the offering of a new company. The whole thing looks to me as if the minister felt that he should not pay any attention to the tenders, and for one reason or another-I certainly do not impute wrong motives-he went above the price that it was necessary to pay. In these times of high costs I thought the matter was worth taking up, because it seems to me to be an unnecessary waste of money.


Peter John Veniot: Why did you not take up the other company, the Canadian Airways Limited?


Robert James Manion: To tell you the honest
truth I d'id not happen to have the facts. The minister says tenders weTe called and I will take his word.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman will
take notice that the rate of $1.25 per mile for a distance of 330 miles, Montreal to Toronto, is the same as the contract he is criticising now.


Robert James Manion: The price may be the
same, but I do not know of any reason why a department of this government should feel obliged to pay $1.25 per mile when it can get the same work done for $1 per mile.
Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: I would pay $1.25 if I was satisfied I was getting really good service, rather than $1 where I might not get the same service.


Robert James Manion: The minister should not have asked Mr. Desbamts and his department for a report unless he intended to give some consideration to it. I am taking the report of the air branch of the Department of National Defence and we will just have to think it over and let it go at that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman asked a question the other day as to whether the printing was in a separate item, or in an item which we had already passed. I was not in a position at that time to give a correct answer, but I will say now that the printing was included in the vote; the advertising and printing being together. The hon. gentleman asked another question in connection with rural mail boxes.


Robert James Manion: I think that was another one of the hon. gentleman's.


Peter John Veniot: I might answer that question now. A contract was entered into between my department and Eastern Steel Products for the purchase of 40,000 rural mail delivery boxes with all necessary attachments, complete, for the sum of $2.80 per box, plus sales tax not to exceed 10 cents per box, f.o.b. at points to be designated by the Postmaster General in Toronto, Ottawa, London and Montreal. The company further agrees to deliver f.o.b. at a point in Winnipeg to be designated by the Postmaster General as many of these 40,000 boxes as may be required for which an additional payment would be allowed at a rate not to exceed 35 cents per box-that is the freight-and in no instance shall the additional rate exceed the actual cost of freight between Montreal and Winnipeg. The company further agreed to deliver f.o.b. at a point in Moncton, New Brunswick, such number of the above 40,000 boxes as may be indicated by the Postmaster General, the company to be paid an additional rate of 10 cents per box in lieu of freight allowance. These boxes when delivered at these points and ready to hand over to those who desire to purchase them for rural mail delivery will cost about $4.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: Last year, on the 14th April, I brought up the question of the high cost of living and the high rents that letter carriers, have to pay. I mentioned at that time that the chartered banks, when they

send clerks to the border cities, give them an extra living allowance to offset the high cost of living. I was told that the matter would be looked into.


Peter John Veniot: In the cities?


Sidney Cecil Robinson: In Windsor.


Peter John Veniot: I did look into it and I made a recommendation to the Civil Service Commission for an increase in salary. That recommendation has not been acted upon and I am not in a position to do any more.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: Some of the letter carriers there are receiving less than they were before the revision. While I am on my feet I want to put on Hansard a resolution passed by the Windsor city council on May 30 of this year to this effect:
That the council go on record as being in favour of the postmen of this riding being given an increase in wages in view of the high cost of living at points along the international boundary.


Peter John Veniot: I did not go into that feature of the matter. I went into the feature of a general increase throughout Canada. I felt if I made distinctions, a great deal of trouble would arise in the service. Therefore I went merely into the question of an increase generally throughout the service to men employed as mail carriers. The result was as I stated to the house two or three days ago.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: Will the matter likely be taken up next year before the end of the session?


Peter John Veniot: I would not like to promise the hon. gentleman as to that, but I will give it some consideration. If we made a distinction there, a great deal of trouble might be caused throughout the service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Post Office-salaries-to provide for payment of flat increase of $120 from April 1, 1928, to the private secretary to the Postmaster General, $120.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This seems to afford a reasonable opportunity for me to bring to the attention of the committee and the minister the circumstances connected with the dismissal of Mr. J. C. McAdam, who was postmaster at Lafleche, Saskatchewan. As I happen to be the only member of the house on this side from west of the great lakes who apparently could 'be entrusted with the duty of bringing this matter to the attention of the committee, I feel it is a duty devolving upon me to bring up what I consider to be a

Supply-Post Office
great outrage resulting in a grave injustice to a returned soldier who had served in the 10th Battalion, one of the battalions that went earliest to the war, and who was wounded. The circumstances in connection with the matter seem to be as follows. On the 3rd March, 1927, Mr. Thomas Donnelly, member of parliament, wrote from Ottawa to the Postmaster General as follows:
Dear Veniot:
I desire hereby to request the dismissal of Mr. J. C. McAdam, as postmaster at Lafleche, Saskatchewan, for political reasons of which I have personal knowledge.
I will assume all responsibility in this matter, and will answer any questions that may be asked either in the house or outside it, concerning Mr. McAdam's dismissal.
1 desire also hereby to recommend that Mr. Thomas Stark be appointed temporary postmaster in Mr. McAdam's place.
Yours truly,
Thos. Donnelly.
On that there is this notation:
March 4, 1927. Please put this through by order in council. P.J.V.
In due course an order in council was passed, a certified copy of which appears on the file, dismissing Mr. McAdam as postmaster on the ground of his partisanship. The order in council which is dated the 14th March, 1927, reads:
The committee of the privy council, on the recommendation of the Postmaster General advise that the services of Mr. J. C. McAdam, postmaster at Lafleche, Saskatchewan, be dispensed with on the ground of political partisanship.
E. J. Lemaire.
Clerk of the Privy Council.
It is perfectly clear that up to that point the Postmaster General is not blamable. By a standing order in council that was passed, I think in 1911 or 1912, it was provided that if any member of the house certified over his signature that any particular person was an offensive partisan or was guilty of partisanship-


Mr. DUNNING:: That he has personal knowledge.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, that he had personal knowledge that a particular person was guilty of partisanship in his particular constituency, the minister to whom the letter was directed would, as a matter of course, take steps to have the necessary order in council passed. Up to that point it seems to me that the Postmaster General is not censurable. He merely carried out the conditions of an order in council. But the difficulty began there. As soon as Mr. McAdam knew that he was dismissed-and he was advised that
an order in council had been passed dismissing him-he asked for an investigation. The citizens of the community in which he lived, without his solicitation, gathered together and prepared several petitions which were signed by a very large number of persons, asking that he be retained in his position as postmaster at this village. The postmastership yielded him a livelihood. As a matter of fact the salary, rental of the buildings and the commission gave him between $1,800 and $2,000. The first petition, for instance, is one signed by W. F. Hamelin. general merchant; J. H. Elsey, hardware merchant, and fifty-five other persons. The other one is signed by R. C. Davidson, agent; Alex. Stewart, implement dealer, and1 eighty-six other persons. That is 145 persons signed these two petitions. Then followed another step in this unfortunate transaction. The following telegram was sent to the right hon. the Prime Minister on the 22nd March of this year:
We the undersigned citizens of Lafleche feeling great injustice done to J. C. McAdam in his dismissal from post office here and the appointment of E. H. Bilodeau in his place respectfully request the immediate reconsideration of the matter and thorough investigation of the circumstances leading to Mr. McAdam's dismissal.
That is signed by fifty people or more. According to the return of the last election there was not that number of persons there who voted for a Conservative candidate, nor was there that number of persons who voted for a Progressive candidate, so that it may be taken for granted that of those one hundred and fifty people who signed the petition and the fifty people who signed the telegram to the Prime Minister, a considerable number were neither Conservative nor Progressives but must have been supporters of the present administration. My contention is this, that when a returned man, finding himself charged with offensive partisanship denies that there is any truth in the charge; when he asks and demands that there should be an investigation, and when a number of citizens, some fifty in this particular instance, take the trouble to send a telegram to the prime Minister asking for an investigation, that investigation should be granted.
I may point out that on the file brought down, there was lacking a letter which was in my judgment rather an important one, namely, the letter written by Mr. McAdam himself to the Postmaster General. That letter does not appear on the file, the reason probably being that they did not ask the minister for his personal file on the matter.


Peter John Veniot: That is the only reason.

Supply-Post Office


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Thomas F. Donnelly: Having had something
to do with the dismissal of this postmaster at Lafleche, I feel that I should explain my action. Let me preface what I have to say by the statement that the constituency of Willow Bunch was only surveyed in 1908, and1 the first road was built through it in 1910 or 1911. After that time, postmasters were appointed in all the towns of any size along that line, and no political partisanship was used in their appointment because our friends the Conservatives were in power at that time; yet strange to say, all the postmasters in towns of any importance throughout the constituency are Conservatives, only one postmastership in a town of any size being held by a Liberal, and the reason assigned for him being appointed, I am told, is that they could not find a Conservative in the place to appoint.
I am in the fortunate or unfortunate position, being a medical man and travelling through that district, of knowing pretty well the political views of everybody out there. In the 1925 and 1926 elections I had the misfortune or good fortune to hear Mr. McAdam on several occasions trying to influence voters by speaking against myself, against the Prime Minister of this country, and against the Liberal party. After the 1925 election, being a new man in politics, I did not say anything about it. In 1926, he acted in the same way, and these men were going around saying, "The Civil Service Commission appoints us, and no one can discharge us." I thought it was time to show them that if they were going to indulge in politics they could not hold a government job. So I made representations, as is shown by the letter, that Mr. McAdam had been politically active, and I advised that he be dismissed.
I notice what was said with regard to the petition. I heard only two names. A delegation came up to see me with regard to this man's dismissal, and two of those men were in the delegation. They admitted that Mr. McAdam had no one to blame but himself, for he had been politically active, there was no doubt about that, but they said he had been a pretty good postmaster-I knew that-and having now been taught his lesson he should be forgiven and taken back. I told them it was too late to lock the door after the horse was stolen-the matter was in the hands of the Civil Service Commission, that I had no love for him, and as I had heard him talking against myself, against the party and against the Prime Minister, as far as I was concerned the dismissal would stand.
With regard to the appointment of Mr. Bilodeau, I advised that Mr. Stark be put in as temporary postmaster. He refused to take the job. The Civil Service Commission, I understand, appointed a Mr. Scott. He too was a returned soldier, but he had moved away from the town to another place further north and refused to come back. Later I am informed the Civil Service Commission appointed Mr. Bilodeau, who is in temporary charge as postmaster. Some organizations through that district, such as the Klu Klux Klan and the Orange order, objected very much to this, because they said: Here is a Protestant, a returned soldier, being turned out of a job and a Frenchman and Catholic being put in his place. Not being a Frenchman or a Catholic myself, religion does not influence me at all. I believe a man has a right to whatever religion he professes. But even at that I do not think Mr. McAdam has very much coming to him. During the last election I had a Frenchman and Catholic running against me, and Mr. McAdam did everything he could to elect that Frenchman and Catholic. He was beaten by the fortunes of war, and I think he should take his medicine.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman said he heard Mr. McAdam attack himself and the Liberal party and the Prime Minister. That in my judgment would be clear evidence of partisanship, if he was then postmaster, and within the provisions of the order in council of 1912. I strongly deprecate the question that the hon. member has seen fit to introduce. In all the letters I have received I find nothing about the religion of Mr. McAdam or of anyone connected with him. Neither do I find any reference made to the racial origin or religion of the person who is now postmaster. In fact I may say that one of my correspondents is himself a leading Roman

Supply-Post Office
Catholic. He is a very well known man in that section. Nothing is worse for this country than to introduce the element that has been introduced by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Donnelly).


Charles Avery Dunning: He did not introduce it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what he said.


Charles Avery Dunning: He related the introduction of it.
Mr. BENNETT.	No, he charged that
certain people, because they were Protestants and Orangemen and Ku Klux Klansmen, were objecting to the appointment.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Quite right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say there is no
evidence of any such thing upon the files or in the correspondence I have seen. It is very much to be deprecated that such a charge should be made in this house.


Charles Avery Dunning: Much more to be deprecated that it is encouraged in the country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is very much worse
if it is encouraged in the country, as it has been by hon. gentlemen very closely associated with the hon. Minister of Railways. I can say that quite truly.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, I wish
absolutely to deny that and, on the contrary, to state that the evidence in the court proceedings demonstrates that Conservatives very close to my hon. friend are back of these attempts to arouse racial and religious prejudices.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I made
the observation with the idea that possibly the Minister of Railways would show the hand that he has now disclosed. I have lived long enough to see him rise to the bait. He did it in this case. He has given away the source of the attempt that has been made by the Liberal organization in western Canada to fasten upon the party with which I am associated the very charges that he has now made. The man brought back from the United States by the government of Saskatchewan, and who is now being kept by somebody in a hotel in Regina, was brought back to make the charges now made by the hon. gentleman. He now adopts them as his own, and thereby discloses the support given to that man, which we suspected and were anxious to confirm. We now know where these charges come from. We now know the authority behind that notorious person, Pat Emmons, who is being put forward to make charges against the Conservative party and,
FMr. Bpnnett 1
the hon. minister says, those who are- closely associated with myself. I think he will find before he is through with that line of action that he is entirely mistaken, and that it will do no good either to him or the party that has set those reports loose in Saskatchewan predicated upon a speech made in the legislature by the premier of Saskatchewan, in which, he charged that members opposite him belonged to the Ku Klux Klan, a small minority in the legislature; but unfortunately for him it was disclosed that behind him there sat members of that Klan who were supporting him, and that none of those who sat opposite him belonged to that order. That was what was proven in the legislature of Saskatchewan.


Charles Avery Dunning: Will my hon. friend
produce evidence to prove what he has just said? He knows better.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just a moment. It is
not necessary to get excited and begin to assume that attitude of mind in respect to it. The hon. gentleman knows that I have not the papers here, but the daily press in Saskatchewan-


John Frederick Johnston: Order. I hesitate to
interrupt the hon. leader of the opposition, but surely discussion on what has happened in another legislature has nothing to do with the item before the committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know. If I
have not the right to answer observations dragged in by those opposite, it is a queer thing to me.


Charles Avery Dunning: I rise to a point of
order. I object to my hon. friend stating that I dragged them in. He boasted of putting out the bait for me to rise to. I was proud to rise to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly I did. I said
that the hon. member for Willow Bunch made certain statements which I deprecated, and I added that those statements were now being circulated in Saskatchewan, whereupon the hon. gentleman-	*


Charles Avery Dunning: By men closely associated with me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly; and I referred
to the premier of Saskatchewan, whose speech I read-my hon. friend asked me to give him the evidence-in the daily paper while I was on the train last Sunday and Monday journeying to Ottawa. In that speech he made in almost the identical words the statements now made by the Minister of Railways

Supply-Post Office
and Canals. I also read in the same journal the report of a trial that had taken place in Regina. It gave the evidence given under oath with respect to a man by the name of Emmons, whom I had never seen or heard of until then. He had been brought back from the United States by the Saskatchewan government, and in the course of the trial he endeavoured to introduce the names of two persons, Dr. Cowan of Regina and another gentleman, but his name has slipped from my mind. They at once issued denials of the statements made by Emmons with respect to themselves.
As to what was said by the minister, I have given him the evidence and the place where he will find it. There are members in this house from Saskatchewan who if they have read the press will know about it. I found it in the newspaper published in Saskatchewan as well as in a newspaper published in Moose-jaw which gave a report of it. Then, coming down on the train I again read it. It will foe found in the 'library if the hon. gentleman desires to know where to find the report. I deprecated the observations made by the hon. member for Willow Bunch for that very reason.
Now I say that in view of 'the statements that the hon. member has made, upon his word as a member of this house, the incident would seem to be ended. There is no necessity for an inquiry if an hon. member of this house, standing in his place, makes such a statement, and I shall advise my correspondent by sending him a copy of Hansard, showing that the hon. member for Willow Bunch himself heard this man, in his presence, as an active partisan; because if he did an investigation is unnecessary. But on the facts that were upon the record, there is no letter from the hon. *member indicating any such thing except, as T said, the official letter upon which the dismissal was predicated. And when the minister was asked for an investigation, having regard to what was said by Mr. McAdam, it does occur to me that in all cases of this kind it would be a very simple thing to grant an investigation or to advise the member for Willow Bunch of the request for an investigation in order that he might place on the record what he has said to this house to-day. In my judgment, having regard to the terms of the order in council, the conditions under which men have held office in the civil service, and their liability to dismissal if they are active partisans, when a member says that he heard a 'postmaster at Lafleohe take an active part 'against the government of the day, becoming an active partisan, in a pending election, he has justified that dismissal and nothing fur-
'ther need be said with respect to it. The government is bound to accept, whether it be from this side or the other, a statement publicly made by a member of this house as to what he himself heard, knew and observed with respect to a partisan postmaster.


Peter John Veniot: I regret very much indeed that the question of race or creed has been introduced into this discussion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Peter John Veniot: It is not the first time with this post office dismissal that such has been the case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was nothing on the files about it.


Peter John Veniot: I have my own personal file. I have in my hand two letters; each letter accuses my department of French domination in the nomination at Lafleche. A letter was written to the Prime Minister of the province by Mr. W. J. Passmore touching this question-


Richard Bedford Bennett: When a file is ordered by parliament to foe brought down, does that not involve-


Peter John Veniot: Not the minister's individual file.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister's files are part of the public 'business of the country. The Prime Minister w-ill be the first gentleman in this house to say that; a letter such as that to which attention is now directed, sent to him, which he has passed on to the minister, is a public document. I read the file and I now place it back on the table. If the letter is marked personal it should not be read to the house.


Peter John Veniot: It is not marked personal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If it is not marked personal it should be on that file, and I think I have a right to ask that it now be put on the file if it is to be read from. The file must be completed and the Prime Minister will be the first member of the house to say that is correct.


Peter John Veniot: Let me call the attention of the hon. member-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; we are not going to leave this.


Peter John Veniot: I have a right to reply to the hon. gentleman.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But I want the document put on the file.
Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: I am not touching the document at the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He said, "I have in my hand a letter." I am raising a point of order.


Peter John Veniot: I have the floor; it is not a question of order. The hon. member says so-and-so shall be done; I wish to take issue with him and to say it is not the rule of the house.


John Frederick Johnston: The hon. gentleman
has the right to raise a point of order.


Peter John Veniot: He has; but I am not reading from the document. I am replying to the hon. gentleman.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister said, "I
have in my possession two letters dealing with the question of race, and generally with respect to this postmastership." He said also, ''I have a letter written to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister"-and he gave the name, Passmore.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The prime minister of the province.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was it not the Prime
Minister?


Peter John Veniot: No; it was the prime minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To me?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought that. And the fact that the Prime Minister transmitted the letter to the minister, and the name of the correspondent was given, ensures me the right to have it placed on the file. That is not an unfair statement of the rule.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I ask the minister to do so.


Peter John Veniot: Before referring to the
letter at all-


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has been referred to.


Peter John Veniot: I will not refer to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is too late now.


Peter John Veniot: Surely I have the same
rights here as the hon. gentleman.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Peter John Veniot: One moment. The hon. gentleman has raised a point of order and I am going to speak to it. Surely I have a right; the leader of the opposition has not all the rights in the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Peter John Veniot: Although he may think he has, he cannot put it over me in that way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The point of order is
under consideration.


Peter John Veniot: On the point of order, that the minister must produce what is supposed to be his file, if I mistake not there is a ruling in this house touching that question. A case was submitted two or three years ago when a letter was put into an official file, which was supposed to have been a letter written by an hon. member of this house to a minister and not marked "personal." This house ordered that the letter be taken off the official file and returned to the personal file of the minister; which indicated that the personal file kept by the minister is not to be produced on the official file because it is only for the minister's guidance in making a decision. That ruling has been given in this house, and if I mistake not the case was referred to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. That position was taken and it is on that point of order that I-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the fact.


Peter John Veniot: I have no objection to laying the file on the table and I will do so.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not do it?


Peter John Veniot: I am going to do it. The reason I did not do it before was that I was going under that order of the house. I felt I was right and I still feel that I am right. But the letters that I will refer to I will place on the table of the house. There is nothing to hide.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The papers were moved for.


Peter John Veniot: I will do that; I will add it to the file. One of these letters was received from "Mr. John Evans, M.P., 305 Eleventh street, Saskatoon, December 24, 1927." My reply to him was:
I am in receipt of yours of the 24th-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Evans' letter should be read.


Peter John Veniot: I have it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You should read that
before you read the reply.


Peter John Veniot: Very well:
I have been requested to write you regarding the unwarranted dismissals that have of late been made in the matter of county postmasters. I have in mind the particular case of Jno. C. McAdam of whom it may be said that he was dismissed without cause.

Supply-Post Office
Here is a man who served overseas, was wounded and has been eight years as postmaster at La Fleche and has competently done his duty. Why was he discharged?
I am sorry to say that I am hearing over this province-
It was not the hon. gentleman; this is what he tells me he heard.
-the charge against your department that it is dominated by French Canadians who_ have a mania to dominate in the administration of Canadian affairs. I am frankly conveying this to you as I hate to hear it, potent as it is of racial ill-will.
May I hear from you at an early date.
John Evans.
I was absent when that was received and my secretary acknowledged receipt; and on my return it was brought to my attention. I replied:
I am in receipt of yours of the 24th ultimo re the postmastership at Lafleche, in the electoral district of Willow Bunch, in which you claim the postmaster was dismissed without cause.
In reply I beg to say that sufficient cause was found to warrant me in retiring this official.
I note your very pert reference to my department being dominated by French Canadians. To this I must take decided objection. Your reference to such a rumour shows that those who started it could only be actuated either by ignorance of the facts or narrowness of thought. I am myself a Frenchman and feel that I can truly boast of never having allowed, during a long life of public service, any racial or religious feelings to thwart my judgment in reaching a decision.
To show you that no such feelings existed in present case, let me point out that when Mr. Adams was retired a Mr. Bilodeau, a Frenchman. was recommended as acting postmaster by the English-speaking member of Willow Bunch. When the permanent appointment was asked there were five candidates, four of whom I think were French. Thomas Scott received the appointment from the commission and I accepted it. notwithstanding I could have refused the certificate. Scott refused to accept the appointment, but before asking the commission to issue another certificate 1 received an application from E. L. J. Joycoeh. Although this was received late, I requested the commission to consider the application. I need not have done so, and if this department were dominated by French Canadiens, as you insinuate, I would not have given this Englishman a chance.
That was the letter I wrote. The other letter to which I referred was addressed to the Prime Minister, and was signed by a gentleman named W. J. Passmore. The Prime Minister's secretary, no doubt on behalf of the Prime Minister, sent me an extract from this letter and desired to knoiw the circumstances connected with this case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would my hon. friend
read the letter, the reply to which he is now reading.


