1928-05-31

[Stage Direction]
Twelfth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Parent.


Mr. C. R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):: I beg to move the following motion, which is practically the same both in form and content as the one I moved yesterday:
That the third report, of the select standing committee on industrial and international relations, presented to the house on May 16th instant, be referred back to the said committee with instructions that they have power to amend the same by substituting the following for paragraph 8 thereof:
Your committee further recommend that 750 copies in English and 250 copies in French of this report, and the evidence upon which it is based, be printed in blue book form, and that standing order No. 64 be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar) moved:: That in accordance with the recommendation contained in the twelfth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, and with the usual practice in such cases, the additional charge paid on the following private bills from the Senate be refunded, namely:
Bill No. 342, for the relief of Frank Deering.
Bill No. 343, for the relief of Mary Mabel Jenny Potten Impey.
Bill No. 345, for the relief of Myrtle Adelia Baker Knauff.
Questions

Bill No. 347, for the relief of Hilda Evelyn McDowell.
Bill No. 348, for the relief of Catherine Ellen Mobbs.
Bill No. 350, for the relief of Henry Frederick White.
Bill No. 356, for the relief of Florence Anne Salmon.
Bill No. 358, for the relief of Mary Walton Smith.
Cost of litigation	 13,713 91
Civil government salaries and
contingencies, etc	 2,843,790 87



$ 11,997,636 03 CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-MONCTON OFFICE

[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	How much money has been received by
the Dominion government from sale of:	(a)
lands; (b) timber; (c) minerals; (d) grazing; (e) water-power; (f) foreshores, and any other sources of revenue in the railway belt in British Columbia during the last thirty years?
2.	What amount has been received by the Dominion government in connection with or arising out of taxes, licenses, ground or other rentals, forestry, rebates or any other sources of revenue in the railway belt in British Columbia during the last thirty years?
3.	What has been the cost to the government of Canada of the administration of these lands and resources during the above period?


Mr. SHORT:: 1.	Has Sir Henry Thornton an office in Moncton ?
2.	Where is it located?
3.	When was it assigned to Sir Henry Thornton ?
4.	How often has Sir Henry Thornton occupied this office, and for what length of time ?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	There is at Moncton an office marked for the use of the president and executive officers of Canadian National railways. There are similar offices at other points on the system and they are intended for the general use of the president, vice-presidents, and other officers when visiting the respective regional or other offices. When not so used, such offices are employed for local purposes as and when required.
2.	In the regional headquarters of the rail-


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Answers as far as the Interior department is concerned:
1. Lands	.. ..$ 555,536	05Forests	. .. 4,979,673	42Mines	.. .. 305,150	56Parks	.. .. 46,443	37Water power	and	reclamation.	. .. 5,838	22
Less refunds to March 31, 1927

2.	Answered in No. 1.
3.	Approximate
Dominion lands salaries and contingencies	$	970,414 39Dominion	lands surveys..	..	1,877,179	50Protection	of timber	
2,986,722	04Canadian National parks..	..	2,309,001	26
way.
3.	In the autumn of 1926.
4.	October 1926, April 1927, and October 1927; for not more than one day in each instance.


ROYAL COMMISSION ON FISHERIES
Mr. SHORT:: 1.	How many commissioners were appointed to act on the royal commission to investigate the fisheries of the maritime provinces?
2.	What are their names?
3.	How	much	has	been	paid,	or	is	to	be
paid, each commissioner for salary	and how
much for expenses?
4.	How many lawyers were employed?
5.	What are their names?
6.	How	much	has	been	paid,	or	is	to	be
paid, each lawyer for services and how much for expenses?
7.	How many secretaries and other employees were there in connection with the commission?
8.	How	much	has	been	paid,	or	is	to	be
paid, to the secretaries and other employees for salaries and how much for expenses?
9.	What has been, or is to be, the total cost of the commission?
Water power and reclamation.	996'814 06	Mr. CARDIN:	1, 2 and 3. Commissioner	Salary	Expenses1. Hon. A. K. Maclean.. ..	
Nil	$ 2,772 782. J. G. Mombourquette.. .	1,940 753. J. G. Robichaud	2,170 154. H. R. L. Bill	2,097 405. Dr. C. Macmillan	
3,600 00	1,325 00
(Mr Brown,]

Questions
4, 5 and 6.
G. Fred Pearson, counsel	
W. P. Potter, assistant counsel	
7 and 8.
1 Secretary	
10 different stenographers employed at various times..
Reporters-Butcher & Co	
1 Machine operator	
4 Departmental officers	
$ 16,300 OO	$2,416 72
2400 00	688 75
$ 3,340 00	$2,107 92
1,165 14	446 08
7,200 OO	1,532 70
427 59	389 05
Nil	3,782 43
$ 12,132 73	$8,258 18
In addition to the above there were unclassified railway and other transportation charges, which amounted to $5,934.37.
9. $85,42742 paid.


SOLDIER SETTLER FARMS-FORECLOSED OR SURRENDERED
Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	How many soldier settler farms have reverted to the board since January 1, 1926?
2.	How many of these have been (a) foreclosed on by the board; (b) voluntarily surrendered?
3.	How many of these farms have been sold or leased to (a) settlers under the empire settlement scheme; (b) to any other farmers or settlers?


Mr. CAMPBELL:: The officials of the board, Mr. Speaker, have pointed out to me some practical difficulties in the way of securing an answer to this question, but they have given me information Which will suffice, and therefore I ask that this question be dropped.
Question dropped.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	How much -was paid A. S. MacMillan or MacMillan Construction Company by all departments of the government for all material supplied by them on account of Hudson bay or Hudson straits during the year 1927?
2.	How much was paid to Halifax firms by all departments of the government during the year 1927 for all supplies to Hudson bay or Hudson straits?
3.	Were supplies by tender?
4.	If so, give details of tenders?



PRIVILEGE-SIR GEORGE PERLEY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:	-
Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. Yesterday I made a few remarks in reference to the important financial questions which the High Commissioner's office in London had to 56103-228
deal with during the war. Among other things I said, as appears in the first column of Hansard, at page 3563.
The High Commissioner attended to these questions throughout the war, with the assistance of his office staff, without having to call in any expert assistance.
I find that in a press despatch which received general circulation this morning, I am stated to have said:
The High Commissioner had attended to them-*
Referring to these financial questions:
-without the assistance of an office staff throughout the war.
The difference between these two versions is a very real one, and while that would not matter much so far as the people here in Canada are concerned, I do not want any of the High Commissioner's staff to think that I am unmindful of the splendid work which they did during the years when I was in London. No body of men and women ever gave more loyal service. I certainly could not have carried on without their united support and I again take this opportunity to express my appreciation of the same. The representatives of the press, Mr. Speaker, have always been so fair to me that I regret having to call attention to this error, which I am sure they will be glad to rectify.



FISHING LICENSES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Will the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) kindly give the house the actual situation which now prevails with regard to the powers of the Dominion government in granting fishing licenses on the west coast?

d602
Immigration Permits

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of
Justice): I take that as a notice Of the question. May I refer the hon. member to paragraph 350 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms where May is quoted as follows:
The expression of a legal opinion cannot be sought by a question, nor the solution of an abstract legal case or of a hypothetical proposition.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I was
not trying to secure a legal statement, but merely an answer with regard to the practical situation that now exists as to the expiry of certain fishing licenses on the west coast.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: That would be for the
Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin), if my hon. friend does not seek a legal opinion.



HON. VINCENT MASSEY REPORTED ATTENDANCE AT REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Northwest Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to call the attention of the government to a despatch from Kansas City which appears in this morning's issue sf the Montreal Gazette. It reads:
Kansas City, Mo., May 30.-Two representatives of foreign governments, Hon. Vincent Massey, minister for Canada to the United States, and Jan Ciechanowski, Polish minister, will attend the Republican national convention here, beginning June 2, Lafayette B. Gleason, secretary of the convention, said to-day.
I desire to ask if the government will make some inquiries as to the right of our minister at Washington to attend a convention of the Republican party.	[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Langton Church: Am I to have an answer
from the government to a perfectly proper question?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: With pleasure.



IMMIGRATION PERMITS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Add-ington):: Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's Journal
appears a list of the names of mentbers of parliament and of the Senate, and of other individuals who, according to that paper, received special permits to admit ineligible foreigners into Canada. I do not accuse the Journal of wishing to misrepresent but I think the word "ineligible" is badly chosen-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Wesley Edwards: -and its
ambiguity might leave a wrong impression. I desire to say that the Journal is not correct in using that word; no ineligible foreigners were admitted into Canada by so-called "permits." These permits would be more properly termed "letters of admission." The letters of admission were to bring in the relatives of persons already in Canada, and their entry was subject entirely to the approval of the department.
The second point that I think I should call to the attention of the house relates to the number of so-called permits credited to each person. More properly the return should have been divided into the number of permits and the number of persons included in those permits. For instance, an individual who obtained three letters of admission might bring in eleven persons. He is credited with obtaining eleven permits, when as a matter of fact he obtained only three. Several hon. members have spoken to me about this, and I think it is only fair that the public at least should have a correct impression of what the return means.



STEAMER VIGILANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Acting Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, last night
during the discussion of the estimates of the Department of National Revenue, the minister (Mr. Euler), intimated that he would lay on the table to-day, if possible, all the papers in connection with the sale or purchase of the steamship Vigilant and its subsequent chartering to the government, and the correspondence connected therewith. Will the minister be able to lay those papers on the table to-day?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand that in the
discussion of the estimates yesterday one item was held over in order to consider the matter to which my hon. friend refers-the Vigilant, is it not?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If it would be agreeable to hon. gentlemen opposite we might continue with the estimates of the Department of National Revenue as soon as we go into supply, and so give the minister an opportunity to make a statement.


Hugh Guthrie: I understand there is a
considerable file of papers. We do not know what they contain. I should like to have a day at least before we discuss them.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.

Immigration Act


Hugh Guthrie: I am aware of some of
the circumstances. I think it is a matter of sufficient importance to give us an opportunity to look through the file before we are called upon to form an opinion.


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to my hon.
friend the acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie), I may say that last night it was understood that upon a resumption of a consideration of the supplementary estimates the matter of the Vigilant should be discussed. The item was held for that one purpose. There were two reasons in particular, as I recall them; they were these-


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of order. I am asking for pajrers, not for a speech. This is on the orders of the day, and I submit the hon. minister is out of order. We have a right to the papers.