Peter John Veniot: I have not that letter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think perhaps the letter was written in reply to a telegram, was it not?


Peter John Veniot: Yes, I 'have the letter here. It says:
In reply to your letter of March 22, regarding the dismissal of Mr. McAdam from his position of postmaster in Lafleche.
You inform us that Mr. Bilodeau was appointed by the Civil Service Commission, owing to Mr. Scott's refusal to accept the position, but you do not say why a non-resident of Lafleche recommended by the Gravelbourg Liberal Association should get the preference over local applicants.
Mr. Bilodeau does not hesitate to admit that he received his appointment through the representations of the Gravelbourg Liberal club, over the heads of many resident applicants.
If you care to order an investigation you will find that Mr. Scott, as a returned soldier himself, refused to accept the post office appointment here because of the injustice meted out to Mr. McAdam and because he felt as we all do, that no one else but Mr. McAdam was entitled to the position when nothing detrimental had been proven against him, either as a citizen or as postmaster.
You state that Mr. McAdam had been removed from office through the representations of the member for this constituency. We all know that our member. Dr. Donnelly, must have been grossly misinformed regarding Mr. McAdam's political activities by some prejudiced persons, for ample proof can be brought forward that he (Mr. McAdam) remained absolutely neutral in all political campaigns.
In conclusion, I wish to say that this ill-considered act will take every English speaking vote from the Liberal party if it is not remedied. The G.W.V.A. will make it known over the entire Dominion, as a glaring example of French Canadian domination in polities. It has already spread over all of southern Saskatchewan, and is causing serious friction between the two peoples in this province.
I wrote to the Prime Minister giving him the information, and went on to state there was no petition received by the department from this Liberal association recommending the appointment of Bilodeau, and that the only recommendation for the dismissal of the late postmaster was that of the hon. member sitting for the constituency. Since it has been decided that these letters should go on the original file, I will put them there, but I still believe I have not the right to bring them within the rules of the house.


Peter McGibbon: Might I ask a question? If I were to write the minister a letter such as this, would he dismiss the postmaster?


Peter John Veniot: If the letter is with regard to your own county I will act upon it.

Supply-Post Office


Richard Bedford Bennett: I trust the minister
realizes that if these letters had been upon the file all this waste of time would have been unnecessary.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Post Office-outside service-salaries and allowances-further amount required to hereby adjust the salaries of former permanent post office employees who were dismissed from the postal service on account of their participation in the postal strike of 1919, and who have since been re-employed and are still in the service, such adjustment to give the employees the benefit of the salary they would have received had they re-entered the service in the class equivalent to the one in which they were formerly placed, and also of the salary revisions of 1919 and 1924, in which they would have participated had they remained in the service, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act, $115,000.
Purchase of rural mail boxes-further amount required, $40,000.
Mail service by air and land conveyance, including rural mail delivery-further amount required, $150,000.
Mi-. THORSON:	I hope the leader of the
opposition will display towards the employees of the post office at Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Calgary and Vancouver who will be affected by this vote those elementary principles of justice with regard to which he spoke so eloquently a short time ago. I feel that there has been a good deal of misrepresentation with regard to this vote and a great deal of misunderstanding as to -what is meant by it.
I do not propose to discuss the Winnipeg strike or the merits of that strike, but I think it well that certain facts be placed before the [DOT] committee so that the situation may be properly understood. In 1919 the postmen in western Canada belonged to an organization called the Amalgamated Postal Workers, which organization, as far as Winnipeg was concerned, was affiliated with the Trades and Labour Council of that city. When the strike of 1919 was called on May 15 of that year the Amalgamated Postal Workers went out with the other unions affiliated with the Trades and Labour Council of Winnipeg.
I do not propose to discuss the causes of that strike, nor its merits, because, in my opinion, neither question is involved in this particular vote. Whether the strikers were right or wrong is not involved in the consideration of this particular item. On the 24th of May, after the strike had been in progress for some nine days, the postal workers received am ultimatum from the Dominion government to this effect:
To-day voluntary workers are temporarily taking the posts that these people have left. The government announces that those returning before twelve o'clock noon on Monday the 26th

inst. will be accepted, and that all failing to resume their duties by that hour will be definitely refused thereafter a place in the federal service. Commencing at the above stated hour new employees will be engaged on the usual permanent basis.
I iask the committee to give special consideration to that feature of the ultimatum which threatened the striking employees that they would never thereafter be employed in the federal service.
In the fail! of 1919 the government receded from the position it had taken when this ultimatum was delivered. Their decision was rendered necessary by the circumstances existing in the Winnipeg post office at that time. The government decided that they would take back the striking postmen as vacancies occurred, under certain circumstances which I think ought to be indicated. These were as follows:
The reappointment of the striker must have the approval of the governor in council:
On reappointment, the striker must give satisfactory assurances that there will not be a repetition of the offence:
The striker must pass the ordinary Civil Service Commission examination and he must commence anew in the service.
These regulations have been in force since the fall of 1919 or the spring of 1920. There were 416 permanent employees and 267 temporary employees dismissed by order in council for failing to return to work after the ultimatum had been issued. I would draw the attention of the committee to the fact that the ultimatum was delivered on Saturday, a public holiday, and required the return of the workers by twelve o'clock on the following Monday. There have been a number of ex-strikers retaken on the staffs of the various post offices. There are now seventy-two ex-strikers on the staff of the Winnipeg post office, two at Saskatoon, mine at Calgary and four at Vancouver. When these men were taken back into the government employ they were put on the jobs they formerly held; they were required to do work which they had been doing prior to their dismissal consequent upon going out on dtrike. These men were experienced in the work of the post office; they bad training and they had shown themselves to be competent men. The figures will show that at the time of their going out on strike, their average length of service was seven years. That is, the majority of the men who are now in the service of the government had put in, at the time of their dismissal, seven years service with the government. They had training and experience in post office matters.

Supply-Post Office
When these men were taken back they were put on their old jobs. Those who had been sorting mail, were put back at sorting; those who had delivered mail, were put back on delivering; those who had been supervisors, were put back at supervising, and those who had been clerks, or had served in capacities requiring experience, were put back in those positions as vacancies occurred. But when these men were taken back they were paid as postal helpers, the lowest grade known to the post office, and some of them are still being paid as postal helpers. The Dominion government has taken advantage of their training, of their experience, and of their services in the respective classes to which they belong, and yet has only paid them as postal helpers. There is one case in the city of Winnipeg of an ex-striker holding a position as supervisor, and having under him four or five men who were not strikers. The four or five men under him were receiving the maximum salary while the supervisor, being an exnstriker, was receiving the salary of a podtal helper.
I would not approve of this vote if it justified the strike in any way. I think there has been a good deal of nonsense spoken with regard to the strike. I think at this time we can view the strike and what happened very calmly and dispassionately. It has not been suggested that this item involves a justification of the strike; it does no such thing. If it involved a justification of the strike I would not have approved of it. The men who have been taken back have freely admitted that they were badly advised in going out on strike, and they have undertaken that there will be no repetition of the occurrence in so far as they themselves are concerned. This proposal does not involve the reinstatement of striking employees; it does not involve the restoration of seniority right. It is necessary to keep faith with the men who took the places of the strikers, and no man who is now in the Winnipeg post office or in any of the post offices affected by this vote is going to lose any rights of seniority. He will not be prejudiced in any way, and he will not lose the position he occupies. While it is necessary to keep faith with the men who occupied the places of the ex-strikers, it is also necessary that this committee and the parliament of Canada should recognize the great principle that services should be paid for according to their value. That is all that is involved in this vote, namely, that we should pay these men in accordance with the services which they rendered to the post office. Nothing else is involved in this vote except the
56103-25SJ
preservation and application of that great principle and those who have been advocating that this be done, have done so with a desire to see applied to these men the elementary principles of justice of which the leader of the opposition spoke this afternoon. This is not a justification for the strike.
Robert James Manion: It is a palliation.


Mr. THORSON:: It is not an attempt to
reinstate the rights of seniority that were forfeited and lost through going out on strike. The role and only purpose of this vote is to pay the striking employees of the post office who are back again in the public service in accordance with the value of the services which they were rendering. It is not giving them something to which they are not entitled. They have already earned what it is now proposed to pay them. There is a great principle involved. Since the Dominion government has taken these men back into the government service, the Dominion government should pay them in accordance with the value of the services rendered. I could quite well understand the position that might be taken that the Dominion government should never take these men back. That would be a perfectly understandable position to take and there would be some justification for it. But once having taken these men back into the public service, and having used their services, the Dominion government should follow-the example of other employers and pay these men according to the value of their services.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It perhaps will clarify
and simplify the discussion to ask: Are they not being paid according to the terms of the contract of their employment when they went back?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I am glad the leader'
of the opposition has asked that question. It is a pertinent question to ask. But let me answer it by asking him another question. Many of these men had been in the service of the Post Office Department for ten or fifteen years; they were not fitted or qualified for other kinds of work; there was an odium attached in the city of Winnipeg to all exstrikers, and they found it difficult to get employment. I ask the leader of the opposition whether it was a fair offer to these men to say to them: We will take advantage of your services; we will take advantage of the fact that you have been for many years in
Business of the House

the service of the Post Office Department; but we will make the best bargain with you that we can, and we will take you back as apprentices?


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the bargain?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I have been attempting
to indicate the bargain and I have already indicated to the committee the terms -upon which the men were reemployed. But what I am saying with respect to that is that that was a very unfair condition to attach to the reemployment, because it was taking advantage of the situation in which the men were placed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who put them there?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It took advantage of
the situation in which the men were placed. The Dominion government is the only employer of labour that has acted in that particular way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have a telegram saying that the opposite is the case.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Let me continue with
my argument. Other employers pf labour have in some instances refused to take back striking employees. That is a perfectly understandable position to take, but when they did take them back they paid them at the current rate of wages. If, for instance, an iron master took back a mechanic, he paid him the wages that were payable to a mechanic. He did not pay him the wages that an apprentice would receive; he paid him as a mechanic and not as an apprentice. But the Dominion government, taking advantage of the position in which the men were placed, .stated that they would take them back only -as apprentices. Yet when they did take them back they put them in positions that they Rad formerly occupied; they used their services, their training, their experience. The suggestion that is made in this vote is that even at this late date justice should be done and the men should be paid in accordance with the value of the services rendered by them.
And Mr. Speaker having resumed the chair.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: A number of hon. members have been inquiring as to the amount of remaining business. We have made fairly good progress and -it should be possible, without unduly circumscribing the discussion, to conclude this evening. But that will de-
(Mr. Thorson.]
pend, in part, I think on the attitude adopted with respect to private bills. I have been advised by those who are promoters of these bills that they would like to have them brought to a vote immediately if that is possible. If it is not agreeable and there is going to be opposition to the bills to the extent of having them talked out during the hour assigned to the dicussion of private bills it might be as well for the house to know this at the'beginning rather than at the close of the hour, and thereby save an hour which is very precious at this stage of the session.
I would therefore mention to hon. members that when the house reconvenes this evening,
I will ask formally if there is objection to a vote being taken immediately on these bills and I will also ask whether, in the event of a bill being brought forward in the regular order, there is likely to be protracted discussion. In the event of objection being registered by hon. members, rather than have a protracted discussion with nothing in the end to gain, I will ask that the measures stand.


Robert Gardiner: I might just as well
inform the Prime Minister that there will be objection to those bills coming to a vote. They will be debated.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is my hon.
friend speaking for others as well as himself when he says that?


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I may inform the Prime Minister there are a number in this corner who propose to speak on those bills and they will probably occupy the hour.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If that be the case and if the bills are to be talked out, we might, unless the house thinks otherwise, have an understanding that the bills will be allowed to stand and that after recess we shall proceed immediately with supply.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In that event may I ask hon. members if it will be agreeable to them to come back at seven or shortly after seven?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Seven o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will not stand in the way, but I think 7.30 would probably be better.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As the leader of the opposition thinks 7.30 might be better, shall we agree on 7.30?

Private Bill Legislation-Procedure


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will not stand in the way.


Mr. KENNEDY:: Shall we continue with this estimate of the Post Office department?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then if the
house is agreeable, I would suggest that we meet at 7.30.


Robert Gardiner: We are quite willing to come back at 7.30 provided it is understood that private bills will stand, and that we shall go on with supply.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That will be the understanding.	.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at seven thirty o'clock.
PRIVATE BILLS On the order:
Resuming the debate on the proposed motion of Mr Denis (Joliette) for the second reading of Bill No. 152 an act respecting the Great Lakes and Atlantic Canal and Power Company Limited.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Stand.
Order stands.
On the order:
Resuming the debate on the proposed motion of Sir Eugene Fiset for the third reading of Bill No. 56, an act respecting the Sun Life Assurance of Canada, and the proposed motion of Mr. Ladner "That this question be now put.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Stand.
Order stands.
On the order:
Resuming the debate on the motion of Mr. Taylor for the third reading of Bill No. 58, an act to incorporate the London and Port Burwell Railway Company, and on the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Church.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Stand.
Order stands.
On the order:
Resuming the debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Edwards (Ottawa) for the third reading of Bill No. 43, an act respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, and on the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Sanderson.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Stand.
Order stands.



PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION-RULES AND PROCEDURE

Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, before we leave
private bills I desire to say I cannot 'but think that matters so vitally affecting the business
life of Canada as some of these bills do should not be dealt with as they have been by this House of Commons. I have a very strong conviction about this matter, but I have not expressed myself before with respect to it.
I do not think it is conducive to public appreciation or respect for parliamentary institutions that what took place this afternoon should recur, that a small group, because they say they will talk a bill out, should be able thus to prevent a vote being taken upon the merits of the measure.
I do not propose in any sense to express an opinion with regard to the bills, but I do say we must in some way amend our rules or modify our procedure to prevent that situation recurring. It is bad for the country, it is bad for parliament, and it is worse for the commercial community whose interests may be affected. I have not a word to say in criticism of those who do not approve of measures and desire to discuss them, but a minority of twenty or twenty-five should never bo able to prevent a vote being taken and the will of the house recorded. If this house is in favour of the legislation it should have the opportunity to so declare; if the house disapproves, there should be an opportunity afforded to so record itself.
I venture to make these observations at the end of this session because I have not heretofore said anything with respect to the matter. I do hope we may be able to arrive at some method by which a recurrence of the situation may be prevented. I realize that initially the trouble was in terminating private members' days too speedily; but that was the fault of the house itself, and in no sense was the administration to blame. But I do think that if my friend the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had determined that we should have the power to vote, there never was a case in which the powers of closure would have been more salutary, nor the invitation to use them would have been, more properly acted on than in these cases.


Right. Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING:: (Prime Minister):	Mr. Speaker, I cannot
agree with my hon. friend that closure should have been introduced with respect to private legislation, but I heartily agree for the most part with his other remarks. I may say that the government as a whole are entirely of his view that there may be a necessity to amend the rules so as at least to enable the promoters of private bills to have them determined one way or the other by this parliament.	.
40SG	COMMONS
Private Bill Legislation-Procedure
May I say in reference to my hon. friend's remark as to what took place just before six o'clock, that that is only the last act in the drama.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The worst sinner of ail is the one who is at present sitting immediately behind my hon. friend and who is one of his supporters. I think he has taken up more time of the house in obstructing votes on private bills than has been taken up by all the other members put together. I am referring to my hon. friend from Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church).


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would not say it is quite as bad as that.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING':	I certainty
think the rules of the house should be so amended that when a private bill has been fully discussed and hon. members have had ample opportunity of knowing the arguments pro and con there may be a speedy decision one way or the other.


Robert Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I desire to take exception to the remarks of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). He intimated that something disgraceful took place just before adjournment at six o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that; pardon me.


Robert Gardiner: I merely stated to the Prime Minister when we were considering the business for this evening that I knew there were sufficient members who wished to discuss private bills now on the order paper to more than take up the hour between eight and nine
0	clock. I am not going to recede one iota from the position that members must at all times have full opportunity to lay their views before the house and before the country, with respect to any measure, private or otherwise.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


An hon. MEMBER:: All members should have that opportunity.


Robert Gardiner: It is true we may require some amendment of the rules. Personally
1	should like to see all bills come to a vote and the members of this house supporting legislation that is not in the interests of the people made responsible for their vote. I have no desire to block legislation nor do I think have any of the members who are associated with me. But, sir, if we are going to make

it easier for private legislation to get through this house, then I submit that when we are amending the rules we should see to it that private members are given an opportunity to introduce legislation which is required by the people, but which governments do not seem to care to introduce.
I regret the occurrence that took place, and possibly because of what has transpired during this session amendments to the rules will be made next session so that legislation will be passed, or at least the house will get an opportunity to express its opinion upon it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. . Gardiner) must have misunderstood me. I did not use, nor did I suggest the use of, the word "disgraceful" with reference to what has taken place; but I did say it was not consistent with the dignity of the house that private bills should not be considered because there were members who said they proposed to talk out the hour, and it would be impossible to reach a vote at this late date after we had sat several months.


Robert Gardiner: I accept my hon. friend's explanation; it is quite satisfactory. I would say, further, Mr. Speaker, that the legislation now on the order paper has been discussed by members of all groups in this house, and I do not think it is altogether fair for my hon. friend to say that twenty or twenty-five members in this corner of the house were to blame.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say in
your corner of the house.


Hewitt Bostock: Private bills being
exhausted the house will resolve itself into committee of supply.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
John Frederick Johnston: Vote 519, supplementary estimates.
Post office - outside service - salaries and allowances-further amount required to hereby adjust the salaries of former permanent post office employees who were dismissed from the postal service on account of their participation in the postal strike of 1919, and who have since been re-employed and are still in the service, such adjustment to give the employees the benefit of the salary they would have received had they re-entered the service in the class equivalent to the one in which they were formerly placed, and also of the salary revisions of 1919 and 1924, in which they would

Supply-Post Office
have participated had they remained in the service, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act, $115,000.
Purchase of rural mail boxes-further amount required, $40,000.
Mail service by air and land conveyance, including rural mail delivery-further amount required, $150,000.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Mr. Chairman, I do not
propose to occupy the time of the committee very much longer. The hon. leader of the opposition put certain questions to me with regard to the conditions under which the striking postmen had been readmitted to employment. The position which I suggest should be taken in regard to that is that these men were not able to choose between employments. They were quite ready, from the fact that they had not been employed and had not been able to get employment, to take any employment that offered,' no matter what terms were imposed. But, Mr. Chairman, the position I take is this. The condition that these men should be paid as new men seems a very unfair condition to attach to their reemployment; that condition now should be changed and full justice should be done these men. They should be paid in accordance with the value of the services rendered. Every other employer who has taken back into his employ men who went on strike has paid these men full value for their services; the Dominion government has been the only exception to that rule, and I suggest that it is not too late for this government to remedy the injustice which was done. These men who went on strike and who have been reemployed by the Dominion government were not vicious men; a large number of them were returned soldiers and they had all contributed their share to the patriotic fund and had done their part in looking after the welfare of the returned men. They had performed their duties conscientiously and well. Perhaps they were misled, but at any rate they have promised that they will not take part in a strike of this nature again, so there is no danger of a recurrence of the trouble in the future. Many of these men lost their homes and their savings before they were re-admitted into the service for which they were trained and for which they were well qualified.
This request that justice be done these men does not come from them alone; it has the support of many bodies and groups of men. The Winnipeg postal group, by a very large vote, have endorsed this proposal, although only a small portion of that group are exstrikers; the Amalgamated Civil Servants of Winnipeg have also endorsed the suggestion,
as have the executive of the Canadian Legion in that city. This is not a new proposal in the history of Canada. There are precedents for the suggestion now made, precedents which were just and which we should follow in this case. In 1924 the postmen of Toronto went out on strike; they were sent an ultimatum similar to that given the Winnipeg strikers. Then they were dismissed and told that they would not be reemployed. However, they were reemployed on the same terms as those offered to the Winnipeg strikers, as vacancies occurred and as new employees. In 1926 the Dominion government realized the justice of their claim and reinstated them, going further than it is now proposed to go and giving them their back pay, recognizing the justice of that procedure. It would be interesting to know the attitude of the leader of the opposition in connection with this proposal and to know whether his attitude is shared by some of his colleagues. I am sorry the hon. member for Fort William is not in his seat; I have been told that when he was touring Manitoba during the last election he met a group of these men. They placed their case before him and he expressed sympathy with their application. They told him about the Toronto strike and what had been done there, and I am told that on that occasion after hearing their representations he stated that if the Conservatives were returned to power and if he remained Postmaster General he would be prepared to treat them as the striking postmen in Toronto had been treated. If I am incorrectly advised I hope the hon. member will put me right.
I make this suggestion because I believe it to be just and proper; I believe if we adopt it we will remedy a wrong which has existed in Winnipeg for a long time and heal a sore which has been festering for years. No one is being prejudiced; no justification of the strike is involved; we are merely recognizing the fact that the Dominion of Canada should pay these men according to the value of the service rendered. I suggest that this committee adopt this item so that now, after this long lapse of time, justice may be done and a fitting end written to one of the most distressing chapters in the history of Winnipeg.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nine years ago last April a delegation of Winnipeg postal employees representing the entire body of men employed in the post office of that city visited Ottawa, the capital of Canada. They met a delegation of the then cabinet. They were asked
40S8
Supply-Post Office

as to their grievances and they indicated slight changes which they desired to have made in the terms of their employment. Their wishes were met in full and when they left this city to return to Winnipeg they left behind them letters of thanks directed to the ministers in question, thanking them for the courteous way in which they had been received and for the willingness shown by the government of the day to meet every just claim they had to make. They stated that they had no complaints of any kind to make with respect to the terms of their employment, the conditions of their service or their relation to their employers, who were the people of Canada.
Just about a month thereafter some 480 of the Winnipeg postal employees left their employment; they left without notice; they left without providing substitutes; they left without any personal grievances or any complaints as to their service or the conduct of their employers. They left the service of the state in violation of their oaths of office as public servants of the Dominion of Canada, and the reason they gave for leaving the public service were that a strike had been called by certain men in that city, and an effort was being made to establish a Soviet form of government in Winnipeg. An additional reason given was that some of them were compelled by intimidation to leave their employment.
Let us consider just what that means. If we can only approach this matter in a spirit somewhat different from that of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat after endeavouring to make political capital out of it, I think perhaps it would be more to the advantage of this country.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: What justification has the leader of the opposition for making that statement?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just the language used by the hon, gentleman himself, and nothing more.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I think that statement should be withdrawn.