Mr. SPEAKER:: According to Bourinot:
No discussion should be allowed when a minister has replied to a question, nor after a member has made his personal explanation.
It is well understood that all questions on the orders of the day should be brief, and that the answers thereto should also be brief.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the question asked
by the hon. acting leader of the opposition is that we should have these papers laid on the table. This is the privilege of any hon. member. It is a question of pure routine, and we are simply asking-
Hon. LUCIEN	CANNON	(Solicitor
General) :	Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of
order. The hon. gentleman is out of order altogether. He did not put the question; he has no reply to make.


Hewitt Bostock: A point of order is
always debatable. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) has asked a question, and I presume the hon. Minister of National Revenue is answering it. This may be done very briefly.


Ernest Lapointe: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, my colleague has the right to say what is the nature of the documents he intends to table.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am rising, if I may so state, to assert a right of hon. members-the right to request the government in matters pertaining to items of the estimates or otherwise to lay on the table of thr nouse certain documents.
56103-228J


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is what
the Minister of National Revenue is trying to do.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We have asked for certain documents to be laid on the table of the house. The Prime Minister intimated a moment ago that the intention of the government was to discuss the matter when the item was again called. This is not in accordance with the request of members on this side of the house.


William Daum Euler: Mr. Speaker, it is merely
my intention to say that I propose now to* lay on the table for future discussion, if the-opposition prefer to postpone the discussion,, the papers asked for to show that the-Vigilant was sold by the Conservative government, not by the Liberal government.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Those tricks do not work.


William Daum Euler: Mr. Speaker, may I request
leave to lay the papers on the table?



IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):: Yesterday Your Honour read a message from the House of Lords-I mean the Senate- in regard to Bill No. 187, which was amended in the other chamber. I wish to read one of the paragraphs of the amendment, and to ask the Minister of Justice a question thereon:
Whenever any person other than a Canadian citizen advocates in Canada the overthrow by force or violence of the government of Great Britain or Canada, or other British dominion, colony, possession or dependency,
and so forth. I desire to ask the Minister of Justice where the senate gets the term "Canadian citizen".


Ernest Lapointe: I beg my hon. friend's pardon.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: What is a "Canadian
citizen"? I thought the proper term was "British subject".


Ernest Lapointe: I have just told my
hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) that on the orders of the day he cannot ask the Minister of Justice or any other minister to express a legal opinion on an abstract legal case or a hypothetical proposition.

Application of Dumping Duty



APPLICATION OF DUMPING DUTY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GOTT (South Essex):: I have a very brief question that will require but a brief answer. I do not know whether to make inquiries of the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister. I have under my hand a telegram from Leamington, Ontario, dated May 30:
Government permitting United States products to nullify our best efforts by glutting and swamping our market. This condition did not exist last year-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: I have already ruled that according to Bourinot telegrams should not be read to the house because, first, the signatures cannot be ascertained and, secondly, no outsider may give his opinion to influence the house.


Eccles James Gott: I would ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) whether it is the intention of the government to give any assistance to the early vegetable and fruit growers of western Ontario or of the Dominion at large?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not in a position
to make a statement at the present moment


John Wesley Edwards: I wish to ask the Prime Minister
a question. Yesterday the Prime Minister said in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for West Kootenay (Mr. Esling) that he could not say whether there were reasonable grounds for passing an order in council until he had consulted his colleagues, who might differ on the matter. That was his answer. May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether in the meantime he has obtained the views of his colleagues on this question, and what is the result of their collective wisdom?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think what
I said was that I might have one view as to what was a reasonable ground while some of my colleagues might entertain a different view; but that what the collective opinion would be as the result of an exchange of views I could not say until there had been an opportunity to exchange them. Up to the present time there has been no occasion to exchange views on the matter.


Eccles James Gott: I should like to ask-


Hewitt Bostock: Order.



DEPARTMENT OP MARINE AND FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Marine-life saving service, including rewards for saving life, $80,000.
Thomas Langton Church: I wish to direct the attention of the house to a disaster that overtook shipping on the great lakes last fall, and to another disaster that occurred on lake Erie a month ago. Only a miserable $8,000 out of this vote is provided for the great lakes to safeguard the interests of 5,000 seamen, who are exposed to very grave danger during the months of October, November, December and January. These men are engaged in carrying the grain crop of Canada on the great lakes and although operating Canadian vessels, they have to trust to the mercy of an American life saving station in the event of accident. This is not creditable to Canada. On the great lakes we have a life saving system which is nothing but a relic of the days before confederation. That is all it is. You can spend millions of dollars on railways and canals but only $80,000 in life saving, and only a miserable proportion of that on the great lakes. I wish to protest on behalf' of these brave seamen who are left to the mercy of Americans when they are in danger. There is nof an icebreaker to help these men or a decent life-saving station on the great lakes except the one at Toronto maintained by the local taxpayers.
There are ten Liberals in this house representing Ontario and maritime seats; only two or three of them are present to-day to speak for their constituencies. Where are these gentlemen who represent maritime cities around lake Superior, Georgian bay, lake Huron and lake Erie? Canada is proud to call herself a nation and yet in time of disaster these brave seamen are left, I repeat, without any help at all. We are thinking more of trade than we are of human life. Something should be done by this government to safeguard the lives of these men, but instead of that all the government is voting for their protection on the great lakes is a miserly $8,000. The government can afford millions of dollars for breakwaters and wharves and other material things, but not a dollar to protect these men, blood brothers of the men who fought at St. Julien, and scaled the heights of Passchendale. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) talks a lot of nonsense about equality of status. I do not see the hon. gentleman in his place this afternoon, but if

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
he would spend more of his time in an endeavour to solve economic problems and to promote the welfare of these brave men it would be far better than all the academic talk we hear from him in season and out of season. What does he care about these sailors? He talks about nationalism. It is a sham nationalism; that is all it is. If we had a .proper spirit of nationalism we would do something to protect these brave men who night and day are doing their utmost to advance the prosperity of the country. Many of these men who serve as seamen on the great lakes, transporting our grain, have applied to the government for consideration, and in this regard I have a huge pile of papers brought down as a return to an order regarding this question and asking for relief. In addition to this I myself appeared before the minister with a deputation of lake mariners and the Masters and Mates Association, the year before last and the year before that asking that something be done for these men. This country is following a pennywise-pound-foolish policy-spending millions of dollars on breakwaters, wharves and the like and absolutely neglecting these poor men.
It is the duty of the government to protect the lives of its citizens whether on the great lakes or on the ocean, but what is this government doing? All they have is a little bit of a life-saving boat on the great lakes. There are no stations at Port Dalhousie or at Hamilton; the oity of Toronto spends $60,000 of the taxpayers' money to protect the shipping on lake Ontario, and that life-saving crew has been called to Muskoka, to Georgian bay, to lake Huron, to lake Erie and to the Niagara river. On behalf of the taxpayers of the city of Toronto I wish to protest against this .added responsibility to their already heavy burden. If there is a disaster on these lakes what does the department do? A wreck commissioner is sent for, a man who knows something about salt water but who knows little or nothing about the great lakes, and he holds an inquiry. The wreck may have been the fault of the owners of the ship; it may have been caused by the fact that the captain did not have proper assistance, but the wreck commissioner comes along and takes away the captain's license, putting him out of a position and preventing him from earning his living. Canada has a government at Ottawa which chatters about our new status but which does nothing to help the poor sailors. Some years ago a parliamentary inquiry was held in England, and it was determined among other things that each ship must have a Plimsoll mark on the hull, but so far as shipping is concerned Canadla is still a colony. There are ten members in this house whose constituencies border on these great inland waters; I refer to the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Fansher), the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Goodison), the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Spotton), the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan), the hon. member for East Essex (Mr. Odette), the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm), the hon. member for South Bruce (Mr. Hall), the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Telford), the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) and the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Bowman). With the exception of one, these ten members support the Liberal government, yet we do nothing in this regard.
The government should vote a large sum of money for this work; we should have proper ice crushers and other equipment. They have this equipment on the St. Lawrence river and in the gulf, and modern aids to navigation, but apparently these upper lakes are to be left unprotected during the early winter and fall storms. The canals are open until early in December, yet our sailors on the great lakes are left to the kindness of the Americans if life-saving assistance is needed. The Department of Marine and Fisheries should be up and doing something, instead of spending all this money in the lower St. Lawrence. In one particular disaster which took place on the great lakes more lives were lost than in the battle of Queenston Heights in 1812, yet all this parliament does is to spend a large part of its time discussing academic questions. I am surprised that my hon. friends to the left, who have done a great deal of good work in connection with questions respecting public rights, do not take some action in this regard, since these sailors play an important part in advancing one of our great basic industries and in keeping trade in Canadian channels.
What is the situation in the United States? The War department has a life-saving station at the port of Buffalo consisting of 250 men, who go out over lake Erie in that district to protect the millions of people travelling up and down in the large steamers. They have other stations at Erie, at Cleveland, at Toledo and at Detroit; all along the lakes they have companies of naval reservists, some of them composed of as many as 300 and 400 men and assisted also by volunteer reserves. They are on the lookout all the time; they have a wireless system, aids to navigation, they have up-to-date fast boats, and in many cases they have on the upper lakes large ice crushers with which to assist these brave men