Richard Bedford Bennett: His language is opon to only one inference, the only inference that would be drawn by any court. He himself is a member of the profession; he assisted in the prosecution of those who originated the effort to establish a Soviet in the city of Winnipeg. He was one of the prosecuting counsel, and I ask him to say to this house whether or not he thinks the conviction obtained in one of these cases was improperly obtained? An appeal was taken to the Privy 
Council, which declined to allow it because, while the Privy Council only in rare cases hears appeals from criminal convictions, the lord chancellor at that time made it perfectly clear that it was apparent, after a most exhaustive statement of the case by learned counsel, that there had been no departure from the principles that govern the administration of criminal law in every part of the British Empire, in the trial and conviction of at least one of these offenders. Does the hon. gentleman who spoke this [DOT]afternoon say to this house that this man was improperly convicted?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I propose to answer that
question. I made it perfectly clear to this house that if this vote had implied justification of the strike, I would have opposed it. No justification of the strike is involved in the vote. I-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Don't make a speech.
My hon. friend knows better than to do that. He will have his chance, and I shall proceed now with my observations. I have permitted him to give an answer.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: You asked me a question.
Mr.. BENNETT:	I asked a question and
the hon. member has answered it. He has said that if this vote involved in any sense approval of the strike he would not have supported the measure. I therefore think that if I can show to the committee that the vote does imply that very thing, the hon. member will withdraw his support of the item in the estimates. This trial having proceeded, as I have said, the conviction having been made and sustained by the court of last resort in the British Empire, we have then a just and proper conviction for an effort to establish another form of government in Canada.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Will the hon.
gentleman permit a question? In what way can he say that the decision of the courts * in Winnipeg was upheld by the Privy Council? '


Richard Bedford Bennett: An application was made for leave to appeal to the Privy Council. The case was presented by learned counsel not only of the English but of the Winnipeg bar; and the Privy Council, after listening to the argument, indicated that there was no cause shown for hearing the appeal, and leave was refused.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Did the Privy
Council listen to the argument?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentlemen who presented the case to the Privy Council is now one of the learned judges of the court of appeal of Manitoba. He presented his argument for the better part of a day. The Privy Council listened with great attention and at the end of the discussion the lord chancellor-if my memory serves me it was the lord chancellor of the day-gave judgment, declaring that no case had been made out indicating that the conviction was wrong either in law or otherwise, or that it offended the principles and canons of justice that prevail throughout the British Empire in relation to criminal cases, and therefore the conviction would not be quashed by the Privy Council.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Was it not true
that refusal of the Privy council to consider the matter was based on constitutional grounds?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is hardly correct to
say that it, was based on constitutional grounds. It was based on this large ground: that no case had been made out that would warrant interference by the Privy Council. When I say that no case was made out I mean that there was no such departure from the principles of justice that govern all criminal trials in the British Empire as would warrant interference by the Privy Council in rehearing or considering the case. In other words, what the Privy Council said, by the judgment of the lord chanceller, was that the principles of justice had been observed in the trial, that the evidence warranted the conviction, that the conviction was sound in law and therefore must stand. That was the judgment of the Privy Council. The constitutional question to which the hon. member refers is a simple one: it was whether or not the Privy Council would consider a criminal appeal. The Privy Council has considered criminal appeals and has since that time declared that where there is any departure from the principles of justice that govern all British courts in criminal trials, the case will be considered by the Privy Council. Those are the facts.
We have therefore a conviction which, to the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, must appear a sound conviction. We have a conviction because an effort was made to destroy the established form of government of this country in the city of Winnipeg. In other words, an effort was made to change our government and that effort failed.
Supply-Post Office


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Would the hon. leader
suggest by that statement, that all who took part in the strike of 1919 in Winnipeg had that intention in mind?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is hardly necessary to
answer a question of that kind, and it is not expected that a lawyer will answer it. It is not expected that one of the profession would ask so simple a question.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Answer it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not here to give
instruction in law to the hon. gentleman; it might pay for him to sit somewhere and learn a little. But I do not propose to give that instruction at the moment.
The conviction having been made because of an effort, mark you, to destroy the government of Canada in the province of Manitoba and in the city of Winnipeg, and that effort having failed, one of our citizens, was prosecuted, and convicted. It will be found in the law reports of the country. Now what relation has that to this vote?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: None.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is necessary for the
hon. gentleman to say none if he desires to retain his position as having a logical mind. However, I shall show that it has a very direct bearing on the matter. Let us bear in mind my opening observation: 480 men who had no direct grievance of their own, had left the postal service of Canada without notice, in violation of their oath. They left, not because they had any grievance of their own, because they admitted they had none. But citizens one of whom was subsequently convicted as I have indicated, were endeavouring to establish another form of government in Canada, a soviet in the city of Winnipeg. The government was confronted with that situation-a complete tie-up in the postal service. What does it mean to the commercial life of Canada and to the domestic life of our citizens to have a complete postal tie-up? Business was paralyzed, the postal service was discontinued, no deliveries made of letters to homes. The people were without communication so far as the postal service was concerned-absolutely without it. The government of the day permitted that condition to continue, urging as best they could, that there should be a settlement of these difficulties. Time went on; two weeks passed; and then the Minister of Labour of Canada, the Honourable Gideon Robertson,-and I think, although my memory may be wrong,
Supply-Post Office

the Right Honourable Arthur Meighen-went to Winnipeg. The first thing they did was, not to endeavour to coerce the postal clerks, but to ask them whether they had any grievances against this country, their employer. They admitted they had none. They were not on strike because any wrong had been done to them personally, but because they were in sympathy with those who were endeavouring to destroy the government of Canada. The relation between the conviction and the sympathy is found in the fact that that effort to destroy the government was held to be criminal, and one of them was convicted under the conditions to which I have referred. Therefore, the sympathy was for a criminal act, an act which was declared by the court of last resort to be criminal; that is clear. I think this answers the question asked by the hon. gentleman. There is the answer; it was sympathy for a criminal conspiracy, a conspiracy to destroy the government of Canada.
What, did the government of the country do? Mark you, the government, after all, is but a trustee for the whole population of Canada. I was not in the house at that time, so I can speak with some freedom with respect to the matter; I was not even in politics. The position was a very simple one. Confronted with the paralysis of the postal service of Canada for. upwards of two weeks; no mail; business being ruined, and homes without letters, what 'happened? The then Minister of Labour, and the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen on Friday gave public notice through the papers, and by personal notice, directed to all those who were concerned, through the, postmaster, pointing out that the postal employees were acting in violation of their oath of public service, and the public service must be resumed. That was a clear and frank recognition that all men may act hastily, and of the influence of the mass over individuals. This was a recognition of what I believe some philosophers call mass psychology ; the influence of the many over the mind of the individual. It has a clear recognition that men may act hastily and make mistakes; that they may be guilty of errors of judgment. It was not proposed to drop these employees from the public service, or to drive them out of their employment, but they were advised and notified that they would be permitted to resume their regular employment if they returned to work on or before the following Monday. They were invited to meet the postmaster and the Minister of Labour at a stated hour on

Sunday to discuss the question, in case the employees had any complaint to make with reference to their own matters. That is a summary of it. What could be fairer than that? Could anything be fairer? Would any man suggest that that is not a frank recognition of the weaknesses of human nature and a possibility of the influence of mass mind upon the single individual? I think every member of this committee will agree that that was a fair position to take. On Sunday eighty-two of the employees met the postmaster and Minister of Labour, and all of them reported for duty on the succeeding Monday, and were reinstated without discrimination. Could anything be fairer than that? Would any hon. gentleman ask that his own relatives or friends be treated more fairly than that? It was a recognition of a difficulty and the recognition of the possibility of hasty action with an opportunity for repentance: Come back and go to work. Eighty-two went back on Monday and the rest remained away from their job.


An hon. MEMBER:: From their duty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: From their duty, yes.
Advice having been given on the preceding Friday that if they did not desire to come back they would be dropped from the service, on Monday those who did not so report were dropped from the service of the country and they were no longer employees of Canada.
Their places were filled as far as possible. Some 250 returned soldiers went to work and the postal service was renewed. It was badly crippled and sadly paralyzed, but in time order was brought out, of chaos and the service was fairly established. It is only fair to say that a number of those who did not go back to work resented that others were prepared to take their places, and they made some little effort to prevent them discharging their duty in delivering mail. However, that led to no serious condition, although there were certain threats indulged in, threats that are always incident to a tie-up such as this, but no serious results followed. Order was brought out of chaos and the strike failed. The soviet form of government was not established in Winnipeg and the institutions of the country were saved. This was brought, about to some extent, through the efforts made by the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, in the legal knowledge he brought to bear upon the prosecution of the offenders. His knowledge and training as a lawyer helped and assisted in the securing of a conviction against some of them.

Supply-Post Office
Then what was the position? A reaction set in; reactions always follow in matters of this kind. There were efforts made to induce the government to permit these men to go back to their old positions, regardless of what had transpired. If the government had yielded readily to the pressure brought to bear upon it, it would have been unworthy of being a government; it would have been unworthy of supporting the prosecution carried on by the hon. gentleman as a lawyer. But the government, adhered to its policy, although in the filling of vacancies that arose from time to time in the postal service of Winnipeg, they made an exception in giving preference to postal employees who had not been guilty of any open acts of violence. Ultimately a very large number of old employees found employment. I think this is a fair summary, and I think my hon. friend will say it is a fair statement of what transpired.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: With some exceptions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There may be some
exceptions.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Veiy serious ones.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course, the hon. gentleman has had a much wider knowledge of the circumstances than I have. I only have them from reading the law reports and the reports in the press and the memoranda issued from time to time with respect to the situation that developed. But it is sufficient to say that a very substantial number of the four hundred who did not go to work that Monday following the opportunity given to them, subsequently found employment by reason of there being vacancies in the postal service in Winnipeg which they filled.
The question is, in what capacities were they employed; what w'as their contract of service; did they go back to their old positions or did they go in as new hands? The hon. gentleman stated this afternoon and, from my reading, correctly, that they came back as new hands, as those who had not formerly been in the public service. They came back just as, to my knowledge, some twenty-five or so conductors of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company came back to the service during the last two years, after they had been dismissed.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Were the Canadian Pacific conductors taken back as wipers, or anything of that sort? Were they not paid as conductors?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am coming to that.
They went back as conductors having lost their pension rights and their seniority as employees of the company.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: They were not paid as apprentices.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some of them, because
there were no vacancies for conductors, came back as brakemen although they had formerly been old and trusted conductors. The same situation obtains in this case. It is not fair to talk about wipers or engineers or anything else in this matter. The question is to determine what the contract made by the country was with those who came back to work. There is an axiom of law that was, I am sure, invoked by the hon. gentleman in his prosecution, namely, that every man must be fairly presumed to contemplate the result of his own actions and when the opportunity for repentance is given and not availed of, the law no longer looks upon grown men as infants but looks upon them as men of understanding able to appreciate their conduct and actions. Therefore when they chose not to repent, but rather to defy constituted authority and to throw their lot in with those who desired to destroy our country and its institutions, they must have understood what the natural and logical result of that action would be. They took the chance; they declined the invitation, and at least one or two hon. gentlemen on this side of the house will perhaps at this moment be recalling the language of a great American poet who said:
Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide.
In the strife of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side;
Some great cause, God's new Messiah, offering each the bloom or blight,


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Parts the goats upon the left hand, and the sheep upon the right.
And the choice goes by forever 'twixt that darkness and that light.
That is carried, I have no doubt. The law attributes to these postal employees that knowledge, that intelligence, that power of determination, that power of choice by which they declined the invitation of the country notwithstanding their violation of their oaths of office, notwithstanding the weakness that had yielded to the influence of their tempters who would destroy the government of Canada, They said: We choose to remain out; we choose to throw our lot in with the strikers; we choose to throw the power of our numbers
Supply-Post Office

and influence in with those who, if they had succeeded would have destroyed constitutional government in Winnipeg. They failed and when the strikers failed and the strike failed they came back for employment. But they came back too late. That is all this case is.
My hon. friend put this ease. He said: Other employers take back their people and give them positions. Let us admit all that. That has nothing at alii to do with this case. This is the body politic fighting for its life. This is the nation fighting for its existence. This is the struggle between constituted government and bolshevism. It was a struggle between the municipal institutions at Winnipeg and the soviet form of government and that was the case put by my hon. friend in his prosecution. He may not have put it in those words, but that is the case he put and that is the case upon which a conviction was made. Now we are asked to do what? This parliament, which is not like an ordinary employer, which provides its oath of office for those who are its employees, which protects all the citizens, which makes the laws, the criminal laws, and provides in part for their administration, within the province, it is true, and under provincial jurisdiction, is now asked to say that those hien who went back to work afterwards shall be placed in the same position so far as their employment is concerned as if they had never gone out on strike. We are asked to vote $115,000 to do that. The letter carriers may have insufficient pay; the railway mail clerks may be badly paid; but $115,000 is to be raised by the taxpayers of Canada to provide for additional compensation to those who left the service and declined to return under the conditions I have mentioned.
That is the case and that is a case to which I am opposed and to which I think most thoughtful citizens are opposed. You may curry favour for a moment with men by adopting the position that you are the champion .of their cause; that you are going to see that they are placed in the position which they do not now enjoy; but within their hearts they themselves know that they have not been treated unjustly or unfairly. I have talked with some of them. I have talked with one of them who came from the old province of New Brunswick and who is now in California. He belonged to a very ancient family in New Brunswick. He fought in the Boer war. He lost his position; he yielded to the importunities of those who would induce him to relinquish allegiance to the state. He gave up his position; he went on strike without a grievance. He could not get back his posi-

tion and he is still without it. He left Canada, and in the conversations that I have had with him I have never heard him say for a single moment that he did not deserve the punishment that he received for his action.
Is the House of Commons to put a premium upon this sort of thing? Are we prepared to say that those who do this shall be rewarded? You say: Ah, well, these men are receiving a very small wage. Some of them have never risen from the position they first occupied. Some of them are still in the position in which they were originally and have made no progress upwards. Perhaps half of them in Winnipeg and Calgary have risen to the position which they formerly occupied and are receiving the salary which they were receiving at the time they left, the service of the state. Others have not. It is too bad that this is so; but justice is blind; justice is concerned not only with the offender but with the body politic against which the blow was struck. The criminal courts, as was Said this afternoon, are not there to punish persons vindictively; they are not instruments to enable one man to effect an evil purpose against another. But the criminal courts are established in this country for the purpose of enabling the rights of all the citizens to be enjoyed without impairment and without destruction by any man. These men, when they took their choice, when without any personal grievance they left the service and declined to go back, contemplated all that and justice to those who remained, justice to those who went back and justice to the people of Canada demands that we shall not interfere; that the logical and inevitable results of What men have done shall visit them in all their conduct. There is not one of us who does not appreciate and understand that. Now we are asked to interpose the strong arm of the state bee ween cause and effect. The cause was there. The effect was there. We are now asked that the state shall remove the effect. I cannot agree to that.
The city of Calgary which I represent has sent me telegrams and letters with respect to this matter. I have received them from Vancouver and from other places,


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the hon.
member say that the city of Calgary has sent telegrams?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not as a municipal body, if that is what my hon. friend means.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is what I am asking about. What body in Calgary was it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The board of trade.

Supply-Post Office


James Shaver Woodsworth: The board of trade is the city of Calgary in the hon. gentleman's opinion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the most representative body in the city of Calgary. The young and old men's board of trade is a representative body. If I had said citizens, I would have more nearly expressed my meaning. I did not intend to convey the view that the municipal body had passed resolutions or had taken any action in the matter, if that is what the hon. gentleman means. I desire to make it perfectly clear that that is not what was in my mind.
I had hoped, Mr. Chairman, that under the circumstances I have described this government would not precipitate this discussion nine jmars after the event, and in the last hours of a dying session, but if it keeps this house in session for many hours I at least cannot become a party to it. I can only voice my protest against it. To some people the securing of votes seems more important than anything else in the world. But I believe that the great mass of the labour people in this country with whom I come in contact, the men with whom I have discussed it, the men in the service of the railways, who have had similar punishment meted out to them when they committed an offence against their regulations, feel that these men in Winnipeg understood what the results would be and they accepted them as part of the trials of life; they were warned, and understanding the consequences, they took the chance, and the chance having failed, we are now asked to say that they shall be put in the position they would have been in if they had succeeded. Surely the government cannot seriously mean that. They cannot seriously ask us to do it. It is not analagous to the case in Toronto. That case is entirely different. In Toronto it was not a sympathetic strike. It was a strike of the postal workers because of their own grievances, not the grievances of somebody else. The postal workers struck because they had been injured. Believing they could not secure what they wanted in any other way, they struck, and the government of the day thought that they were right in the strike, and gave them back their positions. It was not a case of a man striking in sympathy with somebody else, not a case of striking even for some imaginary grievance. In Winnipeg the strike was an endeavour to destroy constituted authority. If the Toronto strikers had done that, the government would not have intervened'. I know the minister who intervened in that regard, and he intervened properly, because their grievances were
just, and he gave them back their positions, and gave them the benefits to which they would have been entitled, and additional benefits.
There are other matters in this connection which I shall reserve to bring up as the debate proceeds. I have outlined the considerations that govern me in determining what my attitude shall be in connection with this question.


John Power Howden: I dislike very much to
detain the house at this time, but I come from a constituency in Manitoba and represent part of the city of Winnipeg, and I desire to put myself on record in this matter. Notwithstanding all that has been said by the leader of the opposition, I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, whose attitude I heartily endorse in this matter. The hon. leader of the opposition has said that we have taken this attitude in order to gain political kudos. I might say to him and to this house that I realize very well that the action which the government has offered to take in this matter has not met with very much favour in many districts of Manitoba and in the city of Winnipeg, and I have no hope of gaining any political influence whatever by my attitude in this matter. But I believe that this is only justice and fair play to these men.
There is a good deal that can be said on both sides. There is a good deal that can be said in support of these men, that they were not given a fair chance. They were supposed to have a meeting with the then leader of the government and the Minister of Labour, but through a miscarriage of the mails and one thing and another, the meeting was never consummated. I might say that the Prime Minister of Canada at that time and the Minister of Labour did make an arrangement to meet these men, but they never turned up at the meeting.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is not the hon. gentleman mistaken? Did not the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour meet them in the post office1 on Sunday?