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
instead of leaving them ait the mercy of tlhe graves and fall storms.
I wish to protest against this condition on behalf of the lake sailors' associations, and the Masters' and Mates' Association; ever since I have been in parliament these men have been coming to Ottawa with memoranda in connection with this matter, only to have their data filed away in cold storage. It is all very well to say that $80,000 is 'being spent in this service, but nothing has been done on the great lakes; large numbers of Canadian boats are lying idle in Canadian ports while American hulls are carrying the grain of this country. In addition to that, these captains have many other grievances arising out of the lack of aids to navigation such as lighthouses, beacon lights, wireless apparatus, and many other things of that kind. AM the money has been spent in the lower 3t. Lawrence, and I protest on behalf of the taxpayers of Ontario, who pay 42 per cent rf the taxes of Canada.
I have brought up this question for four or five sessions of parliament without being able to accomplish anything. There should be one or two large life-saving stations on lake Superior; one should be located at Port Arthur, Fort William and the Soo. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) is not afraid or too proud to fight for his constituents or for the people in other parts of the country; some day he will have a great port at the bead of the lakes, but there is no sign of a proper life-saving station being located there, with ice crushers, wireless equipment and the other necessary aids to navigation. If there are to be no life-saving stations let the minister declare that after November 15 or to December 10 no more grain shall be carried, but if the men are to be sent out on the great lakes in the storms which prevail during late fall, they are entitled to all the protection and assistance it is possible to give.
No doubt the minister will get up and say that nothing can be done, that we are spending all we can or as much as the previous government did. This is an example of the way these estimates are considered. We only hold post mortems on the estimates; a great deal of the money has been spent by the time we come to consider them. I venture to say that if we held a parliamentary inquiry into this question many members would be horrified to find the true state of affairs on the great lakes. The man who has some freight to be carried will charter an American hull rather than a Canadian boat because he knows he can get a better insurance rate when

the insurance company learns that the boat will have the life-saving protection afforded by the United States government in the bad weather of November and December. In the dangerous waters of lake Superior, Georgian bay and lake Huron there is no life-saving equipment.
There is a large sand shoal off the Niagara river, and the attention of the minister has been called to it many times. What is the government going to do about it? Are they going to wait until one of these large boats founder with two or three thousand people aboard and have the disasters of the upper lakes occurring also in lake Ontario? I wish the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) were here to tell us something about deep-sea diving, and what it feels like to go down to the bottom of the sea. But he is over in Europe now trying to pacify that country, and I see he is riding around in aeroplanes. He represents one of these maritime constituencies on the upper lakes, adjacent to the scene of one of these disasters and he could tell of the necessity of getting something done.
Petitions have been sent to the government but they are doing nothing, and they will do nothing as long as there is an opposition to put up with it. I am going to move, as a censure of the government, that the item be reduced. It is the only weapon I have in committee. I do not wish to delay the house by moving an amendment to the motion to go into supply, but will simply move that this vote be reduced in committee although I would like to see the vote half a million.
If we had a great lake disaster it would wake up the whole country, and as a member of the opposition, representing a maritime constituency, I wish to protest against the continuance of the present indifference and neglect. I protest against the taxpayers of the city of Toronto having to expend about $60,000 to maintain a life-saving department for the whole lake when the government fails. They are called to Port Dalhousie, Hamilton, Georgian bay, the Muskoka lakes; they went to the Moon river to drag for five or six boys who were drowned there. They go all over the lakes, simply because we have a so-called Liberal government that will not make the expenditure to protect these brave men on the lakes.
As I say, I do not wish to take up the time of the house, but I am going to move that this item be reduced by $15,000, as a censure of the government for the lax way it has treated these brave men on the lakes. I, therefore, move as follows:
That item No. 211 be reduced from $80,000 to $65,000.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Mr. SPOTTON:: As one of the Liberal-
Conservative members from a maritime con-stituencj'' bordering on lake Huron, where many a home is mourning for the loved ones who have found a watery grave in lake Huron and the other lakes, I wish to say "amen" to everything the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) has said. Mr. Chairman, I am utterly amazed that the Prime Minister of Canada and his colleagues in the cabinet not only lend an unsympathetic ear, but entirely disregard, the pleadings we have heard1 this afternoon. Only one member of the government, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm), who comes from a neighbouring county, has given any attention whatever to these remarks. We are accustomed to read and hear the Prime Minister's speeches where he says in almost every paragraph that he wants this house and "the country" to understand so-and-so. His efforts and remarks are all to the country. I have never known of such a self-centred and selfsatisfied bunch of men in my life as the present administration. They have drunk deep of all kinds of knowledge and they apparently cannot learn anything from any private member who may rise in his seat.
It is only a short time ago that they showed great concern for the people residing in the vicinity of these lakes. I am not going to take up the time of the house further than just to say "amen" to everything the hon. member for Toronto Northwest has said, regarding some effort being made to protect the lives of the brave boys from my county and neighbouring counties who traverse the lakes and keep open these great arteries of trade and commerce. I would like the house and the country, and the men who have shed and will shed tears again, when addressing citizens of Canada to understand that these pleadings have been entirely disregarded by the members of the government, with the exception of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I want the people in my county and the neighbouring counties to understand that it has been practically a joke, so far as the present administration is concerned, and if they want any relief I suppose the only thing to do is to change the complexion of the administration.


Mr. CARDIN:: I have no hesitation in
saying that I sympathize most heartily with the representations which have been made by the two previous speakers. If we are not doing more than we are doing at the present time, it is not on account of a lack of sympathy or consideration for these navigators on the great lakes. This vote is put througti year after year. It started long ago when the boats navigating the great lakes were not
what they are to-day, and the life-saving service was established to cope with that situation. But with the great developments which have taken place regarding navigation on the great lakes, it is impossible to cope with the situation with the very limited amount which is voted year by year. With the sum we are asking for this year, we could not prevent such accidents as the hon. member has just referred to.
It must be remembered that the majority of the accidents which do occur on the groat lakes happen towards the close of the navigation season, and the navigators themselves and the proprietors of the ship take a certain amount of risk in running their boats at this late period of the year. It would help very materially if some sort of an understanding were arrived at between the shipping interests whereby navigation would cease when it was not considered to be safe on the lakes. It would be impossible to stop all the accidents which occur on the lakes. We are doing the best we can with the votes we are getting, but I am free to admit that we could do more if we had a little more money. But even if we spent double the amount we are asking for this year, we could not cope with the situation.
Reference has been made to the United States, it being claimed that they have a more adequate system. As far as the number of accidents is concerned, I think we compare very favourably with the United States. They have had as many accidents as we have had in Canada on the great lakes or anywhere else, and to say that we should provide lifesaving stations and life-saving apparatus at every point where there is navigation, or where there is dianger, would mean that we would have to come to parliament and ask for several millions of dollars. We would need that amount to cope with all the representations made by certain gentlemen. We are in sympathy with those who sail the lakes, and we sympathize with the families who have lost loved ones, .but we must admit that with the best system possible we will never be in a position to prevent all accidents and casualties in navigation.
I cannot agree with my hon. friend when he asks us to reduce the item. If we are not doing enough with the appropriation of $80,000 that we have at present, we shall certainly do much less if we reduce this small appropriation. Good service has been rendered by the small stations that we have, with their limited means and apparatus, and it would be a mistake to do away with them even if they are not as effective as they would be if we were spending millions instead of thousands of dollars as we are doing now. I might express the view of the officers of the department, after

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
having studied the matter. They are of opinion that it is almost impossible to cope entirely with the situation which has been revealed and the prevention of accidents. The technical men of the department are of the view that the best safeguards in regard to navigation and shipping are those which they have enumerated in a short memorandum which has been given to me, as follows:
1.	By the provision and maintenance of modern aids to navigation, including accurate and reliable charts and sailing directions.
2.	By providing that all vessels shall be properly equipped with lifesaving apparatus.
3.	By providing that only certified and fully qualified officers shall be employed in the navigation of vessels.
i. By the dissemination by radio broadcast and by the display of land signals of information relating to conditions of navigation, weather conditions generally and particularly of impending storms.
I may add to that that the regulations in regard to seaworthiness of vessels are applied most strictly. If we could apply in practice all these suggestions, we would help to solve the problem and give valuable assistance to the shipping interests. Indeed, if all these suggestions were put into practice and accepted with good will on the part of the shipping interests, we would do more than we could ever do by maintaining or developing the lifesaving system that we have at the present time. Personally I would not object to spending a larger amount of money on a bigger scheme for life-having; I admit it is worth the money that we might spend on it; but we are not quite sure whether we would be in a position even then to cope with the situation as it exists. My sentiments in the matter are just as good and strong as those of the 'hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) and the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Spotton) who has just taken his seat. We are ready to do everything we can for the safety of the mariners and up to the present time with the limited means and ap.-propriation granted to us we have done pretty well even in comparison with what has been done in the United States. We ought to retain this appropriation. If we do little, let us do what we are doing at present and do not let us do away with the existing services which have proved, generally speaking, their efficiency and benefit to navigators.


Thomas Langton Church: This amendment is the
only weapon I have. I would be willing to withdraw the amendment if the minister would increase the appropriation to half a million dollars, but I object to the minister telling the committee that his system compares favourably with that of the United States. The department have not enough life-saving 
stations on the great lakes. They have only small lifeboats at Cobourg, Goderich, Pelee Point, Port Stanley and so forth. These boats cannot go out to a ship at all owing to the waves raised by the storms. I have seen these small boats at the stations on the lakes and they are little life. boats, that cannot get out of the port in a storm. How are they going to get out in the month of December? I am sorry I have not with me a couple of hundred pictures that I have of disasters on the upper lakes. I have one here which shows the ice on the great lakes when our brave sailors were out there battling with the storm. The minister has not an up-to-date life-saving station on the entire great lakes; he has to protect these men who are carrying our grain on the great lakes, only a few lifeboats like those that are found on the top of a big vessel. I have here a picture of a tug at Owen Sound. It could not get out at all. This is a picture of a freighter covered up to the third deck with ice. A little rowboat cannot deal with a situation like that. It is almost comparable with the government's contemptible little navy in time of war. I have visited the life-saving stations at Detroit and Buffalo. They have a company of 250 naval reservists stationed at Buffalo, Detroit, and up the lakes, and in the summer time they have a volunteer company ready to go round the lakes when called upon and to give help if necessary. It was due to these United States men alone that our men were rescued. Just last month a disaster happened at Port Dover and they had to wait for a week to get a life-saving tug from Bessemer or Erie, Pennsylvania, to come to the rescue. Hon. Forbes Godfrey wired Hon. J. S. Martin, Minister of Agriculture, congratulating him on having got the United States life tug; and in seven days the men were brought into Port Dover.
I contend that this item ought to be increased to more than a million dollars for proper lifesaving stations to help the grain trade on the great lakes and to protect the travelling public and sailors. Are we to be at the mercy of American life-saving stations for our protection on the great lakes? More than 5,000 sailors are left at the mercy of the few small boats and there is not a modem, up-to-date station except the one at Toronto which :s maintained by the taxpayers of that city at a cost of $60,000 a year. The government should have ice-breaking tugs., modern marine equipment, wireless, fast tugs, lighthouses, sirens and other modem aids to navigation on the great lakes, the same as they have on the St. Lawrence and down in the gulf. A sum of $80,000 is not sufficient to

Supply-*Marine and Fisheries
establish one station. The department could not secure a proper tug for that amount. Such boats would cost as much as $100,000. Why does the Department of Marine and Fisheries not borrow some of the ships of the merchant marine which cost from a million to a million and a half dollars and which were sold for $50,000? They could have been converted into proper tugs to handle the situation on the great lakes. To-day it cannot be handled at all, and nothing will be done by the department. I do not really intend that $16,000 should be struck off this item, but an amendment of this kind is the only weapon I have in committee of supply. I could have brought up the subject on the motion to go into supply but I did not wish to delay the business of the house. I think it would be a good thing for the taxpayers if the session were closed up to-night before the government bring down any more supplementary estimates running into eight or ten million dollars. The Department of Marine and Fisheries is incapable of doing anything in regard to taking care of the situation on the great lakes. Until some members of parliament and government officials happen to be on some of these boats in a storm on the great lakes nothing will be done and the department will continue having little bits of rowboats at Cobourg, Goderich and other places and such contemptible small boats to rescue lives.
An hon. member from one of the Essex constituencies called attention to this matter a year ago in the house when there was a debate on this very item. The week after, at Pelee island, three or four men were drowned owing to the fact that there was no life-saving station there. Since then a station has been installed, but what is the use of a station and of a small life-boat on a stormy December night, with high seas running? I had a report-I am sorry I have not got it here-[DOT] showing what the United States government is doing in the matter of life-saving in its various harbours and ports. They have organized a permanent life-saving corps. At the city of Detroit, for instance, there is a corps of over two hundred men, and a lifesaving station at the Detroit Boat Club. They have also naval ships right at the port and and all along the river ready to go out on the lakes to the rescue of any large passenger boats that may be in distress. All we have is a life-saving boat about the length of a row boat and about as long as this table. Talk about $80,000! That is not nearly enough to spend on this vitally important work of life-saving. I have been down to Ottawa with the marine association representatives and with lake captains, and I know that they are left at the mercy of the politicians. Talk about Liberalism! There is no Liberalism at all in this country to-day. We have on the government benches the most moss-backed form of Toryism that there ever was in the history of the world. We have a government that lets these men drown in the lake storms. I withdrew my amendment, but I shall consult with the leader of our party with a view to moving an amendment on the motion to go into supply, because I should like a vote taken on the principle whether or not these men working on the lakes are entitled to protection.


Hugh Guthrie: I think there is much to be said in favour of the position that has been taken by my hon. friend who has moved the amendment, but I think that under all the circumstances he will be wise in withdrawing the amendment on the present occasion. An amendment to reduce the amount which has been placed in the main estimates for the purpose of life-saving would, I think, be probably misunderstood in the country, because the real object of the hon. member is to increase that amount, not to reduce it.
I must say, having regard to the situation on the great lake3, that the sum of SSO.OOO appearing in the estimates for the purpose of life-saving throughout the whole Dominion of Canada seems exceedingly small. I understand that at places like Goderich and Southampton on lake Huron, there is only an allotment of some $300, and that for the Georgian bay waters there is no allotment whatever. We. all know that scarcely a season passes without some serious misfortune occurring, involving loss of life in the waters which comprise our great lakes system. The amounts which we now vote are entirely inadequate for the purpose for which we are voting them. When one looks at the estimates and finds that we can afford to vote annually for topographical surveys, $400,000 odd, for geodetic surveys, $265,000, for geological surveys, $205,000, and so on, surely we should be able to afford in this country a very much larger sum than $80,000 for the purpose of life-saving, and I think the minister would do well before this house meets again to reconsider this whole question. The money which he spends now in many of these places is practically wasted money; it is of no avail in case of accident. The $300 at Goderich, the $300 at Southampton, the $300 at Cobourg, is practically a worthless expenditure. I do not advooate any tremendous or unwarranted expenditure in this respeyt, but I think that the minister and the government

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
would do well before the house meets again next year to see that there is appropriated an amount that will be commensurate with the [DOT]difficulties which we have always to face in the autumn on these waters.


Eccles James Gott: I do not seek a reduction
in this vote. What I do seek is more efficient service and dispatch from some of the life-saving stations that we have. I refer particularly to the Point Pelee life-saving station. WThen the committee rose last evening, the hon. member for West Essex (Mr. Robinson) had spoken of the liife-savingi station at Point Pelee, and my reference was to the southeast shoal lighthouse. I think the minister misunderstood my question at the time, I hope to have an opportunity to deal with the matter which I started to take up last night under these estimates, and I propose now to bring to the attention of the minister the most deplorable conditions that exist at Point Pelee life-saving station.
During the last session of the house I put a number of questions on the order paper, some twenty-five in number, in connection with the operation of the Point Pelee lifesaving station. One was:
What was the total cost for maintaining the station for the year 1926?
The answer to that question was:
$7,378.76. (Up to date for fiscal year 1926-27) (Covers wages, board, repairs and labour supplies, clothing, and so forth.)
Another question I asked was:
When was the station first established?
I also asked:
14. What has been the cost of maintenance: (a) total cost; (b) each year since it was established?
_ 15. What training or practice is participated in by the crew under the present coxswain?
The answer to question 15 was:
Drills performed twice a week. (Include managing the lifeboat and other duties connected with the station and an exercise of four or five miles in the boat.)
The cost of maintaining this life-saving station has risen each year. In 1903 the cost was $730; in 1911, $1,838.25; 1912, $4,125.97; 1916, $10,626.26; which included $5,500 for the erection of a boathouse; 1918, $5,252.54; 1924, $7,670.55; 1926, $11,412.87. I also asked this question:
Did the government receive the following resolution passed by the Pelee park patrons on July 21, 1926:
"That we call the attention of the Department of Marine and Fisheries to the fact that though the tug Peter Pan 2nd was in distress and blowing continuously on the morning of January 21st, a short distance from the Point

Pelee life-saving station, no effort was made by the crew stationed there to reach her until after six in the morning, and then owing to inefficiency they were unable to do so in weather so moderate that all the fishermen were attending their nets as usual; and we ask that this matter be investigated at once to prevent another such accident as the Pelee Island mishap of a year ago."
The answer that was given to question No.
18	that I asked was this:
No. (Extract from a letter received from clerk of the peace, Windsor, Ont.) "Although this took place within three miles of the lifesaving station no one there knew of it, although the boat could be seen floating bottom up quite clearly from the shore and the whistle was blown hard before the boat turned turtle."
The answer I received to question No.
19	was as follows:
The coxswain in his report of the accident states: "When the man on the beach reported ship aground made ready to go out. Saw fishing vessel Flossie G. which had been lifting nets close by proceeding to assistance, so waited their report. Survivors landed by fishing boat and taken care of at station. Survivors stated no danger whistle blown-engine room whistle blown by Captain-two short blasts."
Captain Demers in summing up his evidence of investigation states:	"Even if the lifeboat
had been manned it could not have rendered any help as the turning over of the vessel was so sudden that the crew was trapped and perished within a few minutes. The distance from the station to the place of casualty is estimated to be three miles, and when the crew searched the place on the following morning, Sunday, May 3rd, ^ when the weather and wind had subsided, this distance was covered in one hour and ten minutes. In view of this, I am of the opinion that the life-saving crew would not have rendered help and saved other lives."
Then, Mr. Chairman, I asked:
Did the government receive the resolution dated July 21, 1926?
The answer given me was:
The department contemplates a complete reorganization of this station.
I want to know from the minister:-what steps have been taken to reorganize the Point Pelee life-saving station; who is going to be put in charge of it; and what kind of service does the minister propose this station shall render to shipping in general?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Mr. Chairman, according to the information in the department from our officers, this station is operated properly and satisfactorily. As to having a reorganization towards efficiency, I need not say that we are always striving to get the best results obtainable on the part of our employees. If necessary, I am quite ready to make further inquiries and to remedy any evil which an investigation might disclose.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Eccles James Gott: I think the minister and his officials agree that this station was no<t properly operated a year ago, otherwise they would never have given me the answer that the department contemplated a complete reorganization of the station. What did they mean by that? They simply meant that the station was not properly operated and that they proposed to reorganize) it frlom the ground up. I desire to know if the station is going to be operated properly and properly manned. It is not at the present time, and was not a year ago.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think the word "reorganization" which has been applied to the Point Pelee station applies to all our life-saving stations. We contemplate improving the conditions everywhere. We are trying to get the best results obtainable from this and all our other life-saving stations.


Eccles James Gott: Who is the coxswain at the Point Pelee life-saving station?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Unforunately I have not the name.


Eccles James Gott: I do not expect the minister to have all these details in his mind, but I should like to know what was meant by "reorganization". I believe this life-saving station should be completely reorganized and re-manned.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That may be the case.


Mr. GO  IT@: Then will the minister in the near future take steps to inquire thoroughly into the operation of this life-saving station?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Certainly.


Eccles James Gott: Thank you.


Mr. MALCOLM:: Mr. Chairman, I should not like this discussion to close with the implication of the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) that those of us representing constituencies on the great lakes have not taken an interest in navigation. I do not think there is any member in the house more familiar with navigation conditions on the upper lakes than I am. The acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) Observed that he did not believe in any unwarranted expenditure. That is where he is entirely wrong. This expenditure for lifesaving stations must remain as it is, or it must be extremely large. There is no use in the member for Toronto Northwest criticizing the government for what he thinks is the inadequacy of this vote. The vote has been drifting along at about the same amount
under several governments, but every government has been increasing the appropriation each year for aids to navigation. Every man who knows the class of boats engaged in the grain trade-and my hon. friend from Toronto Northwest professes a great interest in the grain trade-knows that these boats follow each other down the centre of lake Huron, and could not be quickly reached1 by any lifesaving station located on the shores of the lake. True, we have bad storms, but no man can say at what point on the shore, either Canadian or American, a big vessel will land if she loses her rudder or propeller and gets off her course. To thoroughly patrol the Canadian side of the great lakes would mean a tremendous expenditure on life-saving stations and powerful tugs standing by the whole season long ready to respond to any emergency.
Now, when do the accidents occur to the grain boats? Never in the summer. Not until late in the fall when the navigators are anxious to make the last trip against the storm signals set by the Marine department and against the advice of more cautious men. I have known sea captains to pay high insurance rates and take chances against the storm signals puit up by the Marine department. Under those conditions there is no possibility of a life-saving crew reaching a boat in the night in zero weather and in a blinding snowstorm. No patrolling boat could give relief under those conditions. Personally I feel that the small life-saving stations on lake Huron are doing good work. I have seen volunteer crews in action from my home town and from Goderich and Southampton, and they have performed very fine services in life-saving. These small stations do very valuable work, but once a large grain boat gets adrift in bad weather, not even a large life-saving station could help her.
With regard to the marine men in the various ports, I think almost without exception the captains of fishing and towing tugs at Midland, Owen Sound, Southampton, Kincardine and Goderich have always stood by ready to render all the service they could in case of a wreck. I do not speak of lake Erie as I am not so familiar with it. But the committee has to consider not an increase of, say, one hundred thousand dollars. It has to consider one of two things: whether to continue the small life-saving stations and leave to the installation of wireless on all the boats, storm signals, and so forth, the protection of the large vessels; or whether to install sufficient stations with the necessary equipment and boats, which expenditure will

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
run into millions of dollars. It is absolutely unfair for the member for Toronto Northwest to say that this government is doing nothing to protect the lives of the sailors on the great lakes. The government is doing what the past three or four governments have done-it is spending more money every year to protect those men.