Mr.   BOWDEN@: They did, but that was on the 28th of May, and the 24th was a holiday, and a Saturday, and there was no mail that day, and these men did not get word that they were expected to meet the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen and the Minister of Labour at that time, and so the meeting fell through. When they did not meet these gentlemen on Sunday, an arrangement was made that they would be met on Monday, but when the men turned up on Monday they
Supply-Post Office

waited in vain, because there was no Prime Minister and no Minister of Labour present. It is suggested that this is a matter of reinstatement. This is mot a matter of reinstatement. The men are not being reinstated. The government that was in power at that time saw fit to re-engage these men in postal work, and it is not the suggestion or the intention of this government that these men be re-instated, but ever since that time these men who were skilled in the work in which they were engaged have been paid the wages of apprentices. Now, Mr. Chair-mam and gentlemen, the labourer is worthy of his hire, and this country has been engaging these men, a,nd paying them the wages of apprentices. For these reasons, I cannot see anything but fairness in the proposal that the postal workers should be paid the moneys they have earned in the past several years.
1 heartily concur in the attitude that has been taken by my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman,
there is developing a veiy large body of opinion in Winnipeg that, regardless of the merits of the strike, the time has come' when there should be some sort of settlement of this matter, which has constituted a long outstanding grievance. There are a great many people who are to-day taking the position that the strike has been over now for some nine or ten years, and that it is time for us to forget some of the bitterness of those days, and so far as the ordinary routine work is concerned try to arrange the affairs of this country in such a way that the best work can be done by public officials. The hope of doing anything like that is absolutely shattered by such a speech as that to which we have just listened to-night from tihe lips of the hon. leader of the opposition. He says that there is a vital difference between the strike in Toronto and the strike in Winnipeg. He sayis it was quite right that the mem who went out on strike in Toronto several years ago should be re-instated. I suppose that in going out they had-violated their oath of office, but nothing is said about any such violation by the hon. leader of the opposition in that connection. What is the distinction that the hon. leader of the opposition makes between the two? He said that the men in Toronto went out because they themselves had a grievance, and that the men in Winnipeg went out because' they had sympathy for other people who had a grievance. I wonder which is the higher type, after all. As a matter of fact, the men in Winnipeg did have grievances. They had 
grievances the year before; they had a strike the year before, and it had not been satisfactorily settled. Had they not had grievances they would not have been so readily appealed to as they were. I am afraid I must admit that-they could not have been so readily appealed to had they not had grievances. But if you are to make this distinction, that when a man feels injured himself he can take' action, but. when lie feels another man is being injured and wants to help him, then his action becomes criminal-I say that is a new doctrine.
I had hoped I might not have to speak on this question, because again and again the Winnipeg strike has been dragged before this house. Personally I am not at all ashamed of my association with the workers of Winnipeg at that time, and although I was in no sense responsible for the calling of the strike, the position which I held with the workers enabled me to see something of the inside of the committee meetings that were being held at least during the last weeks of the strike.
I was not there at first. I listened very closely to the evidence which was given at the trial, and I am proud to have a close personal friendship with a number of the men who were prominent in that industrial trouble.
Now, I do not like to accuse the leader of the opposition of wilfully misrepresenting things; I hope he has not done so. I should like to think he would be fair. But I do not think he could put before the country anything more fundamentally untrue and more cruel than the statements that he has made to-night. I cannot blame him, nor can I blame the country very much, for having an entirely false impression of what took place. In the first instance, the official reports were very misleading. I should like to take a minute or two to deal with them, and since the leader of the opposition has occupied a long time, I think I will follow his example even if this is the last night of the session. I cannot let these statements go as they have been presented to-night. At the outset, Commissioner Perry, of the Northwest Mounted Police, went west to make inquiries into what he understood to be the industrial unrest throughout that section of Canada. He set spies on the trade unions. They listened to what the men were saying. Undoubtedly the men were interested in the great world events that were taking place, and, among others, in the Russian revolution. The men were talking quite freely about the advisability of directing their efforts in this country along lines that would more effectively solidify their ranks in order that they might

Supply-Post Office
be better able to bargain with their employers. Some of them spoke of the industrial revolution. Every student of history knows that that refers to the transition from hand to machine work. But these ignorant spies misunderstood the entire labour movement. I knew what was going on at that time from some of my friends who happened to be on boards of trades in western cities, but I also knew from my labour friends the real situation regarding labour. Commissioner Perry came back and made a report to the government which entirely misrepresented the situation, because his report was based on information from men who did not understand, and could not very well be expected to understand, the labour movement. That was the background.
After that there came the misrepresentations in the daily press during the strike. 'Relatives of mine living in Vancouver read a story in circumstantial detail of the setting up of a soviet republic on the banks of the Red river. The story was manufactured out of whole cloth, absolutely not a scintilla of truth in it, and yet it appeared in detail from the fertile pen of a Winnipeg writer.
I know several of the men who were convicted. We have not here the facilities for transforming ourselves into a court of law. The unfortunate labour people, although they raised tens of thousands of dollars to pay legal fees and get the best defence possible, have not been able to follow those who had unlimited funds in presenting their case to the public at large. We cannot discuss the details to-night, but the leader of the opposition has made some very general and very sweeping statements. I am going to make statements which I am quite prepared to substantiate, and if I could do anything to secure a fair trial for the labour people of my own city of Winnipeg, and if I could do anything to bring to trial those who succeeded in putting over one of the most dastardly conspiracies, I should be delighted and should tnink that I had accomplished in this house something that was worth while. I say the trials that were put on there were farcical, absolutely a travesty of justice. From beginning to end they were farcical.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Farcical?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, from beginning to end. The leader of the opposition referred to the effort we made to get the matter before the Privy Council. There were representations made from the law courts of this country, and the influence was such that, added to the constitutional aspeats, the Privy Council did not hear the case. I think it is absolutely
unjustifiable 'that the leader of the opposition should endeavour to give the impression that the Privy Council endorsed what was done by our courts. We raised tens of thousands of dollars, and sent Mr. W. H. Trueman, K.C., now Mr. Justice Trueman, to England. He thought he had a good case, but he could not get the trial reviewed by the Privy Council.
If I had the time to go into the details I would tell the committee how the jurors were selected. Something like three hundred men were brought in from the country-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, it is not for me to call upon you to protect the honour of our courts against attack, but our rules of order on the subject are definite. If the committee desires that our courts should be attacked and those trials described in the language which the hon. gentleman has employed-


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I think I might speak on that question.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I wish to finish my remarks. It is not a point of order. If the courts need any protection I have no doubt that the legal fraternity will flock to the rescue. I am not suggesting that my hon. friend across the way (Mr. Thorson) is attempting to do that.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Marcil):: Order. With reference to the remark made by the leader of the opposition, the rule is very plain.
A member while speaking must not cast reflections upon the conduct of judges of superior courts unless such conduct is based upon a substantive motion.
It is a rule of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not think I have said anything to coime within that rule, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. CLARK:: How could a trial be
dastardly and farcical?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I say it was farcical, and if I had time I could very easily show that it was.


John Arthur Clark: Was it conducted by a court of law?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes. It was a trial for conspiracy, and anyone who has studied the laws of conspiracy knows what that means. Great reams of evidence were ruled out altogether. Certain laws of evidence were invoked Which had come down in cases of
Supply-Post Office

seditious conspiracy almost unchanged from the days of the Star Chamber. Men who had known nothing whatever of others until the time they were called into the court were held responsible for 'actions that had taken place in the lives of those other men years and years before. If anyone cares to read these trials-'and I wish I could persuade some of our legal friends to do so-they will find, in all the state trials in Great Britain, going back to the days of Lord Erskine, no more outstanding and fundamental piece of injustice than that which prevailed at the time of this strike. The leader of the opposition referred to the classical idea that justice is blind. Justice, indeed, sometimes is blind to the fundamental issues, blind to the larger affairs and to the most vital things that concern us to-day.
I want to refer for a moment to these charges made by the leader of the opposition. He says that an effort was made to establish the soviet form of government in Winnipeg; he says that the struggle was one between constituted authority and bolshevism; he says that an effort was made to destroy our country and its institutions. I realize that my own word does not go very far, but knowing my friends who were in that movement and knowing the details of the movement, I say that these charges are absolutely false. I wish to state, that fundamentally the strike was one concerning wages and forms of organization. There had been a controversy in the contract shops in Winnipeg; the ironmasters refused to recognize the unions in the form in which the men wished to organize themselves. They said, "We will treat with our own men but not with unions in which are men from the railways." That was the beginning. The right to organize was refused, a right recently conceded by the Peace treaty of Versailles. That was fundamentally the trouble. The machinists involved came to their fellow employees and talked it over indignantly. There might have been mass psychology; I suppose there was. But had we not bad mass psychology thousands of people would not have gone to the war; nor should we have very much in the way of political elections unless there were mass psychology; a good many would not be returned it.o parliament without mass psychology. The men in the trades and labour council discussed affairs and they said: This is a fundamental principle. The right to organize is fundamental. And so they asked-: What are we going to do about it? We cannot get help from the government in the matter. There was a government that was quite unsympathetic, so they said that the only thing 
to do was to make their protest by quitting work together. It was not at that time thought that there would be weeks and weeks of this struggle'; that did not enter into the mind of anyone. They said, " We will quit work as a protest against the unjust treatment which we believe our fellows are undergoing ", Among those who said they would protest in this manner were the postal workers. I say without any reservation whatever that these men who went out, the majority of them returned soldiers, had not the faintest idea of setting up anything like a soviet government in this country. I am not discussing soviet government to-night, but may I observe by the way, that soviet simply means council. The people of Russia are organized according to the council method instead of being organized and elected geographically as we are. The farmers get together and ' appoint their gtoup, and the various classes of labour do the same. There is nothing so frightful about the word " soviet " when it is understood; and it has be'en better understood by some of those who have travelled abroad and even better by some of my own humble labour people than by many of the business and professional ranks who read the Saturday Evening Post or Toronto Saturday Night and literature of that kind, or even by those who read the official reports. Read the official reports presented by our own government about that time: absolutely without any real foundation, the most extravagant statements were put into the official government reports and widely circulated across this country. I am not blaming the majority of the people of the country for not understanding the situation; I say they have been misinformed. Further I go -back to that time and note that to a large extent the people were suffering from war hysteria. The business men were talking about reconstruction, and the labour people were doing the same; but their reconstruction was not along similar lines. The labour m-en were hoping that out of the great turmoil of the war there would arise a better world. When then the business men undertook to refuse the primary rights of organization, can we wonder that the labour people decided to protest? And they did protest and the strike was called.
I am not going to minimize1 the evils of the strike; it was a serious one to the business community of Winnipeg. But again, a great de-al of misrepresentation has been kept up with regard to the details of that strike. One statement I -have heard most frequently i-s that the milk supply was cut off. What happened however, was this: when the workers

Supply-Post Office
found that everyone had said "We will go out in protest ", they got together at the city hall and took the ground that they must maintain the essential services. They therefore asked the1 milk drivers to go back to their work and keep the milk wagons going. Somebody suggested that it might be thought tlie drivers were leaving the strike, and so it was arranged to put a card on the wagon saying, " By permission of the strike committee ". The next day the business men's organization took two lines of attack. They said: "You see the strike is weakening; the men are going back ". It should be said that a number of these business men had agreed to this arrangement made in the city hall; it is regrettable that they had not the honour to stand by their agreement, and Mr. Alfred Andrews and others associated with him on the citizens' committee said, " Don't you see these strikers are weakening?" And they had in another column of their paper the announcement, " We cannot even get milk without the permission of the workers. Don't you see we are in the midst of a revolution?" They worked on the excited nerves of the people, because there was mass psychology then as well as in the war. The result was that the general public were' stampeded and the workers were indignant at what they conceived to be a lack of honour on the part of the business men. Consequently they said "Well, if jmu refuse to carry out your obligations, if you misrepresent us, we will refuse to give you milk to-morrow." I think it was a mistaken method

absolutely-although the' big milk companies have often failed to give milk for one reason or another, and we have had to go without. But in my judgment it was a mistaken thing to do. Then a milk service was organized by the citizens themselves. That is the milk incident and it is fairly representative of a number of things that took place then. I do not like to go into these details, but we have had the' facts repeatedly so misrepresented, that it seems to be absolutely essential that something of this kind should be done.


Mr. KAISER:: You are the only source of truth.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No; but I am, I hope, one source of truth. I would say to t.he hon. gentleman who has interrupted me that what I am saying to-night I am saying because I believe it to be true, and because I think it is in the interests of the country that, some of these matters should be straightened out.
It was said that the labour people in their labour hall had a soviet to control the city.
I will admit frankly that they had a tremendous power in their hands because the workers themselves, the builders, the milk drivers, the painters and machinists all said, "We are willing to have you direct our efforts." The citizens committee, which was practically an enlargement of the board of trade, said, "You have a soviet up there, you are controlling the life of this city." The real situation was this; if there was by any stretch of the imagination a soviet in the labour temple, there was also a soviet down in the board of trade rooms. Almost for the first lime in the history of my own city the authority of the board of trade soviet was challenged. That meant trouble. The leader of the opposition told us to-day that he received telegrams from the city of Calgary. Naturally, one might believe that-meant from the municipality, but when I asked the leader of the opposition he admitted frankly they were from the board of trade. In his judgment, the board of trade is practically the city of Calgary, and it was that very attitude that created the greater part of the difficulties in Winnipeg. The great majority of the people had looked to the board of trade to give a lead, and the board of trade had got the idea that they ran the city-as in fact to a very large extent they did. The board of trade consisted of bankers, representatives from the railways and representatives from the big industries and representative business men. This was the very sarnie type of organization the labour people were trying to create; a soviet, if you will. The business men had their soviet, if you want to use that word.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Were not these bankers and so forth organized as citizens to sustain and uphold constitutional government in the city of Winnipeg?


James Shaver Woodsworth: They considered
that they were organized to uphold constitutional government in the city of Winnipeg, but the constituted government which they wished to uphold was a government which allowed a few ironmasters to deny the right of the men to organize. That is what it meant in practice, a frustration of the workers ideals and the preventing them having their own representatives in parliament. The newspapers were influenced to a very large extent, and the workers had no opportunity of getting their case before the public through that medium.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Did not the workers want constitutional government?

Supply-Post Office


James Shaver Woodsworth: Of course they did. That is the wretched implication that is constantly thrown out. The leader of the opposition went into a rolling series of sentences with regard to the effort to establish a soviet form of government in Winnipeg, and all this kind of thing. Yet he also stated in another connection that these men were sitting in conference discussing their grievances. Do you suppose that men who were trying to overturn the government of Canada would be sitting listening to the higher officials of the Post Office Department? Why, it is absurd. At the very time the newspapers were sending telegrams out regarding the terrible conditions in Winnipeg, Mr. A. B. Hudson, at one time a member of this house, and several gentlemen were trying to find sonie sort of formula which would settle the trouble with the machinists, which formed the basis of the strike, and thus settle the whole matter.
A good many of the men who were associated with the strikers were returned soldiers. Thousands of returned men just back from the front, who had been labour people before they went abroad and who had found it difficult to secure work, and learned that many of the things for which they had fought were not being worked out here in Canada, associated themselves with the workers. Do you mean to tell me that these thousands of returned men were going to attempt to overturn the government of Canada? The whole thing is preposterous.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: For which they had been fighting.


James Shaver Woodsworth: For which they had been fighting. I say the idea is preposterous, and yet these stories were spread across the country. It is quite true that the Hon. G. D. Robertson came to Winnipeg and tried to settle the strike. The trouble is he went at it the wrong way. Had he not come I have not the slightest doubt the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba would have settled it in a much more satisfactory way than it ultimately was settled. But he came in his own peculiar fashion and stirred things up still more, and then he refused to receive a deputation of returned men who waited upon him; he would not let them march to the Royal Alexandra. It was that which caused the trouble that brought about the unfortunate incident in which there was shooting in the streets of Winnipeg.


Robert James Manion: Did my hon. friend say
that Mr. Meighen refused to receive a deputation of returned men?


James Shaver Woodsworth: It was Mr. Robertson ; I did not say Mr. Meighen.


Robert James Manion: Was he informed that it
was merely a deputation of returned men?


James Shaver Woodsworth: He was informed
that a procession of returned men wished to wait upon him at the Royal Alexandra, and he refused to see them. He did receive a small committee of these men, and this is what occurred so far as I am able to learn, and I was there and watching it very closely. The returned men said they were going to have a parade whether the Minister of Labour wanted it or not. They had been used to parading in France and they said they intended to have one in Canada. The labour men tried to dissuade them because they recognized the danger of such a parade on the streets at the time of public excitement. However, the returned men said they were going on with it. As a matter of fact, the parade did not even form up, but a great many people came out to see the show. It was a most regrettable occurrence; you would have thought a great circus was coming to town, and the streets were lined in every direction by curious crowds. When the time came for the parade the mayor read the riot act, and then the police came on the scene. There had 'been specials there who had antagonized the people by the way they had handled the crowds. There were some missiles thrown, and then there was the charge and the shooting. That is what occurred.
As I said in this house on one other occasion, if this was to be a physical revolution for the overturn of the government of this country, can you imagine for a moment that the workers would not have armed themselves? In all the investigations that were held there was not found one single gun in the hands of the workers. The idea of a physical revolution being brought about by the strikers in Winnipeg was absolutely preposterous.
I do not think I could do better, to illustrate the kind of hysteria which prevailed, even among our legal friends and the government officials at that time, than by reading a few words from some things I wrote in those days, and for which I was arrested.


An hon. MEMBER:: How did they find
you?


James Shaver Woodsworth: They found me
when I undertook to edit a paper in the place of a friend of mine who was arrested. I knew pretty nearly what was likely to happen and it did happen. I was arrested, but generally

Supply-Post Office
a man is arrested on regular charges. This was one of the charges on which I was arrested:
The jurors aforesaid do further present:
4. That J. S. Woodsworth, in or about the month of June, in the year of our Lord One thousand nine hundred and nineteen, at the city of Winnipeg, in the province of Manitoba, unlawfully and seditiously published seditious libels in the words and figures following:
"Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed: to turn aside the need from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey and that they may rob the fatherless."
Isaiah (110:1-2)
And they shall build houses and inhabit them: and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. They shall not build and another inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat; for as the days of a tree are the days of my people; and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
Isaiah (65:21-22)
That was sedition, according to the authorities at that time. I do not think I could give a better illustration of the positive hysteria which prevailed at that time. Do you think men could have a fair trial under those conditions? As far as the law is concerned I also call this to the attention of the leader of the opposition: My hpn. friend from Winnipeg South Centre, who was engaged in the prosecution of these cases, assures me that if my case had actually come to trial he feels quite confident they could have convicted me for having published these two passages.
Let me read in the few moments that remain to me a few paragraphs from the second count of the indictment:
What is the present situation? The sixth week of the strike leaves neither side in control; Both the strike committee and the "citizens" committee are determined to hold out. Neither is by any means at the end of its resources. In the ranks there is little sign of weakening. The strike may be prolonged for weeks. In the _ meantime the business men claim that the city is being ruined-is ruined and the workers undoubtedly will face the winter with reserves sadly depleted.
The City Council, the provincial government or the federal government have adopted no constructive policy. They stood prepared only for repressive measures.
When finally it did seem that the provincial government might effect a settlement, the Dominion government upset everything by its outrageous arrest of the strike leaders.
In the meantime, the returned soldiers are becoming restless and threatening to take things into their own hands. They are tired of the policy of "do nothing"-"keep order", so consistently followed by the strike leaders.
And a little further on:
Mediation, by a body as well equipped as any that is likely to be found, has apparently failed. There is a dead-lock.
What will happen? How will it end? Is there any possible way out?
Members, both of the strikers' committee and the citizens' committee say: "We must fight to a finish. We cannot afford to yield. If it takes three months, we will see it through," ...
I could go on through the whole of that article, which was a conciliatory article written after consultation with some of the leading business men in Winnipeg. I suggested that a commission should be appointed, and that in the meantime the work of the city should go on. I proceed to quote:
The task of such a commission would not be an easy one. The strike has revealed how widely divergent are the views of the employers and "the workers". Then, what is the alternative? A wide bridge must be found or "It's a fight to a finish," and then what?
Let us reiterate there are very reasonable men in both camps.
I said that at a time that, we were all liable to be arrested; I pleaded for mediation at a time when feeling was running high. That is on record and, in passing, I would note that it is curious that that very article should have been one of those said to be seditious. I have not read it all, but any hon. member is welcome to do so.
I have not very much more time to-night. I had not thought to go into this matter at all, but the issue has been forced by the leader of the opposition. I feel that he has been misinformed; he confesses that he has read official documents and he has read the newspapers, but I think I may claim to have been a little nearer the workers. Fundamentally, however, some of the same difficulties are in existence to-day as there were in 1919. Groups of men who occupy prominent positions in the community are accustomed to running things in their own way. I have called attention in this house to the fact that we have a very few people who, through interlocking directorates, control the whole situation. They do not brook any interference or opposition, and when outsiders begin to organize the workers or the farmers immediately they are up in arms. One of the leaders in the United States said only a few weeks ago, "If you wish to damage your opponent do not begin to argue against him but call him a bolshevist; that is the easiest way." That was done in 1919, and I hope the time will yet come when we may have a chance before some impartial tribunal to bring out all of the facts in connection with that struggle.
Now I come back to the postal workers. What are we going to do? I say that a great many of the citizens of Canada have found out in the last nine years how ill-founded were their fears and how one-sided were the sources of their information. I am not tiying

Supply-Post Office
to whitewash the workers; they may have [DOT]made mistakes, but I will say that if they made mistakes there were other, much stronger powers much more lacking in the fundamentals of constitutionalism. I am not a constitutionalist, because I believe that generally you have to initiate things outside the regular lines of constitution. On the other hand I am not one who advocates violent revolution; I have said that before and I have been bitterly condemned for so saying.


Charles Marcil: The hon. gentleman's time is up.


James Shaver Woodsworth: As I sit down I
would plead for fair play for these strikers.


Peter John Veniot: When this item was first
placed before the committee of supply it was my intention to then make the statement which I wish to now make. When I saw that there was a disposition to discuss the merits of this item I thought perhaps it would not be right to make my statement at that time. Let me say here that for over a year I have given this question serious, deep thought and study. I did not recommend to the government the insertion of this item of SI 15,000 in the supplementary estimates without having given it serious consideration. I cannot agree with those who say that because we would recognize what I considered at that time to be an injustice we are recognizing at the same time the results which developed from the strike of 1919. I know nothing of the Winnipeg strike; I do not want to know anything about the merits or demerits of it. I considered the case as I found it, and since I find in reading the press lately and in the speeches made on the floor of this house that wittingly or unwittingly the case has been misrepresented in many respects, I think it only fair that I should be allowed a few moments to lay the case before the committee as I found it.
The statement that these men were taken back under certain conditions is true, but it is equally true that these conditions were never fulfilled. These men were taken back; they had to undergo a civil service examination in order to qualify, which examination entitled them to be placed in the lowest classification of the service. They should have been placed in that classification and given an opportunity under the merit system to work up to the higher classification which they occupied before the strike. That was not done. When they underwent the civil service examination and were put in the low classification. receiving the wages or salaries of the lower classification, to my mind they should

have been kept there. When they went back into the civil service after passing that examination they were placed in a higher classification and called upon not only to do the work of the more highly classified officials which they were before the strike, but also to instruct the new men who came into the service and to help by their efforts to make the service more efficient.