Mr. MANION:: Mr. Chairman, I desire to express my entire sympathy with the object aimed at by the member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) to improve our means for life-saving on the great lakes. I agree with some of the remarks made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) that a good deal of the loss of life occurs after the ordinary navigation period closes in the fall. I suggest to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) that he might well consider calling a conference between the ship owners, the Lake Carriers Association and the lake captains to formulate a plan for lessening the loss of life in the last few weeks of navigation between, say, the 1st and 15th of December, and sometimes later in the month. I do not wish to make the statement frequently heard on the street, that there is too much hazard taken with the lives of these men. I do not -wish to condemn the steamship companies; I have no desire to be put in that position. But I do believe that something should be done in co-operation with all these different bodies, the steamship owners, the insurance people, the Lake Carriers' Association, the captains and the men. After all it is the captains and the men who lose their lives. The insurance companies may lose a little insurance, but it is the men and the captains who suffer the loss of life. They suffer as the result of chances taken, whether under orders from headquarters or not, I do not know. At any rate I suggest that a conference might be held. The minister might consider the question of holding such a conference with the object of either shortening by law the number of days or seeing whether some other method might not be worked out whereby the loss of life could be lessened. I do not wish to suggest what should be done, because I am not an expert. But having lived all my life at the head of the lakes, where a large proportion of the shipping is carried on, I know that there is a feeling that something should be done to lessen this hazard to the lives of the seamen.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The very suggestion my
hon. friend makes is contemplated by the technical men of the department, and in the notes they have handed to me cognizance is taken of it.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the hon. member have leave to withdraw his amendment? Carried.
Amendment (Mr. Church) withdrawn.


Mr. NEILL:: I wish to transfer the debate
now to the Pacific coast, but before proceeding to what I have to say I desire to acknowledge gratefully the fact that the department expended a good deal of money last year in certain very much needed repairs to the two life saving stations on the west coast. This will undoubtedly lead to a greater efficiency in the service.
I wish to put in a plea for better pay for these men who man the small lifeboats. In my opinon they have both a moral and a legal claim. As regards the moral claim- or, if you will, the claim of necessity-I would suggest that these men are not being paid a sufficient salary. Their salary is $65 a month, and $65 a month in British Columbia, especially in the remote parts, bulks very small as compared with the same sum in Quebec; not that we have higher standards of living, but our expenses are higher. It is true they also receive a board allowance of $25 a month, but that and more than that goes in their living expenses, because of course they must live at the station. For a single man this may not appear so unreasonable because he gets board, lodging and $65 a month. In the case of a married man, however, it is very inadequate. We presume that it is the desire of the government to stimulate immigration, and you cannot get better immigration than that which comes by way of the stork. I contend therefore that we should not discriminate against married men in the employ of the government, but should rather encourage them. Lest I be accused of putting forward a merely hypothetical case, I desire to cite two actual cases within my knowledge; one is that of a man with a wife and five children and the other a man who has a wife and a family of four. These men must maintain private homes, pay rent, and provide fuel, clothing and all other expenses involved in the upkeep of a family; the only exception is that their own actual food is provided. These places are remote. Suppose one of these men with a family of four or five-is expecting an addition to his family. He lives in a remote district and by the time the woman goes to the hospital, 100 or 150 miles away, the expenses will run up considerably. Some help has to be hired to look after the children while she is away because the husband is away at work day and night. When the bills for the hospital, the doctor and so forth are also paid that means very nearly $500; one is quite safe, at any rate, in putting

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
it at $400. I want to ask hon. members this question: By what method can a man receiving $65 a month pay house rent and provide clothing, fuel, food and so forth for a wife and four children and lay aside a sum of approximately $40 a month against future arrivals? Sixty-five dollars a month does not provide very much in the way of savings for that or any other unforeseen contingency.
It has been suggested that if the pay cannot be increased the department might at least encourage these married men iby building small houses for them; that would represent in some measure an increase in their remuneration. I might quote one sentence from a letter I have received on this subject-not from one of these men, because it is not they only who are complaining. This letter comes from an outsider with no interest in the matter other than that of a good citizen. He concludes his letter thus:
Canada requires good citizens and in my opinion the best will be those born in Canada of healthy parents who have passed the acid test of Canada citizenship.
He might have said Canadian pioneering as well.
The foregoing is an example and there must be thousands more and they cannot exist on a cup of rice per diem.
So much for the moral side of the question. Now I turn to the legal phase of it. Perhaps it is not legal, but it is very nearly so. I suggest that these men should have received the $10 increase voted by the House of Commons last year. In the supplementary estimates of last year vote 535 read:
To provide for flat increases to the civil service both inside and outside.
And the sum voted was $2,700,000. I understand that the increase was determined this way. The government asked the Civil Service Commission to submit an estimate of the amount required to provide a $10 a month flat increase to government employees with certain named exceptions. There were one or two grades to whom, in council, it was decided not to give the increase, and those grades were named. Apart from those, however, the government asked the Civil Service Commission to state how much would be required to give the whole outside and inside civil service $10 a month flat increase. The Civil Service Commision went into the matter thoroughly and finally named $2,700,000, and the money was voted by parliament
Now to anticipate the answers which I know will be given to this argument. It will be suggested that these men do not come under the Civil Service Commission. I am aware that they do not. But there are a
great many other people who got the $10 raise who did not come under the Civil Service Commission. And it never was intended either by the government, by parliament or by the Civil Service Commission that the increase should be limited to those under the commission. If it was to be limited to those under the commission why was it that the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment, and many others I could name, all received the $10 increase? .They all got it. The fact is that the money was voted for the whole civil service, inside and outside. Let me take another argument. How was the money spent? How did it reach the office holder? In the case of ordinary men coming under the commission, the civil service, at the end of the following month, after the money had been voted, made out the pay checks for $10 a month more, and that was the end of it. I inquired as to the method that was adopted with regard to those entire departments that were not under the Civil Service Commission and I was informed that what was done was this. The heads of the departments were notified that the money was available, they put in a requisition, got an order in council passed and then they paid the money out to their respective employees, those who came under that particular branch. That was all they did. There is no doubt about it; that has been done, and that is the procedure by which it was done. In cases where they came under the Civil Service Commission the commission did it; where the employees did not come under the Civil Service Commission the head of the department did it, and as far as I can see the only thing necessary in this particular case is for the head of the department concerned to put this into effect. The money is there; parliament voted it, and surely they must have intended the money to be used. It was not a lump sum voted blindly, because the Civil Service Commission presented a detailed report to the cabinet earmarking every dollar of that sum, within reasonable limits, for each department and for each branch of the different departments. There is no doubt that sufficient money was put aside to take care of these particular employees.
Then I have another bit of evidence. On the basis of the general raise which took place at that time the Civl Service Commission, either instructed by the government or on their own initiative, thought it was necessary to prepare a new classification. As everyone is aware, all employees of the gov-

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
eminent are classified. I have seen this classification and it specifically allows to this class of employees wages based on the $10 increase last year. The civil service schedule in force prior to April 1, 1927, before the $10 raise was given, gave the coxswain of a power boat from $100 to $120; that is, he began at $100 and went up to $120 by increases of $5 per month per annum. Under the new schedule prepared after April 1, 1927, and in consequence of that increase voted by parliament, this same class received from $110 to $130. So we have this anomaly, since these men have not received this increase; a new man coming into the service would start off at $110, while the man who joined up previously would only start at $100. It may be said that those who enter the service now do not get this increase, but I say they should get it, because the Civil Service Commission has so classified them. When the government is asked why this man or some other man does not get an increase we are always told that he is paid according to the schedule prepared by the Civil Service Commission, so I repeat that this is the schedule prepared by the Civil Service Commission, and I only ask that these men be paid accordingly.
Here is the matter stated concisely by the Civil Service Commission:
The amount voted by parliament last year towards salary revision is sufficiently large to cover the increases to employees not coming under the Civil Service Commission, and all that is necessary is an order in council on the recommendation of the head of the department to put the increase into effect.
That is the case in a nut shell, and all I ask is that this money be paid to these men both on the ground of necessity and justice and because it was the intention of the government that they should receive it.
I will anticipate the reply .of the minister; he will say they do not come under the Civil Service Commission, because they are in the same category as the men working on Dominion government boats, who are specifically excluded from the control of the Civil Service Commission. That is quite so, but that applies equally to the employees of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment and several other branches of the government, and I know they received the increase. Why should not these men get it also? Surely if an increase can be justified at all it should be given to a man getting only $65 a month, and all I ask is that the increase be granted or that some plausible reason be given why it is not granted, in order that I may tell these men why they are not getting it.


Eccles James Gott: The hon. member for North
Bruce (Mr. Malcolm) has given a very fine synopsis of the difference between a volunteer service and a service under the control of the government. I am sorry he is not in his seat, because I want him to know that I substantially agree with his remarks.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: I have just a word to say in addition to what I said last night; perhaps I will be repeating what I said then, but a remark made by the minister compels me to do so. He said that a review of these stations would be made. I do not know whether I interpreted1 his meaning correctly, but I was led to believe that he was only going to deal with the stations already in existence. Last night I pointed out to him that consideration should be given to strategic points along the lakes, such as the end of lake Ontario. Just as an example, because I do not wish to say this is more important than other points, let me recommend to his consideration a point such as the Main Ducks, where a great deal of trouble has arisen and where a great deal of volunteer assistance has been given in the past.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think my hon. friend may be assured that it is not my intention to confine the study of the matter to the stations already established. We are quite ready to examine any other points where a station might be of some use.
In reply to the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) I may say that if any injustice has been done these men and if there is any possibility of giving them the increase which he has mentioned, I am quite prepared to do so.


Eccles James Gott: I think the minister will agree that the sum voted is not too large.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, it is not. Next year
I may come with a larger request, if I am here.


Mr. COWAN:: May I direct the attention
of the minister to the necessity of establishing one of these stations at the head of the lakes, at either Port Arthur or Fort William? I know the records of the department will show that a great many of the serious marine disasters occur at the northern end of lake Superior; that was brought to my attention again within the last few days by reason of the finding of the bodies of some of the sailors who were lost with the steamer Kamloops last fall. Apparently that boat went down at Isle Royale, within about thirty miles of the head of the lakes, and if a station of any kind had been in existence

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
there I think something could have been done at least to save the lives of those sailors. It might not have been (possible to save the boat itself, but some of the sailors might have been rescued.
May I further suggest that I think all boats plying the great lakes should be equipped with wireless. It was unfortunate that this particular boat possessed no wireless, and I think one of the conditions of operation should be that wireless must be installed on every lake-travelling boat, and there should be a wireless station at the head of the lakes in order to ensure rapid communication. Moreover, I think there should be at the head of the lakes a fast salvage boat. Thirty miles is not a great distance to cover, and most of the disasters take place among the islands at the head of the lakes. If a wireless station existed there such boats could be reached within two or three hours; that would largely help in the saving of lives, and so I think the minister should give special attention to the conditions which exist at the head of the lakes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Hydrographic and tidal and current surveys, and to provide for the maintenance and repair of hydrographic steamers, $530,000.
Alan Webster Neill: I have one other small grievance to bring up; perhaps this may not be quite the appropriate item, but I think it will do. It appears that some thirteen years ago, I think in 1914, regulations were adopted by the department providing for the issuing of uniforms to the captains and some of the men on board government steamers. The custom adopted was, in the easel of boats only working for a short time each year, that they would get one suit, and, in the case of the boats working the whole year round, they would get two suits. This went on for thirteen or fourteen years, and when a man has been getting two suits a year for fourteen years he might consider, or at least anicipate, that it would continue. Apparently without any notice-I am speaking subject to correction-last October the rations, so to speak, in the shape of clothing, were discontinued. This practice was started by an order in council, and I asked the other day what order in council it was which had discontinued it, and I was told that it had been done by departmental authority. I asked the question why the remuneration of these men should be reduced in this way, and the reply I received was that the supplying of uniforms had never been regarded as remuneration. I submit that it is a very substantial part of a remuneration, the supplying of two uniforms per year. Some years ago I had occasion to write the department asking what the pay of these captains and officers was, and in the reply I received it was stated as being so much money, so much board, and uniforms, it being clearly indicated that the uniform was part of their remuneration. I think this would apply both in the opinion of him who gives and him who receives. A uniform furnished twice a year is certainly a considerable item in a man's remuneration. It may be argued that this is not direct pecuniary payment, but certainly it is an inducement to the man to go into the service and stay there.
Perhaps I did not word my question prop- ' erly, but I have not received the explanation I would like to get. It seems to me that this is a small matter with which to discontent a number of people. These men work very hard and under very trying conditions, especially during the winter time. If they had been given six months' notice, they would have had time to adjust themselves, and if they were not satisfied they could have quit the service. But it was done without any notice, and so far as the men know, and so far as I know, without any justification. I would like the minister to give us an explanation as to why this was done.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am not in position to say positively, but I believe the regulations to which he referred are themselves confirmed by order in council, and it may be that the order in council to which he referred is one giving authority to make certain regulations.
I am not in a position to state exactly what the fact is regarding that.
As far as the discontinuancy of the practice of supplying uniforms is concerned, I may say that the decision was arrived at as a result of comparing our practice with what is being done by private companies. Neither the Canadian Pacific nor the Canadian National, nor any other private shipping company, supply uniforms to their men at the present time.


Alan Webster Neill: None at all?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: None at all. I understand that they only supply the braid which goes on the sleeves, and something to place in front of their caps. We were the only people giving uniforms to employees, and we thought we would practise economy by reducing the number of uniforms given out. I would say to my hon. friend that requests are always being received to supply uniforms to men on government ships. For example, the lightship employees have requested that they be

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
supplied with uniforms. These ships do not move from place to place, but the men ask that uniforms be supplied so that will be well dressed when they receive visits from inspectors of the department, or when other boats are passing. Requests of this kind are numerous, and we thought we would economize, always keeping in mind that we were doing more than the private companies in regard to that.


Eccles James Gott: As this vote is six and a half times, larger than the previous vote, it is only natural to expect that it will be passed much quicker, but I would like to have the minister explain the reasons for the increase of $190,000 over the vote of last year.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I expected that question,
and I proposed to give the explanation. It is stated that this proposed appropriation is to provide for the continuation of hydrographic surveys and tidal and current surveys; the maintenance of automatic gauges for the determination of water levels in the St. Lawrence and on the great lakes; the operation and maintenance of permanent tidal stations and equipment of temporary stations during the summer months; the preparation and publication of hydrographic charts and tide tables.
Provision is made additional to that of the last fiscal year for reconditioning the steamer Lillooet at a cost of $35,000, and for new equipment and launches for the steamers Acadia and Cartier, at a cost of $10,000; all made necesary by wear and tear. Also for the maintenance and operation of the steamer Bayfield at a cost of $35,000; for work to be done in lake St. Clair, at a cost of $15,000, and for operations in Great Slave lake. Provision is also included for surveys to be made of the approaches to Fort Churchill as far east as Cape Churchill in the Hudson bay, at a cost of $75,000. The inshore work around the Magdalen islands, under way for several years, has been completed, and it is proposed to proceed with the offshore work immediately, necessitating the use of a steamer and the consequent recommissioning of the Bayfield. Operations in lake St. Clair were started last season, and it is necessary to complete them with the least possible delay. Great Slave lake is the connecting link between the Slave and Mackenzie rivers on the mainline of communication with the Northwest Territories. This lake is 110 miles long and 50 miles wide. Necessarily, through communication is by shallow river steamers, and these steamers are always in danger when passing through the lake in time of storm. The proposal is to make a chart of the lake and to indicate where these vessels may find safe refuge in such case.
[Mr Cardin.]


Eccles James Gott: What is the nature of the
work in lake St. Clair?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is to ascertain the depth of water at different places.


Eccles James Gott: With a view to deepening?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Not necessarily, but with a view to supplying accurate information to the navigation companies.


Alan Webster Neill: I can heartily support this
vote, although I may have wished that the minister would not practise the somewhat petty economy in connection with the matter I spoke of a minute ago, because I do not think discontented men will give very good service. This vote is very badly needed. The east- does not appreciate how the west is growing in the necessity for work of this character. It is practically all new territory, and while charting was done many years ago by Vancouver, the work he did was done on a very large scale. That is to say, he would sound in a certain place, and then might not take another sounding until he reached another point five miles away. That is impossible for the present day use of navigators. On the west coast of Vancouver island alone in a very small area there has been a big development in the last few years owing to the establishment of twenty-three or twenty-five plants in connection with the reduction of pilchards. That is an entirely new industry with an output running into millions of dollars every year. It has been in existence for some eighteen months only; but the point I want to make is that every one of those plants is established in a new and unknown portion of the coast where no captain dares go in with his boat and it is essential that it be charted in order to let the boats go in or otherwise they cannot get the product out. I am not blaming the department because it is impossible for this work all to be done at once, but in one case the inability of the department to chart a certain place at the time the charting was asked for resulted in a loss of SI,000 to the man who owned the plant, because he had to lighter his product to somewhere else and it cost him $1,000.
While I am on my feet I should like to say a word of commendation of the gentleman who is in charge of the work on the coast. I refer to Mr. Parizeau, who is doing good work, who is entirely devoted to it, and who makes every dollar bring forth a dollar's worth of efficiency. The only trouble is that he has not the equipment to do what he would like to He hopes, and I hope the department will be able perhaps out of the extra money provided for in this item, to provide an aux-

Supply-Marine and Fisheries-Radio
diary steamer on the coast. There are portions of the coast in enclosed waters such as Nootka sound, Esperanza inlet and Kyuquot sound, where important works are going on and much charting is needed. That can be done by a small auxiliary steamer and it is not good economy to take the Lillooet out of the rougher waters into a small confined piece of water like that. The smaller boat could do good work there and the Lillooet could go into the rougher waters. I heartily endorse this appropriation and I do not think it is a nickel too much.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the establishment of a patrol service to investigate the conditions of navigation in Hudson strait and Hudson bay, $500,-
Mr. GARDINER:: Would the minister give some explanation of this appropriation and also state what the experience of last year was in regard to investigation?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is necessary to complete the work that we undertook last year to make a survey of Hudson strait with a view to ascertaining the possibilities of navigating it, how long it can be navigated and what aids to navigation will be required for this particular place. The amount voted last year was $850,000, and this year we are asking for $500,000 which we think will be sufficient to complete the work that we have already undertaken. As has been stated in the report which has already been tabled, we have established in Hudson strait three points of observation and from those points officers are surveying the condition of the strait in regard to ice and storms. We have at each of those points a flying machine which is used in surveying the strait.
As regards the operations of last year, it is apparent from the report which has already been tabled that conditions are satisfactory, and that the ice was not very abundant during the course of the year. In fact the ice appeared only in the month of November. To give a proper resume of the work which has been done there, it would be necessary to1 read the report which has already been tabled. Generally speaking I may say that the observations that we made during the course of last year are very satisfactory and encouraging.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: The minister mentioned
an aeroplane service. Are the aeroplanes under his department, or are they acting in conjunction with the Department of National Defence?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The machines were bought with the money which was voted last year, but they are operated by men of the Department of National Defence.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Has the minister any
idea of bringing the civil aviation branch under the Department of Marine and Fisheries?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have no information on
that.


Robert Gardiner: I presume these men are under the instructions of the minister's department?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Mr. FRASER:: What was the total expenditure under this item last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Last year we spent the entire amount of $850,000, plus a certain amount which was voted in the supplementaries at the opening of the session.


Mr. KELLNER:: How many months was
the strait open for navigation last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: According to the report, if I am not mistaken, the ice appeared only in the early part of November.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: There is ice now, I suppose?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Radio telegraph service and to provide for the construction and maintenance of radio telegraph ship to shore stations and the general administration of the provisions of the Radio Act and regulations throughout the Dominion, $560, 865.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This is the item under
which we should have some declaration from the minister regarding the policy directing the control of radio throughout the Dominion.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is the next item. This particular item refers to navigation.


Eccles James Gott: Is this appropriation being substantially increased year by year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The present appropriation is increased by $61,000, and in view of the importance of the system as an aid to navigation, the increase is not very large.


Eccles James Gott: What was the appropriation in 1926-27?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: 


Eccles James Gott: Will the minister go back
one year more?

3618	COMMONS
Supply-Marine and Fisheries-Radio


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In 1925-26, the amount was $500,000.


James Shaver Woodsworth: According to the
statement provided us, this vote covers the administration of the provisions of the Radio Act.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, generally speaking, but since last year or two years ago we have divided this vote into two. The next item provides for the broadcasting and it will cover the point which my hon. friend has in mind.