Charles Avery Dunning: And at a lower salary.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, at a lower salary, at
the minimum salary. That is where I find the injustice, I am not going to criticize the Postmaster General or the government of that day at all. That is not my intention. I state this merely because I want the facts laid before the country so that there will be no longer any misrepresentation. The case of these men may not end here; it may come up again, and it is for that reason, finding as I have found arguments based upon misrepresentations of this case that I wish to place these facts now before the committee. There having been so much misrepresentation; there having been so much propaganda for and against taking the Winnipeg strikers back; that having been carried on for a certain number of years without anyone having had the opportunity or perhaps the courage to lay the facts exactly as they are before the people; knowing that there is still a very bitter feeling in this matter; that there is still a strong opposition in the house coming from sources where perhaps the case is not well understood; feeling that before I go further in the matter I should give the house a greater opportunity of investigating and examining into the case and not ask it to take this action at this late hour when we are about to prorogue; and feeling that this case will perhaps come up at some later date, I thought I should ask one of my colleagues to move that the vote be reduced by the amount provided for salaries and allowances, namely $115,000. But I want it distinctly understood that I am not doing so on the arguments advanced in the house to-night in that regard, because many of those arguments were not founded upon fact. I do not say that there was intentional misrepresentation; I do not wish to insinuate anything of the kind, but I have the facts before me. I may also point out that I would not withdraw from the case because of a veiled threat that this house might be called upon to sit for several days yet. I will now ask my colleague to move in the matter.


James Alexander Robb: Nine years ago, in June, 1919, a regrettable incident in the city of Win-

Supply-M iscellaneous
nipeg stirred and divided all the people of Canada and the bitterness of that event is yet apparent even in this parliament. This is not the first time that an item similar to this has been under consideration by the government since we assumed the responsibilities of office in 1921 and the wisdom of the government in not allowing the item to get past the treasury board and in not bringing it before parliament has been fully justified, it seems to me, by the debate we have had in the house to-night. Surely we members of parliament are not again going to divide the people of Canada by continuing a debate which had such unhappy results nine years ago. So I believe in what I intend to do I am meeting the wishes of all, even those who are supporting i.he pleas of the workers, and it is in the general interest of Canada that we should no longer debate this question. I gather from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) that one of the reasons for which the strikers at that time were censured was that they wanted to go on a parade. Well, this house wants to go on a parade within the next two hours over to the other chamber, so I beg to move:
That vote No. 519 be amended by striking out the item of $115,000, and that all the words from "salaries" in the first line to and including "Civil Service Act" in line 15 be eliminated from the record.


James Shaver Woodsworth: A fine example of
the power of the financial soviet.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Civil government-Auditor General's office- salaries, including the Auditor General at $10,000 additional to 7-8 Edward VII, chapter 6, and contingencies, $428,715.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the Minister of
Finance would not mind if I put on record a little matter that I should like him to look into. There seems to be a difference between the figures in the Canada Gazette and the figures in the Public Accounts with respect to public expenditures and income. Every month they summarize the preceding twelve months of revenue and expenditure and there is some slight difference between them. If the hon. gentleman can get an opportunity to look into the matter during the recess, I should like him to do so and we shall have a talk on the subject.


James Alexander Robb: I am glad my hon. friend has reminded me of that because it will be on the record. I have noticed the discrepancy.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-to provide for salaries and expenses of the advisers engaged in tariff inquiry. Payments may be made notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act or regulations thereunder, $100,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This item, I believe, includes the salaries of the tariff advisory board and I propose to move that the salary of the chairman of that board be struck out and that the item be reduced by $10,000. My hon. friend, the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) need not look around to see how amply he is supported behind, because I will make the motion when the bill is before the house.
I desire to make the protest now to expedite the business of the house and I will make the motion later.


Robert Gardiner: Does this item include an amount sufficient to supply members of the house with printed copies of the evidence taken before the tariff board?


James Alexander Robb: Provision is made in this item and in one in the suppleimentaries for taking and printing the evidence this year.


Milton Neil Campbell: I notice that this item states that payments may be made notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act or regulations thereunder. Does that mean that these employees are not under the Civil Service Act?


James Alexander Robb: They are not under the Civil Service Act.
Mr. fSIMPSON: I notice in an answer given by the Minister of Finance to a question asked by the hon. member for Piotou with respect to the submission of the two great steel companies to the tariff board, it is stated that some 350 other concerns had asked to be heard in that connection, and the Finance minister rather left the impression, that these 350 firms were opposed to the submission of the steed company. I just wanted the minister to clear that up.


James Alexander Robb: No. Had my hon. friend been in the house when I gave .the information asked for by the hon. member for Pictou, he would have observed that it was the hon. member for Piotou himself, by the form of his question, who may have left that impression. If my hon. friend will look up the record he will see that I said there were 350 odd firms who were interested in that application and wanted to be heard.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Miscellaneous
[Stage Direction]
Unforeseen expenses, expenditure thereof to be under order in council, on recommendation of the treasury board, and a detailed statement to be laid before parliament within fifteen days of next session, $80,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Would the minister give us some details? I notice -there is a decrease of 130,000.


James Alexander Robb: I have certain information
which I shall be glad to make available to the hon. member, but which I would prefer not to -put on the record, with reg-ard to the distinguished visitors we had from overseas last year in connection with the diamond jubilee. There was a considerable expenditure owing to the number of overseas visitors.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required to provide for grants to be made to the provinces of Nova Scotia, $875,000; New Brunswick, $600,000; Prince Edward Island, $175,000, pending consideration of provincial subsidies.
Robert Gardiner: A-t this late hour I am no't going to take any objection to -this item, but I would inquire from the Prime Minister when we may expect some reconsideration of the grants to -the several provinces.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is the intention of the government to give that matter consideration during the parliamentary recess, and w-e hope to be able to make some report next session.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Government contracts, supervision committee, salaries, including L. R. LaFleche, secretary, $6,000. and tha-t of L. H. Beer, salvage officer. [DOT]$5,000, telephones, telegrams, travelling ex

penses, stationery, etc., $21,500.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I confess that I have made very considerable efforts to ascertain just wha-t services have been rendered to- this country in this connection, in view of the purchase prices paid for goods. The Minister [DOT]of -the Interior yesterday, I -think, misuinder-i-stood certain observations tha-t I made. If *this purchasing committee is here for any tpurpose, it is to check government purchases. Ilhe war purchasing committee came into being during -the war, and it did very valuable work under Sir Ed-ward Kemp as chairman, and it was felt that if it was continued it might effect a great saving to the public revenues. I confess that I have found considerable difficulty in ascertaining just what services this organization is now rendering.
I would like to know just what it does.


James Alexander Robb: Tha-t is a very fair question, and I quite agree with the leader of the opposition that we might perha-ps use to a 
greater extent the supervision of this purchasing commission. They are operating to-day in just abouit -t-he same way as they operated when the body w!as first organized. They are running up against -the -purchasing -agents in all the different departments, but they are doing a good work. They arrange for the transfer of supplies between. the different departments; there is also the salvage department, which disposes of certain salvage. The purchases authorized amounted to $308,000; transfer of surplus goods from one department to another, $49,000; sales to the public of salvage, $124,540.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to put this on record. There is no branch of -the -public service in which a greater service could be rendered -to this country than by a proper commission of this sort which would be the central distributing body wit-h respect to supplies. Every great business now has a central purchasing department, and if (this were done, I am satisfied that considerable money could be saved to -the country; I am very certain of that from what I have myse'lf observed.
I think the Minister of Finance must have observed tha-t their purchases h-ave been very small, some $400,000, which indicates that they have not been doing much for $20,000 in salaries.
Item agreed bo.
o assist in the suppression of the white slave traffic, $1,500.
-Mr. GARDINER: What efforts a.re being made in this direction, and what results are expected to be acomplished from -this expenditure -of $1,500?


James Alexander Robb: This is a gran-t we give to the mounted police. I have no record of what they do with it.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Why is there a reduction of $1,000 in this item? It should be increased rather -than reduced.
Mr. -STEVENS: The mor-als of -the country are improving.
Item agreed -to.
Amount required toward defraying expenses of the Empire Parliamentary Association visit to Canada, $75,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This organization has been maintained since its inception as a nonpartisan body, and its value lies in the fact that the chairman of one branch may be of one school of politics, and the chairman of anlother of an opposing school. This organization i - coming to Canada as o-ur guests, and

Supply-Public Works
there are not lacking already some indications that with respect to the selection of men who will act for the press, for instance, they are all of one political school. This opposition has certainly not been consulted. My friends to my left may have been, buit we certainly have not been, consulted.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say to my hon. friend that I have not been consulted either. I think each of us has reason to be offended.
Mr. BENNETT'1: We are in the same boat.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand that the press gallery are arranging for their own representation. At all events, that I understand is what they have been asked to do, and so far as the government has to do with the matter we are quite prepared to accept whomever they may recommend.


[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.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This had better stand for the moment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will deal with Tokyo along with the other vote. We can pass this now. and I will make the motion later.


Charles Avery Dunning: A separate motion?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-to provide for the repayment to the insurance adjusters of the proceeds from a sale of cargo which was washed ashore from the steamer Brockton and regularly disposed of to the credit of the Receiver General, $2,473.73.
James Alexander Robb: This is to cover a case where
some flour was picked up at one of the Georgian bay ports. It was Sold and the money placed in the hands of the Receiver General. The insurers have now proved their claim, and we propose to pay them the money.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the payment of salaries and expenses in connection with the operation of the Canadian Farm Loan Act; any payment under this item to be by way of advance repayable to the consolidated revenue fund from the revenues of the Canadian Farm Loan Board as and when they accrue, $50,000.
Robert Gardiner: The Minister of Finance might give the committee some information as to what is proposed to be done under this vote.


James Alexander Robb: In the month of April this
year five of the nine provinces had passed legislation to come under the Farm Loan Act. None of them, so far as I know, have yet appointed their commissioners. As soon as the session is over we propose to take the matter up actively with them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that the reason for the delay?


James Alexander Robb: The legislation was only passed in April of this year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This will enable it to
function?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Mr. BARBER:: What provinces have passed legislation?


James Alexander Robb: Speaking from memory, Nova
Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for salaries and expenses of the advisers engaged in tariff inquiry. Payments may be made notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act or regulations thereunder- further amount required, $20,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What I have said in
relation to the item before will apply to this also.


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Works-chargeable to income-Nova Scotia-Truro public building-addition, $22,000.
Robert Gardiner: What is the nature of
thus public building?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: An addition.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public buildings-Ontario-Ottawa-purchase of property on Sussex street, $525,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, the item
of $525,000 for the purchase of property on Sussex street refers to property known as the New Edinburgh mills. I wish very briefly to state certain facts, and then to submit to the government that they should give this matter further consideration before making the expenditure. In 1924 the pur-
Supply-Public "W orks

chase of this property was under consideration, . and the government declined to proceed with it.
My point is briefly stated in the following terms. In the first place the value of the property to the government is as vacant property only. That is the only justification for buying the property. On this property there has been erected a very large and extensive concrete and brick sawmill, box factory and woodworking plant. Obviously, this plant is of no use to the government at all. Unquestionably it was a costly plant to erect, and undoubtedly there still remains in it, as a woodworking plant, a very substantial value. The value is set by two very highly qualified valuators, Messrs. H. Gale Legg and A. E. Cross. Their valuation is well done, and I have no criticism of it. Briefly stated, these are the values:	Land, $135,000; buildings,
$475,000; I submit to the committee, however, that the only value we should consider is the land value, not the building value, because these buildings are of little, use for the purposes suggested.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: What is the water-power value?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot go into details,
but I will say this, hydro-electric power is available in constant form so cheaply that I doubt the value of the water-power as an economical unit in connection, with the matter. The assessment is $178,000 on the land and $230,000 on the buildings. In the agreement to purchase will be found the following clause, and I wish to call this particularly to the attention of the government:
The party of the second part in consideration of the covenants and agreements hereinbefore entered into and on the part of the party of the first part to be done and performed, promises and agrees that and so soon as the parliament of Canada shall have appropriated a sufficient sum for that purpose, to accept delivery to them of the aforesaid conveyances and moveable property and take possession thereof with the lands and premises herein described, and to pay forthwith to the party of the first part the sum of $525,000. . .
It is mutually agreed by and between the parties hereto that should the parliament of Canada not appropriate the said sum at its present session, these presents shall at the conclusion of said session become null and void and of no effect.
My point is that the property at the present time is only under option, and while it might appear that by the passing of this estimate the government was irrevocably committed,
I submit it still may retire from the purchase if so desired. A further point is that a part of this property is a lease of Green island, which is the property of the government. The 
building referred to by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) the other day as the one to be used for the statistical bureau is on the end of Green island. I have the lease of Green island under my hand, given by this government in 1904, being a renewal of a longstanding lease. In that lease is a clause reading as follows:
And that if the said demised premises or any portion thereof be required for any purpose which the minister may deem to be in the public interest, possession of the same may at any time during the said period be resumed by His Majesty, his successors or assigns upon six months' notice in writing by the minister to the lessee to that effect, and in no such case shall the lessee have any claim to compensation on account of damage in any way resulting from such resumption or from the deternfination of this demise; but that the lessee may remove, within a reasonable time, any building or buildings which belong to or which may have been erected by it on the demised premises.
In other words, there is on this island a building which it is proposed to remodel and use for the statistical branch. I submit to the minister that he need pay nothing for that as this lease protects the government in that regard.
One further word in connection with the cost. I claim, Mr. Chairman, some knowledge of this class of business. It is in the line I have followed for many years, valuating property and so on. I have examined the property carefully, having in mind the statement of the Minister of Trade and. Commerce the other day, and I submit this: It will cost . from $150,000 to $200,000 expenditure on this property to make it suitable for the purposes suggested the other day-a statistical branch and national research bureau. There is no heating provided; no sanitary accommodation; there are just concrete pillars with a curtain wall of brick. The buildings are well constructed for woodworking but are not suitable for an office or as official buildings. They are not built for that; they are not suitable for the purpose at all, and I submit to the Prime Minister and his government that it will cost more to put these buildings into shape than it would take to construct another building back of Wellington street which could better house the statistical branch and give better service to parliament. I conclude with this one observation: I think it is possible and desirable to secure the lands for the purposes of beautifying that extent of the river to Rockcliffe park. If that is in mind, the land is suitable and desirable for the purpose. But its maximum value would be under $200,000. The buildings on that property, having that use in view, are merely an

Supply-Public Works
incumbrance and therefore parliament is ill advised to vote 8525,000 for the purchase of the property at this time.


John Campbell Elliott: I want to say just a word in answer to my hon. friend. I take it that we are on fairly safe ground in accepting his valuation of $200,000 for the land.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I said that was the outside; I wanted to be generous.


John Campbell Elliott: We will not quarrel on that point. I may say very seriously that I believe that this purchase has been made in such a way that it is unnecessary to defend it, and there is no need to quarrel with my hon. friend over a few thousand dollars. Let us take $200,000 for the land. I do not know what, my hon. friend would say as to the value of the waterpowers, the boiler and all the machinery used in connection with the property. I am told on very reliable authority- and the valuations we have bear this out- that they are worth in the vicinity of $200,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That would be excessive.


Robert Gardiner: What are you going to
do with them?


John Campbell Elliott: We are going to use them for lighting, heating and various other services.


Henry Herbert Stevens: You might buy the hydroelectric for one-quarter of the cost that would rneaD.


John Campbell Elliott: That would be quite impossible.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How many horsepower will it develop?


John Campbell Elliott: It is generating now 800 horsepower.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the maximum; what about the minimum?


John Campbell Elliott: That is the minimum; the maximum would probably be between two and three times that amount.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is the power lease sold?


John Campbell Elliott: Eight hundred horsepower of it was leased at $22 per horsepower. There can be no question that for the purposes for which the government require the property, these power rights and the machinery in connection with them are worth at least $200,000.


George Reginald Geary: Where do you get a maximum of two to three times your minimum?


John Campbell Elliott: If my hon. friend wishes I will give the figures.


George Reginald Geary: Do you increase your depth some way?


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps I had better make a statement to the committee: For some years the Gatineau Power Company, Limited, supplied the Ottawa Electric Company, from power house erected on these lands, with 800 horsepower at the rate of $2 per horsepower per month bringing in a revenue of $1,600 per month or at the rate of $19,200 per annum. The Gatineau Company have developed and used power up to 1,500 horsepower and it is possible that, upon further investigation, additional power could be developed at special seasons. It is obvious, therefore, that an average of 1,100 horsepower could be obtained and if this power was disposed of as rated, it would yield an annual return of $26,400 or 1,100 horsepower at $2 per month. If an allowance of $6,000 is deducted for running expenses a net profit of $20,400 per annum would result. $20,400 capitalized at 10 per cent equals $204,000 the value of the power. The department is paying $20 per horsepower per annum for power. The valuation, then, was $150,000 Among the machinery there was one engine, practically new. I am not going to enter into any elaborate discussion with regard to the value of the property. My hon. friend values it at $200,000; plus a minimum of $150,000 in respect of the power we get $350,000. Then take the buildings. My hon. friend says that they have no practical utility for the purposes of the government. He also refers to the fact that the lease held by the government would enable the government to construct those buildings, or a portion of them, on the leased property -and that is only a part-without compensation. If he reads the clause in the lease he will see that the lessees have power of removal. I do not think anyone will argue seriously that this government or any other, or any individual, for that matter would attempt to drive the lessees to the position of removing the building. The valuations placed on the buildings by competent valuators are: In parcel No. 2, which my hon. friend who has had the details will perhaps understand better than the various other members of the committee, the valuation is $156,944; for parcel No. 3 the valuation is $219,311, and for parcel No. 4, $41,384. It is not necessary to go into details. These buildings are fireproof and are well constructed, and they are very suitable for the purposes for which the government intend to use them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Don't say that.
Supply-Public Works


John Campbell Elliott: I would not if I did not know it to be true.


Mr. PECK:: I would like to ask the minister the reason for going so far away from the centre of the city?


John Campbell Elliott: I will be glad to answer
that question. I was dealing with the point of value, but apparently my hon.. friend is convinced, so I will pass on. I was just going to say that we have at leadt $350,000 of the $525,000 accounted for by the two items of land and power, which leaves $175,000 for the buildings which the valuators have estimated to be worth $273,000. For a little over $100,000 repairs can be made to the factory which will house the statistical branch, and thereby we will save about $60,000 -a year in rentals. As far as the convenience of the location is concerned, it is on the street railway and is only a few minutes from the centre of the city.


Robert Gardiner: What is the estimated cost of renovating these buildings?


John Campbell Elliott: The estimate for renovating the buildings required for the statistical branch is $108,000, so two years' rental will pay the whole cost of renovation.


Robert Gardiner: What about the others?


John Campbell Elliott: We have no definite estimates on the others.


Robert Gardiner: Have the others been
acquired for any definite purpose?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, they will be used for the research laboratories.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: I would like to ask the minister with regard to the Windsor post office site, as to whether or mot he will soon be in a position to invite tenders for the new building. As far back as February 17 the Border City Star came out with a statement from Mr. Odette, who, I believe, was perfectly sincere, that the minister was ready to invite tenders, and again on May 26 I find another statement to the same effect. The reason I am asking the question is that at present I am sure he could ge.t a better -price for that property-namely $485,000, which is at the rate of $2,300 per foot.-than he will be able to get some time from now, because business is moving south on Ouellette avenue, and there is a boom in real estate there at present. The party who has offered that price for the property is, I understand, willing to lease it to the government for three years, or until the new building is erected, which I suppose will be on Canadian National property. I know there has been a holdup with regard to the sale of that property

since 1923, when Mr. Healy was a member of this house. He had an idea at that time about the new city 'hall, but I received a telegram from the mayor of Windsor yesterday as follows:
Present city hall site abandoned; council favours waterfront for post office.


John Campbell Elliott: I am not in a position to give a definite answer at present. The hon. member will readily understand that until a decision is reached it is quite impossible for us to call for tenders.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: Then all the articles in the Border City Star were incorrect and without foundation?


John Campbell Elliott: They must be if they differ from anything I say.


Mr. GOTT:: I am glad the minister says
these statements are incorrect, because there has been such a ballyhoo in connection with this post office that the people of Windsor are beginning to believe that the Minister of Public Works is not sincere at all. I would like to ask him one question and that is whether he is going to give any serious consideration in the near future to the construction of a new post office in Windsor?


John Campbell Elliott: Certainly; I am doing so now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I understand it, the point is that the government will not sell, the property until such time as provision is made in the estimates for a new building, and there will be no such provision until next session.


John Campbell Elliott: That is right.


Eccles James Gott: In what- way is the department giving favourable consideration to this matter?


John Campbell Elliott: I did not say we were giving favourable consideration, but my hon. friend knows perfectly well that very serious consideration is being given that matter. There is no doubt that they need a new post office in Windsor, but while a number of the people are agreed as to the site which Should be selected, still there is a certain section of the people who do not think this is the best place for it. I want to say to my hon. friend that if he thinks I am going to make any statement of pdlicy before it is decided upon, that is more than I can do.


Eccles James Gott: What the minister says is true; 100 per cent of Ithe people of Windsor are in favour of a new 'building; the three sitting

Supply-Public Works
members for that district favour it; the minister favours it, so why should there be any delay?	.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Manitoba
Dauphin public building-addition, $7,500.
Emerson-building for custom* and immigration purposes, $32,500.
Transeona-public building, $20,000.
Winnipeg-hospital for Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, $250,000.
Winnipeg-immigration building No. 1-improvements and repairs, $6,500.
Winnipeg public building-improvements and alterations, $16.000.-$332,500.
Hugh Guthrie: A very substantial part of this amount is to be spent for a D.S.C.R. hospital in Winnipeg, but I do not know why such a hospital is necessary there nine or ten years after the war. There was a time when the department operated a very up-to-date hospital in that city; that building is still in existence and is now part of the Osborne barracks. I understand that it is a wonderfully equipped hospital, but has an average of only about six patients per day. Why it should be necessary to erect a new hospital for the department is something I do not understand, and I think the minister will have to explain this item to some extent. It is also said that a large medical staff is being carried in connection with the work of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, and in Winnipeg it is supposed that that staff will be made permanent if this item goes through. Why not use the Osborne barracks hospital, which is ,n military hospital practically unused and modern in every respect, instead of spending $250,000 on a new structure at this time?