Robert Gardiner: Is the minister extending the service under the item under discussion?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Certainly.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Radio service-to provide for the general improvement of reception conditions to licensed broadcast listeners, $190,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This is the vote we desire to discuss. I have but little to say on this subject, but I shall, however, raise a point which to my mind is important. I am not for the moment prepared to criticize the action of the minister in any given case, that is, from any knowledge I have of the fairness or otherwise of his action, 'but what I do criticize is the assumption by the minister- I do not say that offensively, but I cannot think of another word at the moment that will convey my meaning-of authority to determine whether this man or that man or this company or that company shall be granted a license. What I do suggest to the minister is that before taking any such action as was taken against the International Bible Students' Association in the cancellation of their license, there ought to have been formulated definite regulations controlling or directing the whole system of broadcasting. I submit to the minister that his action in cancelling that license appears to have offended a very large number of people. I am not in a position, without having before me all of the facts, to express any definite opinion whether the action taken was fair or unfair, but I do say that it has the appearance of unfairness; it has the appearances of being an arbitrary decision against this association. As far as their religious views are concerned, I am not interested in that phase of the matter at all, but I do submit that whatever their views may be, they are entitled to the right to disseminate their views unless there is some general regulations which simply takes them in along with all other persons holding various views on religious and other subjects.
My whole point, therefore, is that the action taken by the minister has the appearance of
IMr. GottJ
being arbitrary, and should not have been taken in the absence of some well defined policjr and fixed regulations governing the issuance of licenses to all these broadcasting companies or associations.


James Shaver Woodsworth: 
Mr. KENNEDY:: Was there not a complaint that t-he Bible Students' Association had interfered with the advertising of Gooder-ham and Worts whisky?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think the hon. gentleman -is correct. With regard to vaccination, unless I am mistaken, I have seen certain editorials in -the Ottawa Citizen objecting to that particular treatment. I do not know that the Ottawa Citizen ought to be suppressed because of its peculiar ideas in that respect; and I do not quite see why that should be a ground for cancelling the license of -the Bible Students. From Vancouver came a complaint, this time from the radio association, that there were too many stations. I would -consider it strange if the complaint of rival organizations should be listened to, and should form the ground for this action by the department.
Classifying these complaints, some had to do with religious teaching. Now, I am not a member of the Bible Students' Association. It does see-m to me that a great deal of their theology is positively grotesque. But I should like to ask, when did we appoint a minister of t-his government as censor of religious opinions? All down through history religious bodies have criticized -other religious bodies. I think the great Roman Catholic church has sometimes spoken very harshly concerning heretics; I think the Anglican church in its Athanasian- creed utters some very strong things against those who do not believe in that creed; I think the Westminster Confession contains some very strong words against people who do not accept that particular creed; and I have heard evangelists telling the people generally where they will

Supply-Marine, and Fisheries-Radio
go unless they believe the doctrines then being preached to them. But when did we say that any of these bodies were to be silenced because other citizens did not agree with them? It is stated that the Bible Students condemn other religious bodies. Of course, that is true of nearly all religious bodies. Why should we penalize the Bible Students simply because they follow in the footsteps of other bodies? The Catholics have condemned the Protestants. Sometimes I read the Orange Sentinel which is sent to me. It bitterly criticizes Roman Catholics, yet I do not see that the Orange Sentinel is being suppressed because of its views. If the Bible Students are to be put out of business because they condemn alike Catholics and Protestants, I do not see why the Sentinel and the Catholic Register should not be suppressed.
Seriously, Mr. Chairman, I think we are on very dangerous ground. It has been stated that the Bible Students declared there was one law for the rich and another for the poor. Well, some of us have been trying to say that as loudly as we could for some years past, and if we can have any assistance from the Bible Students in saying that, some of us feel we ought to have it. Some hon. members may take the ground that the law is equal. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) declared recently that our laws in Canada apply equally to rich and to poor. I recall a statement by the late Anatole France, which I would commend to the hon. gentleman if he were in his seat. Anatole France said:
The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread.
I think perhaps those who take the abstract academic position, that the law applies equally to rich and poor, may very well ponder these very incisive words. We have also been told that the Bible Students have broadcast tirades against capitalism.


Mr. GEARY:: According to what we hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, I am inclined to think there have been some very great teachers who pronounced woe upon those who were rich. If you are going to exclude all who have inveighed against the rich and the oppressors of the poor, you will have to exclude not only a good deal of Christian teaching, but a great deal of teaching that has come down from the great sages throughout the history of the world.


Mr. KAISER:: Including some members of parliament.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, including some members of parliament. Another complaint was that the Bible Students were opposed to military service. Remember, Mr. Chairman, these are the grounds on which the Bible Students had their license cancelled. The minister himself said so when he tabled these letters. It is true that the Bible Students were opposed to military service. Well, let me say there are a great many people outside the Bible Students Association who arc opposed to military service. Permit me to read this paragraph from a front-page article which appeared a few years ago in one of our recognized church papers. It was headed, War and The Future, and proceeded:
There is surely not an intelligent, civilized man left in all the world who thinks that there is any virtue or goodness or saving grace in war And most of us have been driven far beyond that negative position to the verypositive and inescapable belief that war for our day and time, a hideous, _ utterly unchristian, unforgivable crime. And in so far as we did not quite feel that way about it just a few short years ago, some of us-many of us are ready to acknowledge our fault in truest humility, and seek pardon for our ignorance and our lack of the spirit of our Master And for the future many of us are ready to say that, if God wall grant us grace to live up to our present determination and ideal, never again, under any condition, will war have our sanction or our blessing. And we have come to that place knowing full well that a time might come when very subtle temptations would come to us to feel otherwise about it, or when to announce and live up to our faith might bring its cross and suffering. But very humbly, yet very determinedly, we have made up our minds that in this matter we must try to be Christians, whatever else we are, for if we are not ready now at long last to put our seal to our Christian faith in this way, then we surely are not worthy to bear the Christian name at all. In the name of Christ we would set our
Fnr>o fnv

niroinot wnr
That was published in the Christian Guardian, February 20, 1924. This paper is now called The New Outlook and is the recognized organ of the United Church of Canada.
It seems to me, in view of the growing sentiment of opposition to war, that it is absolutely preposterous that the license of the Bible Students should have been cancelled on the ground, among others, that the Bible Students were during the war opposed to military service.
Another complaint was that these Bible Students "hogged the air," and I am inclined to think that this is the strongest reason that has been adduced. Yet the radio inspector in Saskatoon bears this testimony:
They are a friendly lot to deal with and never give the slightest trouble whatever so
'[DOT]Mr Woodsworth-l

Supply-Marine and Fisheries- -Radio
far as keeping strictly to regulations is concerned. But they have an insane desire to be continually broadcasting religious _ matter and the public get thoroughly fed up with this class of material when handed out in large doses.
I sympathize with the public, but I submit that the action the department ought to have taken was to regulate the length of time these people should have been on the air, and not to have undertaken to cancel their license. Further than that, the minister makes the statement for the department that only on one occasion was there a complaint from Saskatoon with regard to trouble of this kind, and that the difficulty was adjusted. It seems most extraordinary that months and months should have gone by without the department intimating in the slightest way to the Bible Students that they were doing anything not in the general interests, and then suddenly, out of a clear sky, they should take drastic action of this kind. It is most arbitrary and unfair.
We are facing large questions in connection with this matter. Our forefathers won to a considerable extent freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly; surely it is strange that a Liberal government should seek to deny people freedom of the air. Strange indeed. A new element has come into practical politics-the air. The use of the air is now so important in a variety of ways, it would seem as if we would be compelled to fight over again the old battles in regard to this new matter. We must have freedom, not merely along the old lines, but in the use of the air whether in flying or in broadcasting. I would urge that since this matter has come so prominently before the public it is high time that we should adopt what the minister himself has barely suggested to the house, that is, some scheme whereby the government itself should own and operate broadcasting stations in this country.
May I quote a paragraph from the Manchester Guardian in which the new policy of the British government is commended. As most hon. members are no doubt aware, in Great Britain the control of radio is in the hands of the government-a Conservative government, as an hon. member suggests. The Conservative governments in England are in some ways a great deal more progressive than Liberal governments in Canada. However-


Mr. DUNNING:: Does my hon. friend
know that both the Liberal and the Labour
parties in England are to-day complaining about the discrimination shown by the Conservative government in the allotment of time for political addresses?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, I have heard that and for a time there was real ground for that complaint. But recently there has been, I understand, a change in the regulations with regard to such matters, and it is concerning this that I wish to read the following paragraph from the Manchester Guardian:
The danger of propaganda always lies in one-sided information, in suggestion and in anonymity. As long as facts are freely disclosed there is nothing to be apprehended in open discussion of any topic. If the public always knows what individuals are speaking and proper opportunity is given to various opinions, the more controversial the subject matter of discussion the better. It is the business of the British Broadcasting Company to be impartial as between rival views, and not to heed the objections of those who think all opinions they do not like "dangerous". No subject of public importance and interest should be banned because its discussion annoys some people. If the orthodox may state their case, so may the unorthodox. If there are to be political debates, socialists should be given a hearing side by side with Liberals, and communists allowed to state their case as well as Conservatives. Many sedulously guarded myths may be dispelled by open discussion, and intelligent opinions take the place of hoary superstitions. There is no way of arriving at truth or of cultivating sound judgment except through the clash of opinion.
I fancy the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) will agree with that article. I know there are dangers associated with the control of radio by the government. I know there would be great danger with radio in the hands of the Baldwin government, and I imagine there would be dangers with radio in the hands even of a Canadian Liberal government.


Charles Avery Dunning: Or in my hon. friend's
own hands.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Possibly, although
I had hardly stretched my imagination to believe that our little group would ever have ipower. However, I thank the minister for the suggestion. There are always admittedly dangers in any one group controlling such an agency, but there are even greater dangers in allowing things to drift along as they are at the present time in Canada. In practice under present conditions the minister cannot help taking the responsibility for censorship. He says, "I am no censor"; but he must exercise the most extreme censorship when he cancels licences on the ground of certain opinions having been expressed.
3022	COMMONS
Sap-ply-Marine and Fisheries- Radio
I am inclined to think that before very long we shall be faced in Canada with a serious situation in relation to broadcasting south of the line. That is perhaps the most dangerous feature of all. It is only a comparatively short time before these small broadcasting stations will be bought up by big American companies. I may be afraid of handing power to any one government, but I would rather trust our own Canadian government with the control of broadcasting than trust these highly organized private commercial companies in the United States. For that reason I would do my utmost to urge upon the government the adoption of a new policy with regard to radio in this country. The government itself, having gone so far in equipping stations for certain departmental purposes, should take the next step and equip stations for general use throughout Canada. I notice that in the supplementary estimates provision is made for the appointment of a commission to make certain investigations regarding this matter. Personally I do not see why we should have another commission. It seems to me the government is already in possession of the main facts and that the government itself should take the responsibility and decide upon a comprehensive national policy. The present difficulty would not be without its value if it would lead to public ownership and control of this new industry.