John Campbell Elliott: I regret that my colleague the Minister of Health is not here at present; he would be able to give the reason perhaps better than I can. However, my recollection is fairly accurate, and I think the hospital to which my hon. friend refers has been taken over by the militia, so that other provision must be made for the patients now being looked after in civic hospitals. They have notified the Department of Health that the accommodation in the local hospitals is such that they can no longer accommodate the departmental patients, and other accommodation must be provided.


Hugh Guthrie: There is abundant room
in the Osborne barracks hospital. It was built as a department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment hospital and, when there was no further use for it or not sufficient use to maintain it as a hospital, the patients were transferred to the civic hospital. It has been used as a military hospital by the permanent forces ever since the transfer, and there is an average of six military patients in it. I am informed that there is abundant room in it for all Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment patients now in the civic hospital, and we could save $250,000.


John Campbell Elliott: My information is that
the property has not been utilized for hospital purposes for some time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it is available?


John Campbell Elliott: It has been taken over
by the .militia department and is being utilized for their purposes. It has not been available for hospital purposes for some time. There are approximately two hundred patients in Winnipeg for whom hospital accommodation must be provided. Accommodation is provided for sixty patients at Deer Lodge, and 140 are provided for in the civic hospital. .The civic hospital has given the department notice that they require all their accommodation and can no longer continue to accommodate the department's patients there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Calgary-grain inspection building, $2,500.
Robert Gardiner: I do not object to this amount, but I would remind the Minister of Public Works, after receiving the return showing the amount of rental paid in Calgary for buildings used for government purposes, that he should give serious consideration to the erection of a new post office.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rents, repairs, furniture, heating, et cetera- Ottawa public buildings and grounds-Dominion public building, $316,500.
Robert Gardiner: I should like to say
a word or two about the sidewalks which have been constructed around the parliament buildings. The minister brought down a return regarding the contract, and I notice it calls for an inch and a half finish. If the minister examines the sidewalks I think he will find that the finish is very much less than that; I would say it is not more than a quarter of an inch. I should like to inquire of the minister if that is the manner in which such public works are usually carried out. If so we certainly are not getting value for our money.


John Campbell Elliott: The return which was
furnished to my hon. friend some time ago shows that the contract provides that if the work is not done in accordance with the specifications the contractor will make it good.
Supply-Public Works

The file which I gave him shows that the contractor was notified that the work was not up to specification, and it also contains a copy of a letter-I can show him the original -in which the contractor agrees to make good the walks which have proved deficient.


Robert Gardiner: The minister must remember that the contract called for an inch and a half finish, and if that was carried out the sidewalks would not scale as they have done during this last spring. What are your inspectors doing to allow work like that to be passed? No doubt you had inspectors on the job, and if that is the class of inspector you have it is time you got others.


John Campbell Elliott: I will frankly say to my
hon. friend that I do not think that job is a very great tribute to the inspector who was in charge of it. However, I am told that the requisite thickness was put into the work, but apparently the frost has affected it. The contractor has agreed to make it good; that is all I can say.


Robert Gardiner: We will see what happens to it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-Ontario, $716,989.12.
Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I should like to ask the
Minister of Public Works why the harbour at Oshawa has been overlooked. The government built half the harbour and then stopped work immediately after the last election, and nothing has been done since. Does the government propose to do anything to this harbour, or is its intention to let it go to waste? Many thousands of dollars of the public money are being wasted due to the fact that the work is not proceeded with. I would ask the Minister of Public Works if it is the intention of the government to do anything more with it.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend is under
a misapprehension if he thinks it is the purpose of the government to abandon work which has already been done. This matter has been given some consideration and it has been decided that nothing further would be done this year.


Robert Gardiner: I should like to ask
the minister why it is that such large amounts appear in the supplementary estimates. Was it not possible to get these items in the main estimates?


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps the best answer
I can give is to refer my hon. friend to the remarks of the hon. gentleman who has just

spoken. He says there is not enough, and the same claim comes from all over the country. These items do not contain nearly all the requests made or nearly all that were perhaps necessary, but they are all we are able to provide.
Item agreed^to.
Harbours and rivers-Saskatchewan and Alberta, $10,600.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Has the minister been
able to decide whether a telegraph line will be constructed from the Peace river to Fort Vermilion? It is very badly needed1.


John Campbell Elliott: We will not be able to
do it this year, in view of the fact that we have not been able to secure an appropriation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-British Columbia, $241,100.
Mr. DICKIE:: It is painful for me to halt this mad rush, but a number of items were recommended by your engineer in British Columbia and I notice that you have overlooked about nine different suggestions that he has made for money to be expended1 in the various islands in my constituency. I do not expect everything, but I hoped that when the main estimates did not provide for some of them I would find them in the supple-mentaries. However, my hope has. been dispelled, and if the minister will just promise that anything that is really necessary for these island wharves will be looked after by the general vote, I will withdraw any opposition.


John Campbell Elliott: If the engineer to whom
my hon. friend has referred had only nine of his recommendations turned down, he is more fortunate than most of the other engineers who have been making recommendations, because there is a much greater number made by most of them that we do not seem to be able to get funds for at the present time. But I will assure my hon. friend that, as far as it is humanly possible out of the general vote to meet the most urgent cases, that will be done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Works-chargeable to income-Quebec -Ellis bay harbour improvements, $300,000.
Herbert Bealey Adshead: There is an amendment
of mine to this item.


John Campbell Elliott: Item No. 137 in regard to Quebec has been carried with the exception of the Ellis bay item, and in view of the discussion that took place and the views that were

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
expressed in various parts of the house I am requesting one of my colleagues to move that the item of $300,000 for Ellis bay be reduced to $200,000 and that the following be added to the wording of the vote:
Conditional upon the public being permitted to use the wharf for landing purposes.


Mr. SHORT:: I would suggest that the
Minister of Public Works treat this item in the same way as the Postmaster General treated the item in connection with the Winnipeg postal employees, because it is a contentious matter and it is liable to bring forth a reat deal of discussion. At this late hour that would be the best way to treat it.


John Campbell Elliott: This is a matter where
there is a contract. A year ago the house committed itself to the expenditure in connection with Ellis bay.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: In the estimates?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How much is the contract?


John Campbell Elliott: Around half a million-
$494,000. An amount of $187,000 worth of work has been done. The balance will be done this year and next year. It is thought, in view of the objections that were raised, it might be a good thing to defer the balance of $100,000 which we are cutting off until next year.


Harry Bernard Short: Last year the department
expended $150,000. Does the minister expect to expend $200,000 this year?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: Is there a contract in
existence at the present time for the completion of this work?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: It is rather a crude
way of doing business to make a contract of that description without the consent of parliament.


John Campbell Elliott: We had the consent of
parliament last year to the initial expenditure. That is the practice that has been followed practically since confederation. Where we are committed to a work involving an amount larger than can be expended in one year, the department have foimd that they can get the work done for a much smaller amount per cubic yard by letting the whole contract, and that is the practice that has been followed by the various governments in administering the department.


Robert Gardiner: What is the department paying per cubic yard under this contract?


John Campbell Elliott: Fifty cents per cubic yard for the removal of approximately 623,068 cubic yards of packed gravel and clay and $5.50 per cubic yard for 37,080 cubic yards of rock.


Harry Bernard Short: Will this amount of $200,-
000 complete the contract?


John Campbell Elliott: No, it will take about
$175,000 more.


John Frederick Johnston: It is moved by Mr. Adshead that the vote of $300,000 for Ellis bay be reduced by $290,000.
Amendment (Mr. Adshead) negatived.


Mr. CARDIN:: I beg to move:
That the item for Ellis bay amounting to $300,000 be reduced to $200,000 and that the following be added to the wording of the vote. "Conditional upon the public being permitted to use the wharf for landing purposes".


Robert Gardiner: What is the intention
of the minister with regard to this being conditional upon the public being allowed to use the wharf? What does that mean?


John Campbell Elliott: It means that the public
shall have all the advantage of this wharf as a public wharf so that vessels of all kinds, whether they are connected with the company or not, shall have the right to use the wharf the same as they can use a government wharf.


Robert Gardiner: How many vessels will
this wharf accommodate?


John Campbell Elliott: It is a very large wharf.
I think it is over a mile altogether and it will accommodate a large number of vessels. Something like three hundred vessels outside of the company's vessels landed there in 1927.


Robert Gardiner: What business would
they be transacting there if they are not transacting business of the company?


John Campbell Elliott: Taking supplies, taking passengers, fishermen, and so forth. Then the harbour also provides a very good shelter. On various occasions, vessels have put in there for shelter, and on one Occasion, I am informed by the man in charge of a boat that was in distress, that if it had not been for this shelter the passengers on the boat would probably have lost their lives. If anybody will look at the map, he can easily see that it is the most suitable harbour for a shelter in that part of the St. Lawrence.


Robert Gardiner: I do not know that it is of much use for the minister to move for a . reduction in this item. I think he might as well 'take the full1 amount, because he is going

Supply-House of Commons
to give this company a good slice anyway out of the public treasury for their own benefit. However, I shall be anxious to see what agreement is entered into with the company as to the rights and privileges of outsiders going upon the island.


George Reginald Geary: What did the company expend on the wharf?


John Campbell Elliott: The company built the whole wharf for $2,500,000.
Amendment (Mr. Cardin) agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Reconstruction of the north shore St. Lawrence telegraph system from Murray Bay to Bersimis, $25,000.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I would remind the Minister of Public Works that we have been asking for a telephone service on the island of Orleans for a long time, and I hope that next session, or before, provision will be made for providing the island with a telephone service There are six parishes on the island, and these people seem to be neglected by the government.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Corallines Investigation Act, $30,000.
George Reginald Geary: Does this represent the work done last year in connection with the investigation held in connection with the trading in proprietary drags? Is this a permanent staff?


John Campbell Elliott: This is the general staff. I think the work in connection with that inquiry was extra.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration, Employment Offices' Coordination Act, $17,000.
Herbert Bealey Adshead: Can the minister tell us how many returned soldiers have been placed by the employment bureaus? There seems to be an impression that the employment agencies have not been giving the returned soldier a square deal. I aim not making that charge, but I would like to know how many returned soldiers have been placed.


George Reginald Geary: I think the Minister of Labour is doing all right in Toronto in that respect.


John Campbell Elliott: The annual agreements between the Department of Labour and the provinces contain a special clause under which the provinces underbake to make special efforts to provide facilities for finding work for partially disabled ex-service men. The department has engaged an additional staff to undertake this work in a specialized manner

in certain of the larger centres throughout the country. "Special handicap" sections were created, and they have done quite an extensive work in placing handicapiped ex-service men, and they are meeting with a great deal of success through the cooperation of .employers in employing these handicapped men. During 1926-27, 7,775 handicapped ex-service men were satisfactorily placed in employment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Technical Education Act, $4,000.
Herbert Bealey Adshead: Can the minister say anything about the extension of the Technical Education Act to the prairie provinces?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I have already given the house information on that point.


Robert Gardiner: When does the act expire?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Next year, 1929.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Salaries, $242,800; expenses of committees, clerical assistance, etc., $101,950; contingencies, $48,725; publishing debates, $60,000; estimates of sergeant-at-arms, $187,711.10.-Total, $641,186.10.
James Alexander Robb: I beg to move that the item of $48,725 for contingencies be reduced 'by $1,950, being the amount estimated to provide for purchase of 650 copies of the Canadian Parliamentary Guide.
Amendment .agreed to.
Mr, KENNEDY: Do I understand that this is the vote to provide salaries for the staff of the House of Commons? If so, I would like to ask a question in. connection with the members' stenographers staff. A petition was signed by about 165 or 175 members, and representations were made to the Speaker of the house, requesting an increase in the salaries of that staff. In view of those representations I would like to know if any increase has been decided upon, and if so, what?


Hewitt Bostock: I have received representations from the hon. gentleman and from two or three others who presented a petition on behalf of the staff. Every year I am met with the same request on the part of temporary employees in the service of the House of Commons. After receiving a delegation composed of the hon. gentleman and five or six other members of the house,
I promised to consult the secretary of the Civil Service Commission. I may say it would



192S

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
be much more satisfactory to me if the whole service of the House of Commons was under the commission because, as I say, every year I am assailed by requests for salary increases. We have an excellent staff of stenographers. Some are paid $3.50 and others $4.50, and two chiefs receive $5, per day. Now, I cannot take upon myself to give an increase to all those employees, for I do not know their qualifications. I may say to the hon. gentleman that our stenographers receive on the average as much as, and in some cases more than, stenographers in the other departments receive. However, I have arranged with Mr. Smith, the very able director of the stenographic staff, to take this matter up with me after the session, and we will then see what can be done.
Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I cannot agree with Mr. Speaker's statement. I was asked to give the question some study by the members in this corner of the house. I have discussed the matter with the secretary of the Civil Service Commission,-


Hewitt Bostock: I have the correspondence.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: -I asked him in what grade most of the stenographers would classify under the Civil Service Commission.


Hewitt Bostock: How does he know?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: He said they would
mostly classify grade 2 and grade 3. I think it is possible for a grade 2 stenographer in the civil service to earn from $1,080 to $1,380 per annum, with two weeks holidays; and for grade 3 to earn from $1,380 to $1,620, or an average of about $1,500. Under the present conditions the earning of the stenographers must be about $1,200 per annum, or from $100 to $300 lower than the stenographers in other departments of the government who are doing approximately the same kind of work. The longer hours of work of the House of Commons stenographers must also be taken into account, running from seven to ten hours per week in excess of the hours in the other departments. It seems to me that the salaries of the stenographers of this house should compare with those received by the stenographers in the other departments. In my opinion we are voting salaries for the house stenographers that are lower than those paid to stenographers in the civil service doing the same kind of work, and if this is the case I think the Commons staff should be brought in line with the civil service staff generally.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Mr. Chairman, I
support the position taken by the member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy). The House of Commons stenographers are receiving a salary for only four or five months of each year, and when the session is over they have to try to find some other employment, which is not at all easy in July or August. I think they are perfectly justified in their demands for increased pay, and therefore I signed the petition.


Mr. WARD:: I should like to ask His Honour through you, Mr. Chairman, if the report is correct that the salaries of the stenographic staff of the Senate have been raised.


Hewitt Bostock: There is no Senate Board of Internal Economy to consult with us. There are only five or six stenographers there. But to give the increase which has been requested on behalf of the stenographers by some hon. members would require an additional sum of $26,000. I have not the money.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I am astonished that
five or six stenographers in the Senate should receive an increase and the Commons stenographers should not. The work of the stenographers in the Senate is not to be compared with the work of those in the Commons. Because there, is a large numiber of stenographers is no reason why they should not be put on the same footing as the stenographers of the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Health of animals, administration of The Animal Contagious Diseases Act and Meat and Canned Foods Act, and necessary buildings, $2,270,000.
Edward Armour Peck: Will the minister give me
some assurance that I can go back to Peterborough with the information that the grant which has been made annually to the industrial fair will be continued this season? It is an important matter to the various fairs concerned, I know that in Peterborough provision has been made to spend the appropriation in prizzes. That has been customary. Will the grant be continued?


Charles Avery Dunning: I
cannot add anything to what the minister himself said with regard to the matter when he was present. But I can undertake to say that the representations of my hon. friend will be called to the attention of the minister.
Mr, IRVINE: I do not wish to delay the committee and in order to save time I am going to read a letter which will outline to
<S upply-A gricul lure

the minister the facts which I wish to bring to his notice. I read the following letter:
Mr. Wm. Irvine:
Dear sir: In answer to your letter of March 30/28. As president of the Blindman Valley Cooperative Association I am speaking for 1,200 farmers who have expressed their desire to have the condemnation insurance either collected by the government on all hogs and cattle going through the yards and to the packer direct whether by farmers, drovers or packer agents and the buyer to be recompensed to the extent of his loss by tuberculosis or to have it abolished entirely, preferably the latter.
We are well aware this is not a government law but it is a practice carried on by the packers which makes it just as hard for the producer to bear, he being at the mercy of the packer who well knows what percentage of tuberculosis there are in the county hogs. Until the cooperative assocations came into being the packer was not deducting this insurance, but since the farmers have started shipping cooperatively the packer will pay his agents in full for their hogs and deduct the one-half of one per cent insurance from the farmer shipment.
Our association had several shipments of hogs inspected and had the inspector receipts forwarded to us and out of those shipments which cost us some hundreds of dollars insurance, the loss to the packer was only two or three pigs' heads, not carcasses, but the heads only.
Out of the same district the packer was buying at the same time from his own agents and is doing so at present time, not deducting any insurance. As he well knows there is no loss, but is taking the advantage of this insurance to the discomfort of the cooperative shippers. This is also the discussion arrived at the recent live stock convention at Edmonton, March 20, 1928.
Yours truly,
R. E. Chowen.
Dairying:
Cargo inspectors	
Dairy and cold storage inspector	
Dairy promoters, graders and testers.. .. Inspectors	
Fruit and Vegetable Inspector	
Seed, feed and fertilizer:
Inspectors and analysts	
Live stock and health of animals:
Live stock promoters and inspectors.. .. Promoters of egg production and inspectors.
Sheep promotion	
Stockyard agents	
Swine graders	
Veterinary inspectors (full time)	
Veterinary inspectors (part time)	
Lay inspectors	
Stock car inspectors	
Animal caretakers	;	
Animal pathologists	
District supervisors of meat inspection..
Destructive Insect and Pest Act:
Insect pest or plant disease investigators.. Plant pathologists	
I want to ask the minister whether he knows just exactly how much was collected in connection with this insurance, exactly how much loss was sustained owing to, disease, and whether he is willing that the government should take steips for some 'supervision over the collection of this percentage on diseased cattle and stock? Will he see to it that the practice is prohibited?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am advised by the
deputy minister that there is at present no provision enabling the department to deal with the matter mentioned by my bon. friend. I will undertake to see that the letter which the hon. gentleman has read is brought to the attention of the minister immediately on his return, in order that consideration may be given the point raised.


Thomas Edward Simpson: There has been discussion from time to time during the session about the number of inspectors employed by this department. I took the trouble to look up the Auditor General's report for the year 1927, because I had intended to say something on this item. However, at this late stage of the session I think all I should do is place the figures on Hansard for the information of the house. Without including the inspectors in the civil service here in Ottawa and exclusive of the officials and men on the experimental farms of Canada, the number of inspectors is as follows:
Year ending March 31, March 31,
	1927	1922
12		
1		
89		
10	112	33
	120	67
	104	58
84
12
278	*
111
9
5

	684	623
15

Supply-Agriculture
		Year ending	
Destructive Insect and Pest Act:-Con.		March 31, 1927 '	March 31. 1922
Assistant plant pathologists		.. 13		
Entomologists		.. 12		
Assistant entomologists		.. 36		
	' 		200	143
		1,220	924
A good deal has been said in the last few days about technical men employed by this department, and it has been said they are not receiving enough money. It seems to me that these outside inspectors do a great deal of overlapping; one man will go into a community for the purpose of grading eggs; another man will go in for the purpose of grading and testing butter; another to grade vegetables; another to grade hay and so on. Surely we can get men who have been raised on farms and who have a reasonable degree of education, who can go into a community and grade several of these different products. In this way we could afford to pay them better salaries and still cut down on travelling expenses. According to part A-55 of the Auditor General's report the travelling expenses of officials of the Department of Agriculture for the year ending March 31, 1927, amounted to $843,577.91. If we add to that the expense of delegates to conferences, the travelling allowances of judges at fairs, the travelling allowances to persons making milk tests, the travelling expenses of purchasers of stock in car lots and the travelling expenses of delegates purchasing rams, we have a total of $876,638.39. If we add to that the cost of new automobiles, repairs and renewals, which comes under the head of travelling expenses, we have a total of $902,595.43. If my information is correct we could save a very considerable portion of that sum if we cut out some of this overlapping.
The estimates of the Department of Agriculture since the present minister took charge, as shown in the general estimates, have increased from $5,179,094.50 in 1921-22 to 88,217,025 in 1928-29, an increase of over 58 per cent. An ordinary business concern would not have any objection to an increase of that kind if they were attaining corresponding results, but that is not the case. According to the Bureau of Statistics the value of dairy products for the year 1920 was $288,836,093, while in 1926, it had dropped to 8249,710,000. The value of fruit production in 1921 was $45,262,788, and in 1926 it dropped to $21,611,379. The value of vegetable production including potatoes in 1921 was $108,047,600, while in 1927 it dropped to $80,241,56103-260
000. The value of farm eggs in 1921 was $40,968,841, and in 1927 that increased to $80,110,000. The number of sheep on farms in 1921 was 3,675,857, while in 1927 it was 3,262,700.
I am not going to take up the time of the house with any more of these figures, but it seems the more inspection we have the smaller our production comes, according to the figures I have given from the official returns.


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course my hon. friend knows that the minister is absent, and he also knows that if the minister were 'here he would be quite capable of giving an effective answer to the figures and arguments produced by my hon. friend. I might point out, however, with respect to the overlapping which my hon. friend alleges, that already the inspection of seeds, feeds, fertilizers, insecticides, hay and twine are conducted by the same men, and there are many other instances where inspectors do two kinds of work. It is not technically possible in some cases to do so, however.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I would like to support the remarks of the hon. member for Wetas-kiwin with regard to this stock insurance. That condition has been very unsatisfactory in Canada. The farmer is charged the flat rate whether the stock are healthy or otherwise, and I think something should be done to better this condition.


Robert Gardiner: I would like to ask the minister if he could give the committee any information as to the progress being made in experiments having to do with inoculation for the prevention of bovine tuberculosis?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is almost eleven o'clock and we must make provision for going on later; therefore I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Progress reported.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I move that this house be not adjourned at eleven o'clock p.m. this day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture


Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following letter:
Ottawa, 9th June, 1928.
I have the honour to inform you that His Excellency the Governor General will proceed to the Senate chamber on Saturday, 9th June, at 11 p.m. for the purpose of proroguing the present session of parliament.^
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
James F. Crowdy,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.
I understand that His Excellency has graciously agreed to come at a later hour.
It is moved by Mr. Robb that I do now leave the chair for the house again to resolve itself into committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Health of animals, administration of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and Meat and Canned Foods Act, and necessary buildings, $2,270,000.
Charles Avery Dunning: In answer to my hon. friend's question, I am advised that certain experiments are now being conducted with a new serum both at Ottawa and in Alberta. The experiments are now approaching maturity, and let us hope the results obtained will enable a convention to be held towards the fall when the knowledge thus obtained can be disseminated.


Mr. LUCAS:: Will the minister say how
many animals are under observation in Ottawa?


Charles Avery Dunning: About thirty.


John Ewen Sinclair: I want to say
one word in regard to the statement which was read into the record a few moments ago by the hon. member for West Algoma (Mr. Simpson). As an agriculturist I feel I have not the right to sit here and allow the statement to go without expressing an agricultural viewpoint. The inspections that are made by the Department of Agriculture are made at the request ol the agriculturists of this country, and they are doing incalculable good in raising the standard of our product. Many of the inspectors referred to are self sustained,
[Mr. Mackenzie King.j
and the farmers are paying the cost of the inspection. They are asking the department to go further than the department is ready to go, and it is unfair to agriculture for a member of this house to put such a statement on record in the absence of the minister.


Thomas Edward Simpson: The statement I put on
record was from official figures.


John Ewen Sinclair: From what
figures?


Thomas Edward Simpson: The Auditor General's
report.


John Ewen Sinclair: What you referred to are inspections and not inspectors. The inspectors work in the various branches of the department and make several inspections, and what my hon. friend refers to are the inspections. Many of these are self sustaining and paid for by the farmers and you will find the receipts credited accordingly in the report of the Receiver General.


Thomas Edward Simpson: I entirely agree with the
hon. gentleman that agriculture is a basic industry and we should vote all the money that is required and which will be properly spent, but my contention was that these inspectors were overlapping.


John Ewen Sinclair: I must disagree with that.


Mr. MacNUTT:: Since the hon. member for Algoma West (Mr. Simpson) has brought up the question of government inspectors under the Department of Agriculture, I would like to read a short editorial which appeared recently in the Eastern Chronicle published in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia.
The Chronicle is owned and edited by James A. Fraser, one of the most influential Liberals in that province, and the opponent of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) in the last election.


Charles Avery Dunning: We will be very glad to have the hon. gentleman put it on Hansard, and we will take it as read.


John Ewen Sinclair: We will take it as the opinion of a newspaper editor who does not understand agriculture.


George Taylor MacNutt: This is the article:
On the Farm
Visitor:	Are those men I see about your
place, your hired men?
Farmer:	No, I have no hired men; those
men are government experts. That one in the barnyard attends to the health of the cows and

Supply-Agriculture
sees that they are kindly dealt with; he was sent here by Industrial relations, Halifax. That one down at the gate is there to prevent me selling any vegetables except by weight. I have no scales, hence do not sell any vegetables. Last summer I did quite a business selling early vegetables to wayfarers, but not having scales this year I did not sell any. The man you refer to was sent here by Hon. Mr. Motherwell, Ottawa. He has one on each farm, 9,000 of them altogether, so it is said. Oh, yes, that man over in the turnip field is Dr. Melville Cumming. His job is to prevent turnips from growing big, and to see that one of them does not grow bigger than the other. Not a bad fellow, Melville; but his head gets, at times, not lousy, but buggy, and then he cuts up as queer capers as any of them. But of all the ministers, the Minister of Agriculture has them all beaten. He has his experts, wherever a stalk of grain grows-thousands of experts. The other day in the House of Commons when Motherwell was on one of his particular frolics, all the opposition members were after him; among them Col. Cantley, who said to him, "If you go on as you are going, there won't be a Liberal farmer in Pictou County at the next election." "So much the better for you," retorted Minister Motherwell. Members finally appealed to Hon. Mr. Lapointe to decide whether the foolish laws being passed by the minister were intra vires of parliament. Mr. Lapointe declined to commit himself, alleging that he likes freedom. "Oh," Motherwell replied in effect, "I dealt with bis deputy and -he assured me that this law to sell roots and vegetables only by weight would be all right until it was appealed against in the courts."
It did not appear that the Premier was present, but curious to relate not one of the Liberal members either praised or blamed the apparently mad minister for his foolish course. But in order to be fair we must relate that a farmer or gardener can sell a bunch of carrots or a bunch of onions without weighing it, providing the green tops are left on.
As a rule, a political party could carry on if the half-baked fools they sometimes elect would act half wisely in parliament. Ministers like Motherwell would kill any government even if the angel Gabriel was Premier.


William John Ward: Before this vote passes I
would like to say a word regarding the grant to B fairs.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: We have passed
that.


Charles Avery Dunning: That vote was passed
long ago.


John Frederick Johnston: I must inform my hon. friend that we are now at vote 48.


William John Ward: I rise to protest against the way in which we are passing these items. Sitting in this end of the chamber we are unable to hear what is going on. The chairman speaks in quite an inaudible voice and we cannot hear. I want to protest against the treatment we have received at the hands of the Minister of Agriculture in respect to grants
56103-260J
to the B class fairs. We have made repeated representations to him to continue, these grants. In the judgment of those who have an intimate knowledge of fairs, the B class is the one fair upon which all other fairs rest. Had the Minister of Agriculture been here to-night and in charge of his estimates, I can assure you this item would not have passed. As he is absent we are perhaps in the position of being practically forced. I appreciate that the minister in charge of these estimates is not in a position to accept a reduction, and I do not wish to embarrass the government. I served notice on the Minister of Agriculture a week ago that when this item was before this house it was my intention to move that this item be reduced by $85,000, the amount that would be paid to A fairs. Perhaps it would be well to examine just why we are protesting against the action of the minister in this regard. As far as I know there is not an A class fair in Canada that has not a very large surplus.
Mr. FORIvE:	My hon. friend will pardon me, we have had a deficit at Brandon for years.


William John Ward: I think you will find that
most A class fairs have surpluses, and I venture to say there is not a B class fair that is not suffering deficits. In most cases the directors are carrying a personal responsibility in order to manage the institution. We are asking that the grant of $1,500 which we have been receiving for the last two years be continued. It seems rather strange, Mr. Chairman, that an industry producing several hundred of millions of dollars of wealth in this country cannot pay the small amount of $33,000 to supply a grant of $1,500 to twenty-two B class fairs. While I do not intend to move a reduction of the amount now being paid to A class fairs, it is my intention next year to move that that amount be reduced by the amount paid to A class fairs. I regret very much that we have to go back home this year without this very necessary and needed grant to B class fairs.


Mr. McINTOSH:: As a representative of
the riding of North Battleford, I must stand up in this house to-night and protest against the action of the Minister of Agriculture in taking the stand he has in connection with class B fairs in Saskatchewan and outside the province. I believe this is one of the biggest mistakes any Minister of Agriculture has ever made in the history of Canada. I cannot understand how any Minister of Agriculture
Supply-Agriculture

can take the stand that class B fairs ought to be wiped out, so far as grants are concerned. In the province of Saskatchewan $5,000 is granted to the class A fair in Saskatoon and another $5,000 to the class A fair in Regina. Instead of following the sensible policy of decentralization, one of centralization is followed, and that policy is never the real policy of Liberalism. I want to protest to-night, as the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) has protested, against eliminating these grants to class B fairs. I serve notice to-night, as a member from northern Saskatchewan that next year-*


Edward Joseph Garland: No more
guns; do not tote any guns.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Even guns would not
have any effect on my hon. friend. I want to serve notice to-night that I am absolutely opposed to a stand of this kind. If the grants to class B fairs are not to be considered, the ones being made to class A fairs must be removed. There is a well defined public opinion in northern Saskatchewan, so far as the minister is concerned, that great pressure has been brought to bear upon him and his deputy and others in his department by the class A fairs to have this grant eliminated and the class A grant stand. The deputy minister shakes his head, but he can shake his head for a long time because that public opinion is well maintained, and, so far as I am concerned, I believe there is something in it.
Before taking my seat, I would like to give a few figures which were secured from the director of agricultural extension of the province. The average revenue for the years 1921-25 for the class A fairs-Regina and Saskatoon-was $38,158, and the average revenue for the same period for the Saskatchewan class B fairs was $4,264. The average entry fees for the same period foT class B fairs was $1,449, and for A fairs $3,166. The average amount received from concessions for the same period for B fairs was $1,867 and A fairs, $27,849. The average total for the class B fairs in Saskatchewan for that period was $7,581, and for class A fairs, $69,174. The average paid out in prizes for live stock in the class B fairs was $7,140 out of an average total of $7,581, or practically 100 per cent, while for the class A fairs there was paid out an average of $20,391 out of a total of $69,174, or barely 33 per cent. That shows the work the class B fair is doing in an agricultural way. They are the fairs of the farmers. The others are entirely different, and the reason I am standing up in the house to-night and defending the class B fairs is that I believe they are

doing a great work in the development of agriculture. They can give to the development of agriculture in Saskatchewan a great contribution that the class A fairs can never give. Therefore if the class B grants are to be discontinued, my remarks to-night will serve as notice to the Department of Agriculture that I am going to work tooth and nail until the grants for class A fairs are also eliminated, so that we shall have the two on a strict basis of equality and that is the only fair, just and equitable policy to pursue.


Charles Avery Dunning: Before the discussion goes any further, may I call the attention of the committee to the fact that following the discussion the other evening on this item when the minister was here and further discussion to-night, the vote was passed and we are now two votes past it. In fact we are supposed to be discussing just now insect pests. I cannot add anything to what I said a little while ago while the vote was under discussion. The further discussion will be brought to the attention of the minister and more than that I cannot say. I think we have allowed the discussion on insect pests to ramble into class B fairs and I know none of the supporters of the class B fairs wants them to be regarded as insect pests.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: No person in this corner of the house knew that we had passed the item in connection with class B fairs. If that is the kind of business you are going to do, whether the matter under discussion be "insects " or " fairs," Mr. Chairman, you had better speak out a little plainer.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend surely
knows that several members to-night discussed the question of class B fairs when the item was before the committee.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The hon. member for
Dauphin (Mr. Ward) discussed it before I did. If he was in order, I must be.


Charles Avery Dunning: Long before the hon.
member for Dauphin spoke, another hon. gentleman spoke on the question. An hon. member across the way commenced the discussion when the item was before the committee.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: I understand that the minister said vote 44 in connection with grants to exhibitions was passed. When was it passed?


John Frederick Johnston: To-night.


Michael Luchkovich: Well, it was passed in such a clever way that I hope that all the

Supply-R a il ways-C .N.R.
other estimates are not passed in the same way as this wa*.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am going to object to that on a point of order. One or two members, when the item was before the house, spoke on it. I replied to the members in a very proper way and I resent the insinuation that the vote was put through in some clever sort of way. There was no cleverness about the matter at all.


Michael Luchkovich: There are quite a few hon. members interested in class B fairs and we have been waiting very patiently for the item to come up. I, for one, am very much surprised to learn that this item was passed.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend cannot
blame me for his being asleep.


Mr. LUCHKO  VICH@: I certainly was not asleep. I was listening and waiting very patiently for the item to come up.


John Frederick Johnston: I am sorry if hon. gentlemen did not hear the item called. It was certainly called and passed in the way we have passed other votes to-night, but I do not think it is fair to blame the chair for not announcing these items in an audible tone of voice. If hon. members would keep order in the committee, I am quite sure that I would be heard in all parts of the chamber.


William Russell Fansher: I have been listening for the item in regard to grants to exhibitions to be called and I have been in the chamber since these items respecting agriculture were started. I did not hear it called and I did not hear it passed. Once in a while I could hear hon. members talking, and that was all I could hear. This item is the most important item in the whole estimates of the Department of Agriculture. If we are going to crowd the estimates of the most important industry in Canada into the last few minutes at the close of the session, we shall have to see what can be done in another year. I do not want to prolong the discussion at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I recall to my hon. friend the fact that the first estimates taken up this session were those of agriculture? There were several discussions in the committee on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


William Russell Fansher: I quite agree with the Prime Minister on that point, but we have only a few minutes to discuss the most important item of the whole estimates of that department. We can vote $18,000,000 for Defence. We can spend $300,000 on dredging in Ellis bay for a private company. We have a vote of only about $7,000,000 for agriculture and now we are cutting down on the best fairs we have in western Canada to which the young fellow can come along and put in an exhibit while, if he is cut out of that and has to go to the class A fair, he is too backward and bashful to put in an exhibit. We are crowding the most important matters into the last few minutes at the close of the session when we have no time to discuss matters which are vital to agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS Loans to Canadian National Railway Company Amount not exceeding $39,000,000 to meet expenditures made or indebtedness incurred (where amounts available from net operating income or investments may be insufficient) by or on behalf of the Canadian National Railway Company, herein called "The Company," or any company specified or referred to in chapter 172 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, and chapter 13 of the statutes of 1920 or now or hereafter comprised in the Canadian National Railways or by the company in respect of any railways, properties and works entrusted to it from time to time under the provisions of section 19 of chapter 172 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, or any one or more of such companies, on any or all of the following accounts, such expenditures or indebtedness being being herein called authorized expenditures:-
(a)	Interest on securities, notes and other obligations: rentals for lease of lines;
(b)	Equipment principal payments; sinking funds; miscellaneous maturing or matured notes and other obligations secured or unsecured;
(c)	Operating income deficit, whenever incurred or ascertained;
(d)	Construction and betterments, including coordinations; acquisition of real or personal property.
The amount herein authorized may be applied from time to time to meet authorized expenditures, in the discretion of the governor in council:-
(a)	In respect of railways, properties and works entrusted to the company as aforesaid;
(b*) In respect of railways, properties and works not so entrusted by way of loans in cash, or by way of guarantee, or partly one way and partly the other, subject, however, as follows:-[DOT]
If by way of loans from His Majesty, the amount or amounts advanced to any one or more of the said companies shall be repayable on demand. with interest payable half-yearly at the rate fixed from time to time by the governor in council, secured if and when directed by the governor in council by mortgage or mortgages upon such properties, in such form and containing such terms and conditions, not inconsistent herewith, as the governor in council may approve.
If by way of loans from persons other than His Majesty (without the guarantee of His Majesty) the amounts, terms and conditions of such loans shall be such as the governor in council may from time to time approve.
4118	COMMONS
Supply-Railways-C.N.R. Hotels
If by way of guarantee, any such guarantee may be either a general guarantee covering the total amount of the issue, or by a separate guarantee endorsed on each obligation, and may be of the principal, interest and sinking funds (if any) of the notes, obligations or securities of one or more of the said companies specified by the governor in council, which notes, obligations or securities the companies so specified are hereby authorized to make and issue, and such guarantee may be signed by the Minister of Finance, or such other person as the governor in council may authorize, on behalf of His Majesty, in such form and on such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine to be appropriate and applicable thereto. Any guarantee so signed shall be conclusive evidence for all purposes that the provisions of this enactment have been complied with.
Should temporary loans be made or negotiated before the lapse of this appropriation either from His Majesty or other persons, guaranteed notes, obligations or securities may subsequently be issued under the provisions of the preceding paragraph of this enactment to renew, refund or adjust such loans, or any part thereof.
Each company herein mentioned or referred to is hereby authorized to aid and assist, in any manner any other or others of the said companies, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, may for its own requirements and also for the requirements of any or all such other companies from time to time:
[Stage Direction]
(a)	Issue notes, obligations or other securities, joint or several, at discretion, for the purpose of any guarantee made or to be made under the provisions of this enactment;
(b)	Apply the proceeds of any such guaranteed issue, or the amount of loans received by virtue of this enactment, in meeting authorized expenditures on its own account or on account of any or all of such other companies;
(c)	Make advances for the purpose of meeting authorized expenditures to any or all of such other companies, upon or without any security, at discretion.
No purchaser of such guaranteed notes, securities or obligations shall be under any obligation to inquire into the application of the proceeds of any guaranteed issue, $39,000,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I am in a very difficult position. I desire to expedite the business of the house and yet I must make certain observations with respect to this matter. I will endeavour to do so as briefly as possible because I am sure members of the committee are as desirous as I am to expedite the business, but I must make these observations. Yesterday evening the Minister of Railways said that it was essential that we should build a second hotel at Halifax in order to maintain the morale of the Canadian National employees.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not. The distinction is very important.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the distinction?
I will endeavour to read exactly what he said. The minister means that he was told

that that would be so. Is that what he
means?	[DOT]


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend had better read the exact language.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He says at page 4026 of Hansard:
Moreover, the president of the railway assures me, has assured me on more than one occasion, that the morale of the men engaged in working on the Canadian National system from cqast to coast would be seriously affected if the ' Canadian National were compelled to back down with respect to the construction of a Canadian National hotel at Halifax.
That statement is one that I think should not be seriously considered by this house in determining what action should be taken, for it is a statement that must be regarded as entirely at variance with what we know. The truth is that in 1926, not 1927, discussions took place between the president of the railway company and certain financiers in Halifax looking to the construction of a hotel. In February, 1927, Mr. Pratt wrote a letter, which I read last evening, in which he said that the president and directors were interested in this undertaking. That is clear. What is more, it subsequently develops that by reason of the very action that he then took, the Lord Nelson Hotel company was organized. The Dwyer property on which an option was taken in the fall of 1926 was acquired, and it was arranged to build an hotel upon it. That is beyond all question.


Mr. RALSTON:: If my hon. friend will permit me, he mentions the option of 1926. That option had long since expired.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It had long since expired, but is was renewed for the purposes of the Lord Nelson hotel.


James Layton Ralston: To be quite fair, my hon friend should state that the option of 1926 had no connection with what took place in 1927.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh yes.


James Layton Ralston: It was an entirely new transaction in 1927.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be observed that the Canadian National Railway Company in their report of 1928 commence their observations with respect to the hotel by saying:
In 1926 a plan, which had been privately promoted for the erection of a modern hotel at Halifax, was presented to the board of directors for consideration. The plan was found to be unsatisfactory in its method of finance and was rejected. The need of more modern hotel facilities at Halifax was, however, apparent to the board, and it was recog-

Supply-Railways-C.N.R. Hotels
nized that, with the establishment in the winter of 1928-29 of the new and important services of the Canadian National steamships between Halifax and the West Indies, this need would become still more pressing.
And it was in February, 1927, February, mark you, February 9, 1927, that Mr. Pratt wrote the letter which I read yesterday.


James Layton Ralston: I was dealing only with the matter of the option, and I said that the option of 1926 had nothing to do with the purchase of 1927.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there was a continuity with respect to the transaction.


James Layton Ralston: There was no continuity; it was a brand new transaction. The site was not taken until October 17 or 18, 1927, and it was not inconsequence of the option of 1926.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That does not detract from what I am endeavouring to say. In the spring of 1927 the Canadian National indicated its interest in the undertaking of the construction of the hotel in Halifax, and when it is said that the morale of the road will be in some sense affected, let me say this. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company have made it perfectly clear that they will turn their stock over, as well as the $250,000, if the hotel wants it. So far as the Canadian Pacific Railway is concerned, they are prepared to back down and out and to disappear out of the transaction. The papers published all that. They had only $100,000 of preferred shares in the undertaking and in consequence of the Lord Nelson company being let down by the Canadian National, the Canadian Pacific took, it up.
I am going to point to one thing, in order that there may be no misapprehension. The report of the Canadian National Railways undertakes to indicate that the Canadian Pacific Railway did not care to take up the stock until September, 1928. It says on page 11 of its report:
The decision of the Canadian Pacific to take up tne preferred stock of the hotel company was made by the executive committee of that railway company three days later.
That is, three days after the Canadian National had determined to go into Halifax. That is not in accordance with the facts. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company, as the public records show, not their records at all, but two gentlemen whose word will be accepted in any court of law saw the president of the Canadian National, and he agreed to take the $250,000 and urged them to get the Canadian Pacific to take the $100,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend said that the public records would prove it. What public records?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The records of the Lord Nelson Hotel Company, and the journey to Montreal of the president of that company, together with the delegation, which reported back, as was published in the press. What is more, the report of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company at page 7 says:
Your directors, after discussion with the National railways and upon the strong recommendation of the latter, agreed to subscribe for $100,000 of the preferred stock in the Lord Nelson hotel at Halifax. Nova Scotia, the National Railways undertaking to recommend the government's approval of a subscription by that company of $250,000 of such stock.
It is admitted by the speeches of the two ministers that that recommendation was made to the government. The government was dissatisfied with it, and it was not carried into effect by the shareholders, the shareholders being the governor in council. A new plan was submitted, but the government was not satisfied with that; the shareholders again disagreed. Then it was that the president of the Canadian National journeyed down upon a special train to the city of Halifax, and made a speech about predatory wealth, and the new hotel was recommended, the new Canadian National hotel. It was after that, that the Canadian Pacific agreed to take $250,000 of preferred stock, and it was then that the report of the Canadian National endeavours to make it clear that the agreement to take $250,000 of preferred shares referred to the whole $350,000, which is not so, and never has been so, because Mr. Silver, the chairman of the Lord Nelson hotel, accompanied the Premier of Nova Scotia and others to Montreal and arranged with respect to the $100,000 subscription of preferred shares by the Canadian Pacific. There should be no difficulty in understanding clearly that point.
One other question arose last evening. It was said last evening that the rebate of a commission that Mr. Bain and others agreed to was a rebate that went to the company, and it is not clear that that was money that went back to the company for work in Canada of the Lord Nelson Hotel Company.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no doubt about that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have received a telegram from the president of the company saying that the newspaper reports did not make it clear that that money was not for the purpose
4120	COMMONS
Supply-Railways-C.N.R. Hotels
of paying the promoters, but was to go back to the hotel to increase their working capital.


James Layton Ralston: That is exactly what I said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I just mention that in order to clear up any misapprehension that might arise from the press reports, in view of the telegram I have received. I desire to make it clear that such was not the case on the statement that has been made.
I can sum up this matter in this way. My hon. friend referred to the question of impressing this house with his influence. Let me put it this way: When the president of the Canadian National discovered that the minister from Nova Scotia was against the participation of the Canadian Pacific in the hotel, he did what any president would do. He said: Now is my chance to get an hotel, and I am going to get it on my own, and it was the position taken by the ministers in question that put this country to that expenditure. The president of the Canadian National is not to blame; the blame rests with the ministers, and not with the railway company at all, because in this instance an arrangement was made by the government to turn down the proposal to build the hotel, even though it involved a loss of $100,000 for one hotel, and to build a hotel solely for the Canadian National system.
The suggestion that has been made that we should build bungalow camps and hotels that will bring us a more profitable return is one that is worthy of consideration. In this regard I cannot hope to go over this matter in detail. It is sufficient for my purpose to say, and say clearly, that I protest against the investment of capital which involves an admitted loss of $100,000 per annum, according to the reports made by the Canadian National's own expert. The report of the company itself for last year shows that the company did not make interest on a single dollar of capital invested in hotels, but had a deficit in operating the whole hotel system of $15,000. Here are the * figures in that regard, to be found at page 8 of the Canadian National report:	It says that the losses had
been reduced to about $15,000, as compared with a loss of $35,000 for 1926. It is against this reckless waste of public money for the purpose of enabling a minister merely to control the situation in a province that I protest. I protest against it on behalf of the taxpayers who must find the money. Without going into details I have only this further to say. When the Vancouver hotel was brought up last night we had the tu quoque argument.

The Minister of Railways and Canals knows that the settlement was made because of promises by Mackenzie and Mann to the city of Vancouver under their agreement with the government in connection with the Canadian Northern British Columbia railway system, by which they were to build a hotel and do many other things involving an expenditure of millions of dollars. The settlement made by the Liberal government involved a vast expenditure of moneys in British Columbia and then the leasing of the hotel at a rental that would be sufficient to cover interest and sinking fund.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend knows
better than that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the arrangement
that was made. Mr. McCrossan, the city solicitor for Vancouver, came down here for the purpose, the arrangement was made and notified in the public press.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend knows
perfectly well that the Minister of Railways consistently refused to recommend to his colleagues any such arrangement. It was never so recommended and never so authorized by this government. Where is the order in council authorizing it? My hon. friend says this government did something. There is one way by which governments do things.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will my hon. friend just sit down?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, and I will get up by and by.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now, having sat down-


Charles Avery Dunning: I merely want you to
speak the truth.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman will
withdraw that statement, even at this late stage of the session.


John Frederick Johnston: I did not catch the
remark.


Charles Avery Dunning: I merely request my
hon. friend to speak the truth.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is unparliamentary.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think I may make a
request.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not going to be
bulldozed.


Charles Avery Dunning: Suppose I ask my hon.
friend to stick to the facts; is that better?
_ Mr. BENNETT:	That is all right. This
is not the Saskatchewan legislature. The hon. gentleman is learning something.

Supply-Railways-C.N.R. Hotels


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sorry I cannot
return the compliment.
Mr. BENNETT; No, you would not understand it. Now, Mr. Chairman, in view of what has been said, we might as well take this thing seriously and leisurely.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.


An hon. MEMBER:: Haven't you been
serious up to now?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, I thought the hon. gentleman the other day made admissions that were sufficiently serious for any of us in this house who understand the English language. Now, Mr. Chairman, I was proceeding to say that the Vancouver situation was a settlement of outstanding claims against the Canadian Northern Railway Company. Those claims involved this country in many millions of dollars. When the agreement was made for the building of an hotel it was signed and sent back to this city. The then Acting Minister of Railways (Sir Henry Drayton) at once had his attention directed to the fact that as the supply bill had not carried there was a question as to the legality of an appropriation by governor general's warrant to meet any possible claim there might be with respect to :he hotel. In other words, there was no parliamentary sanction with respect to the money that would enable the hotel to be built. That is the position with respect to that. I have no hesitation in saying that I pointed that out. It was subsequently discovered by the legal gentlemen connected with the department to be a correct statement of the situation. The contract was not signed. It was not proposed to sign it when that was found to be the condition. Then the statement was made that the hon. gentleman referred to last evening as to whether he desired to sign it himself. That is the reason I have made the protest, and if this house does not prorogue to-night I will have an opportunity to deal with it more fully on Monday, but in view of the desire to prorogue I shall make no further observations at the moment.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend has made one statement with respect to the Vancouver hotel which, under the rules, I am not permitted to describe correctly. It has a bearing upon my association with the negotiations with the city of Vancouver prior to the dissolution of parliament in 1926, and it has also to do with what the shadow government then in office did or did not do in reference to an agreement to build an hotel in Vancouver.
My hon. friend stated in the plainest terms that the Liberal government had completed the arrangement. Those were his words.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what Mr. Mc-
Crossan, the city solicitor of Vancouver, said.


Charles Avery Dunning: I sat down when my hon. friend requested it. Will he now kindly keep quiet?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will see.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend stated
in the plainest of terms-I find he stated it on the word of somebody else outside this house altogether-that the government did so and so. Apparently he does not yet know, or would pretend that he does not know, that any action of that sort by a government is represented by an order of council which is of record. He knows perfectly well that if a decision had been taken by this government to lease or build any hotel at Vancouver, that decision would be found in the records of the Privy Council. There is no such order in council. My hon. friend knew when he spoke that there was no such order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not. Now, Mr. Chairman, that remark will have to be withdrawn.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, that remark is unparliamentary, absolutely, under the rules. There may be no misapprehension about that. It might as well be realized even if this house does not prorogue to-night.


Charles Avery Dunning: I await your ruling, Mr. Chairman.


John Frederick Johnston: If the hon. gentleman
says he did not have knowledge, certainly his word must be accepted.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will accept his word.
Of course I accept also the position in which he puts himself, that he knew-that is what he said-that a transaction had been completed by this government-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said the transaction
had been.


Charles Avery Dunning: That the transaction had been completed by this government; and now he says he did not know whether an order in council had been passed in respect to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know yet.


Charles Avery Dunning: Let me go further. I
trust I have cleared up that point. I have a particular interest in it, Mr. Chairman, for the reason that continuous and steady pressure

Supply-Railways-C..V./?. Hotels
was brought to bear upon me as Minister of Railways and upon my colleagues by interested parties in the city of Vancouver on both sides of politics to complete the arrangements for the building and leasing of an hotel there. I never was satisfied with the arrangement, the government never was satisfied with the arrangement, and I never gave any encouragement to those promoting it that the government ever would approve it. My colleagues, every one, can confirm that. What followed when my hon. friends came into office? We have listened to a very ingenious explanation of a very extraordinary transaction from my hon. friend this evening. Suddenly the shadow government during the hundred days, in spite of the knowledge that my hon. friend says they had with respect to the illegality of financial transactions involving governor general's warrants-I say in spite of that fact, on the seventh day of August during that hundred days an order in council was passed authorizing the expenditure of three and a half million dollars of the money of this country on a hotel in Vancouver.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Charles Avery Dunning: Passed by a government which, as my hon. friend stated to-night, knew perfectly well they had no authority to secure money by governor general's warrants for such purpose-nor indeed for any other purpose.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I have a right to
deny a statement I did not make.


Charles Avery Dunning: What did you say?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that a question
as to the legality of it arose, and it was subsequently reported by the legal gentlemen in charge that the decision was properly taken. That is what I said.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is very strange, Mr. Chairman. My hon. friend now says that a question as to legality subsequently arose. I should like to ask how that government was doing business. Here is the order in council, very carefully and elaborately drawn up. Am I to presume it was not drawn up by legal officers, by someone who knew what the law was when it was being drawn up?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, sir.


Charles Avery Dunning: Are they to admit that they got someone to draw up an order in council for an expenditure of $3,500,000 with-

out finding out whether or not the transaction would be legal after it was adopted? What does the order in council say? After reciting the problem of the old arrangement between the Canadian Northern Pacific and Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann, which my hon. friend, by the way, stated correctly this evening-an arrangement which we inherited when the Canadian Northern Pacific became a part of the Canadian National system, a problem which everyone has been seeking to solve for some years past-after reciting that, I say, this order in council goes on to state:
That it is the opinion of the board of directors of the Canadian National Railway Company that, in view of the progress made by the Canadian National Railways in revenue receipts during the present year the whole cost of the construction of the proposed five hundred room hotel can be met from the estimates which were submitted to parliament at its last session and approved by the select standing committee on railways and shipping.
That statement is made in the order in council, and even if the estimates had been passed, which they were not, as my hon. friend indicates even if the estimates had been pased, that order in council discloses that the government passing it was willing to spend $3,500,000 for a hotel in Vancouver out of moneys voted by parliament for entirely different purposes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not at all.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the only conclusion we can come to. I had the privilege of placing these estimates before the select standing committee on railways and shipping at the session of parliament referred to, and I can say that the government of which I was then a member did not contemplate, nor did the management of the Canadian National Railways contemplate, the erection of an hotel out of the proceeds of these estimates. The matter was never discussed before that committee, never discussed in this parliament. The shadow government during the 100 days found the necessity, the political necessity- a word which my hon. friend is so fond of using-of rushing into a deal for the building of an hotel in the city of Vancouver. I say political! necessity-


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was never executed.


Charles Avery Dunning: The agreement was never executed but this order in council was passed to authorize the execution of it. The government went as far as it could in authorizing execution by passing this document which I hold in my hand. The actual execution of it



192S

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Railways-C.N.R. Hotels
was in the hands of the minister who is here authorized, and of the Canadian National management, who also are here authorized to proceed immediately with it and to take for the purpose $3,500,000 of money which this parliament voted for other purposes and not for the purpose of the Vancouver hotel. As my hon. friend would say, "That is the position with respect to that". I am speaking with some feeling, I admit.
Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond):: Always do.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, I am speaking with some feeling because my hon. friend to-night sought to fasten upon me an arrangement which I never consented to, always protested against, and refused to have anything to do with. In fact, so far from accepting it, this order in council passed by my .hon. friends opposite did not satisfy me and did not satisfy the government of which I am a member. I recommended the cancellation of it; my colleagues accepted that recommendation and it was cancelled. I will not go further into details as to what was contemplated as the result of this order in council. It is not an arrangement of which my hon. friend is personally proud, I know, and yet he was the finance minister of the government which authorized it by the document I hold in my hand.
Now with respect to the Halifax hotelhaving cleaned up Vancouver as well as I am able-with respect to the Halifax hotel I have just this to say. With regard to Vancouver the charge is made against me by hon. members opposite and by their press that I had cancelled this order in council- this order I had been referring to, passed by my hon. friends opposite-that I had cancelled it at the behest of the Canadian Pacific Railway because they had an hotel in Vancouver. Nay, it was further stated by gentlemen who sit opposite and by their friends, that I had been bribed by the Canadian Pacific Railway by having an hotel built by them in the city which I have the honour to represent. That was published broadcast through the press of western Canada, at least that portion of the press willing to publish that sort of thing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Were they sued for libel?


Charles Avery Dunning: They were not sued for
libel. I-well, I guess I had better not say it; I will stay within the rules. Now, the estimates presently under consideration by the house, recommended by Sir Henry Thornton and the management of the Canadian National Railways, include an amount of $100,000 towards the construction of an hotel in Vancouver. I can tell my hon. friends it will not be constructed on the plan they devised; it will be constructed in a business-like way. Now reverse the situation and let us go to Halifax. There my hon. friend is seeking to prevent the Canadian National from building an hotel. May I ask, is he acting in the interests of the Canadian Pacific Railway, as I was accused by his party of doing when I did what was my public duty in regard to the Vancouver matter? My hon. friend has himself on occasion, when I have taken a position with respect to the department and its affairs, intimated somewhat sneeringly that I am working in the interests of the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Name me an instance
when that was said.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend frequently did during last session. I am within the memory of the house, and my hon. friend will find it in Hansard of last session. It was possibly intended as persiflage, but not of a very pleasant kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You will not find it in the records of the house. I have said it to you personally on the street when we have walked down.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend might
search Hansard; I will help him. If he does he will find something which he would not like to see.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If personal observations of that kind are repeated in the house, well and good.


Charles Avery Dunning: Be that as it may, all that I said last night with respect to the Halifax hotel stands to-day. I believe that Sir Henry Thornton is right when he says that whatever may happen to the other hotel the Canadian National hotel at Halifax will develop business and will ultimately succeed. To-night my hon. friend stressed the supposed loss of $100,000 a year which may be incurred in operation on the Canadian National hotel system. If we take his remarks seriously at all he must be arguing that therefore we should not build or own hotels. But he is too wise for that in reality; he knows that the value of a hotel to a railway system does not depend upon the earnings of that hotel but that it has a relation to the traffic handled by the railway. All our hotels are great traffic producers for the
4124	COMMONS
Supply-Railways-C.N.R. Hotels
road, and although on paper they may lose money in operation, they more than make it up in the contribution they make to the general well-being of the system, and I believe the Halifax hotel will be no exception in this regard.


James Layton Ralston: I just want to say one word in order to put my hon. friend right in the matter of dates. ELe has suggested tonight that the subscription of the Canadian Pacific Railway was made before the announcement by the Canadian National Railways.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not the whole subscription, but $100,000 of it.


James Layton Ralston: Well, the whole or any part of it. I want to say to my hon. friend that if he will look at the record he will find that on July 6, the Lord Nelson Hotel Company advertised in the Halifax Herald, and in that newspaper appeared a letter signed by H. R. Silver, president, in which it is stated:
It is confidently expected that in the event of Canadian National Railway Company purchasing this amount of preference shares, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company will also subscribe for $100,000 par value of the preference shares on the same terms.
The Canadian National Railway Company did not subscribe, and I want to tell my hon. friend that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company did not subscribe at that time. On July 14 the announcement was made which I read to the house last night, to the effect that I felt satisfied in my own mind that the item would be placed in the estimates if the management of the railway recommended it. On July 20, Sir Henry Thornton stated that the board of directors of the company would put this item in the estimates, and not until September 26, over two months later, did the Canadian Pacific Railway announce having taken up that subscription. That announcement is contained in the Halifax Chronicle of September 28, in a letter from Mr. Beatty under date of September 26 to Mr. H. R. Silver which has the following to say:
Our executive committee to-day approved a subscription by this company to the preferred stock of the Lord Nelson hotel to the amount of three hundred and fifty thousand dollars par value, conditional upon the bonds and balance of preferred stock being sold.
Let that settle the matter of dates. The Canadian National Railways made their announcement on July 20 and the Canadian Pacific subscription and announcement were

made on September 26, so when my hon. friend suggests that a portion of the subscription was taken up before he is palpably in error.
He is seeking to blame the minister; for what? I have told him the reason why this proposition was turned down; one reason was because it was too expensive. I quote the statement made by my hon. friend last night, in which he said:
That in my judgment was a proper view to take, having regard to the fact that the commission to be paid was much larger than should be paid for securing capital under these circumstances.
The other reason was that parliament had not authorized that expenditure, which was commended by my hon. friend. I do not know how he blames the ministers under those circumstances. The proposition was turned down on July 14 and immediately after that the announcement was made. I think with this matter of dates straightened out the house will have no difficulty in coming to a conclusion on the argument made by my hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The only difficulty about it is that the statement of the bon. gentleman with respect to dates is not borne out by the record. Would my hon. friend mind reading the exact words of that letter again?


James Layton Ralston: This is what I read:
It is confidently expected that in the event of Canadian National Railway Company purchasing this amount of preference shares the Canadian Pacific Railway Company will also subscribe for one hundred thousand dollars par value of the preference shares on the same terms.
The other letter, from Mr. Beatty, was as follows:
Our executive committee to-day approved a subscription by this company to the preferred stock of the Lord Nelson hotel to the amount of three hundred and fifty thousand dollars par value, conditional upon the bonds and balance of preferred stock being sold.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the date?


James Layton Ralston: September 26.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Previously the company had agreed to invest $100,000. Now I will read from the statement of the president.


James Layton Ralston: I am giving the statement made by the Lord Nelson Hotel Company.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The statement made by the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is as follows:
Your directors, after discussion with the National Railways and upon the strong recom-

Supply-Railways-C.N.R. Hotels
raendation of the latter, agreed to subscribe for $100,000 of the preferred stock in the Lord Nelson hotel at Halifax. Nova Scotia, the National Railways undertaking to recommend the government's approval of a subscription by that company of $250,000 of such stock. This arrangement was not given effect to owing to government objection, and your company was pressed to increase its subscription to $350,000. Your directors considered that, in view of your ownership of the Dominion Atlantic Railway serving the important tourist centres of the Evangeline country and connecting through the Eastern Steamship Company with the port of Boston, the local project, which received general support in Halifax, should be assisted to the extent mentioned. The subscription was accompanied by an offer to the National Railways to transfer to that company or the government $250,000 of the preferred stock at cost up to July 1st next-in other words, renewing the proposal made by the National Company to this company.


James Layton Ralston: That is the subscription of September 26.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, renewing an offer to take $250,000 of stock if the Canadian Pacific Railway took $100,000.


James Layton Ralston: That is the subscription of September 26.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, that subscription was for $350,000. Does not the hon. gentleman see the position he is in now? There were two subscriptions, an initial subscription for 8100,000 followed by one for $250,000, making a total of $350,000 as stated in the tetter of September 26. Does the hon. gentleman say that the Canadian Pacific Railway Companj' never agreed to take anything except $350,000 in stock?


James Layton Ralston: I say on the authority of Mr. Ii. R. Silver, president of the company whose stock was being subscribed, that it was expected that if the Canadian National would subscribe for $250,000 the Canadian Pacific would subscribe for $100,000. That is the letter which appeared in the paper.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the company's report say they did agree to subscribe for $100,000.


James Layton Ralston: I am taking the public announcement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Silver confidently expected it in July, and his expectation was realized. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company agreed to subscribe $100,000.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend will not
find any agreement to subscribe $100,000 after July.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does my hon. friend say
that they never agreed to subscribe $100,000?


James Layton Ralston: Yes, on the authority of Mr. Silver.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then they agreed to subscribe $350,000 because the Canadian National would not subscribe $250,000?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then they must have subscribed $100,000 first.


James Layton Ralston: No, because they subscribed $350,000 in September.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; they agreed to make their subscription $350,000, because the president of the company in his annual report says that they agreed to subscribe $100,000.


James Layton Ralston: All the president said was that .on September 26th they agreed to take $350,000 in stock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course, because the Canadian National did not subscribe the $250,000.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend should not split hairs.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not splitting hairs; this is a question of fact. The fact is that the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, in the presence of witnesses, agreed to bake $100,000 in the hotel.


James Layton Ralston: No doubt that is where
Mr. Silver got his expectations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was surrounded by
witnesses who went up as a delegation. The Canadian Pacific did not want to go into this venture, but the Canadian National urged them to, and they did it for the sake of Nova Scotia as a whole. The Canadian National did not take the $250,000, and the Canadian Pacific have been compelled to take $350,000, or else let the enterprise be abandoned.


James Layton Ralston: That is my hon. friend's construction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It says so. There is a
further statement made by the president of the company.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Can we carry this item?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
Printing oj Parliament



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have advised His Excellency that it will not be possible to prorogue this parliament to-night. The house therefore, will resume on Monday.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At what hour?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At eleven
o'clock. I might say to the hon. members that with the exception of the one ite-m we are discussing at present, we have concluded all the business of the session so far as the government is concerned.



PRINTING OF PARLIAMENT

Charles Marcil: That the third report of the joint committee of both houses on the printing of parliament, presented to the house on the eighth instant, be concurred in.


James Alexander Robb: This resolution involves an increase in salary for an official who comes under the Civil Service Act, and is subject to all the regulations of that act. I have nothing to say against this official, but I submit that if we are to permit officials whose case has been reviewed by the Civil Service Commission to go over the heads of the commission and of the treasury board and come to parliament, we are introducing a precedent which may have very far-reaching effects. On these grounds, Mr. Speaker, 1 submit that this resolution should not pass. Indeed I question whether it is in order.


Hewitt Bostock: The motion is not in
order, nor is the report, because a committee can take cognizance only of matters which are referred to it. The matter which is the subject of recommendation in this report was not referred to the committee by the house. In addition to that, the official referred to is an employee of the House of Commons and I was not consulted1 in the matter. The permanent employees of the House of Commons are under the Civil Service Commission, and the case of this excellent employee was reviewed by that commission. I regret to say that they did not find that he should get an increase, and then he went over my head and put the matter before the joint committee of both houses on the printing of parliament. I rule that the motion is not in order.


Charles Marcil: In justice to the committee I would say that this report has been 
adopted by the Senate, and we find ourselves in the peculiar position of having a report adopted by one house and rejected by the other. This official is paid out of the general vote for the printing of parliament. He has had no increase since 1915, and the committee recommended that he be placed in a higher class.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 12.05 a.m.
Monday, June 11, 1928