Hugh Guthrie: I agree with the concluding remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that it is time the government brought forward something in the nature of a policy in regard to this very important question of radiotelegraphy. The only policy vhich we have to-day is one of absolute autocracy and dictatorship in regard to the use of the air for radio services. It used to be said in this country that such and such a thing was as free as the air, but in the Dominion of Canada the air is no longer free; to a very large extent it is under the direct and positive control of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. He is an autocrat in regard to air sendee, and he is given that autocratic position or power under an act of this parliament known as the Radiotelegraph Act.


Charles Avery Dunning: Would my hon. friend
give the reference?


Hugh Guthrie: It is chapter 195 of the revised statutes. Under that act, by section 4, the minister is empowered to make regulations, of which I will only read two:

(c)	defining the different kinds of licenses that may be issued, their respective forms and the several periods for which they shall continue in force;
(d)	prescribing the conditions and restrictions to which the several licenses shall respectively be subject.
Under these two subsections practically the whole control of the air of this Dominion is placed in the custody of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I think, for his own good and for the good of the country, at the very first opportunity he should endeavour ta lay before parliament and the country some definite policy which will considerably broaden out this matter and allow all classes in this somewhat spread-out country of ours to receive something like fair and even treatment in regard to that air which was formerly so free to everyone in this country. It is not free now, and I think in many respects the actions of the minister and of the government have been exceedingly harsh, arbitrary and autocratic, and not at all in the interests of the general body politic.
I refer, as did the last speaker, to the manner in which the Universal Radio of Canada, Limited, was dealt with by the minister or by officials of his department. This company was duly organized and incorporated with a heavy subscribed capital; it complied with all the formalities of our law and obtained from the Department of Marine and Fisheries, under the Radiotelegraph Act, a license known as a physical license for the purpose of erecting a plant and broadcasting in the Dominion of Canada. I agree that a license is only a permission, and that a man who obtains a license for a year does not have exactly a vested right in the license, although he may have a reasonable expectation that the license will be continued from year to year as long as he complies with all the requirements of the law. This Universal Radio Company subscribed its capital, erected its plant, obtained its license, complied with all the regulations of the department and started as a commercial concern in the business of radiotelegraphy. During the month of March last a most peremptory letter or notice was sent to this company, notifying them that at the end of the then current year the license would not be renewed, and giving no reasons for the refusal to renew that license. Perhaps I might read to the committee the actual letter, which is dated at Ottawa, March 8, 1928:
Sir:
You are hereby advised that private commercial broadcasting license No. 63 for the

Supply-Marine and Fisheries-Radio
year 1927-28, issued in favour of Universal Radio of Canada, Limited, will expire on the 31st March, 1928, and the department does not propose to renew the same after that date.
To my mind that notice constitutes a most arbitrary and autocratic act on the part of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Was there nothing before
that warning?


Hugh Guthrie: That is the first warning. The department knew that this company had invested a very large amount of money and that they were complying with all the requirements of their license. There may have been something in the mind of the minister or of some of the officials in his department adverse to the Universal Radio Company, but the company knew nothing of it and the public knew nothing of it. The peremptory notice was sent out, saying " notwithstanding your license and your investment I, through the autocratic powers given me by a statute of Canada, refuse to renew your license on the 1st April next ". I submit, Mr. Chairman, that such a proceeding is more than improper; courtesy demands that reasons be given under conditions of this kind.
Had the government a policy, a considered policy, nothing of this kind could arise, but here a very large amount of capital is jeopardized. This company is threatened with the loss of its whole investment, and now it transpires, since the House of Commons met, that the reason for the cancellation of this license was that through some subarrangement the International Bible Students' Association occupied some of the time at the disposal of the Universal Radio Company, and the matter broadcast by the International Bible Students' Association did not suit the opinions of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries or of someone in his department.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I desire to deny this statement the hon. gentleman is making now, and I will not permit him to make any capital out of it. All the facts and the documents are there; let him analayze those documents.


Hugh Guthrie: I am giving my own view and my own opinion; the minister may differ from that view and that opinion as he may see fit. Something that was being broadcast by this association did not meet with the approval of the powers that be, whether those powers were the minister himself or someone in his department. So far that is the only reason which I have been able to gather as the real cause of the difficulty, and so far as I know it is the only reason that has been
ever advanced for the refusal to renew the license of the Universal Radio Company for the current year.
I hold no brief for the International Bible Students' Association, but I have received a number of communications from residents of my consitiuencv protesting against the action of the government. From what has transpired in this house during the present session,
I realize that many hundreds of thousands of Canadians have signed petitions, if not to this parliament, informally addressed to the Prime Minister of Canada, protesting against the action of the government and the minister in refusing to renew that license. It is a matter not of small or petty concern but of very general concern, and it looks to one who has no interest in the matter, financially or otherwise, as if the government and the minister had acted in a thoroughly autocratic and unnecessarily harsh manner in dealing with this corporation.
But the whole subject will bear some investigation. The minister or someone under him, seems to have disarranged the whole air service in and about the city of Toronto and the province of Ontario. In this disorganization and disarrangement which have taken place they seem to have been playing into the hands of their own friends. They seem to have been playing into the hands of a radio equipment in the city of Toronto which is the poorest operating in that city to-day, to the exclusion of the up-to-date installations.
Now, what was the situation prior to the 1st of April? There are certain technical aspects to this question which I do not thoroughly understand, but no doubt the minister understands them. The old wave lengths were as follows: 517 metres, CJYC, one-half time, and CFRB, one-half time; 357 metres, CFCA, one-third time-note that-CKCL, one-third time, and CKNC, one-third-time; 312 metres, CKGW, full time. These were the old wave lengths which pertained in the city of Toronto prior to the 1st of April last. The new wave lengths are as follows: 517 metres, CKCL, one-half time and CKNC, one-half time; 357 metres, CFCA-note this one-full time; 312 metres, CKGW, full time formerly but now half time, and CFRB half time. I am informed by men who say they know, that the cheapest and most antiquated installation in the city of Toronto to-day, doing public broadcasting, is that known as CFCA.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is that?
3624	COMMONS
Supply-Marine and Fisheries-Radio


Hugh Guthrie: This station is supposed
to operate in connection with the Toronto Star newspaper, and has been given full time whereas it enjoyed only one-third time up to the 1st of April last. The statements I make in regard to these installations are based on facts supplied to me by others, as I am not very familiar with the technicalities. My information is, and the minister or the department can correct me if I am wrong, that the whole Toronto Star installation is worth less than $3,000. They claim to be the pioneers in broadcasting, and that claim is probably well founded; I believe their station was the first in that city. That claim has some merit, as we always honour our pioneers, but it is not sufficiently meritorious to entitle that indifferent installation to full time at the expense of many costly and up-to-date installations which have been sidetracked. If mere pioneering is the degree of merit which is necessary to get full time, that station probably would be able to maintain its claim. But there are installations in the city of Toronto running into a cash value of $150,000 in equipment, broadcasting throughout half the world, and they are sidetracked under the present arrangement while preference is given to the system run in connection with the Toronto Star newspaper, a newspaper which has always been very strong in its support of the present government.


Mr. ROBB:: They should not be penalized for that.
. Mr. GUTHRIE: They are not being penalized for that; they are being patronized.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is wrong with
that?


Hugh Guthrie: The Toronto Star installation is what they call a 500-watt installation, while the CKGW is what they call a 5,000-watt installation.


Charles Avery Dunning: To whom does it belong?


Hugh Guthrie: I could not tell you; I really do not know. I am informed that the capital of the CKGW station is $150,000 paid up. This station is heard in parts of Canada where only United States broadcasting was heard before, and has been showing clear and consistent reception of its programs from London to Wellington, New Zealand. This installation has been sidetracked.


Charles Avery Dunning: What does my hon. friend mean by sidetracked-cut out altogether?


Hugh Guthrie: No, not cut out altogether, but reduced in its time. This large com-

mercial installation which could operate, as a commercial venture, at a profit under the time it formely enjoyed, must face a loss of from $50,000 to $60,000 if it continues to operate upon the present basis.
I mention these things, Mr. Chairman, not because I have any direct interest in them at all, but because of the tremendous body of people in this country who are very much interested in radio. The number of listeners-in, so called, is increasing every day, and it is a serious blow to the tens of thousands of listeners-in in the province of Ontario that the most poorly equipped station, and the one which can give the poorest service, is the one that will practically control the air for full time on its circuit. Complaints are heard on every hand, and I am told that some people are obtaining special radio receiving sets of a kind that will exclude the Toronto Star's broadcast, for no other reason than that the broadcasting system of the Toronto Star is so inferior as to be practically useless in comparison with the other stations in the city of Toronto.
Surely the government will see the necessity of broadening out its policy in this matter. Surely it should take into consultation some of more representative bodies throughout the Dominion of Canada. Radio has become a commercial matter to a very large extent; boards of trade, chambers of commerce, large manufacturers, large wholesalers, they are all interested in this venture, and they are entitled to be consulted, as well as the tremendous public body which comes under the heading of listeners-in. Surely a conference of those most interested could be called, and I should think that the minister, for his own protection, would have such a conference, and a broadening out policy could be laid immediately before the parliament of Canada. If we are going to continue as we are now, we are continuing under a system which is nothing but hypocrisy pure and simple. I will grant you that parliament, when it passed the act, gave that autocratic power to the minister. We regret it now; we see the difficulty in which we have placed ourselves; but that is no reason why we should leave the act as it is or why the government should simply rest on its oars and use that arbitrary power with which parliament at one time clothed it. Radiotelegraphy is but in its infancy. It is growing every year; it is growing, one may say, every month. Next year it will be far more extensive than it is this year. It is a matter that has come to stay and to increase, and it will be worse than folly if parliament

Supply-National Revenue
allows the act to remain unaltered and all the powers of the air, the property of every subject in Canada, are under the thumb of a single minister of the crown as the situation is to-day.


Mr. LADNER:: I have a few observations to make in connection with this matter, but as it is nearly six o'clock perhaps I might continue after recess.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE

[Stage Direction]
Supplementary estimates, 1928-29-National Revenue-to provide for remission of excise tax paid on automobiles remaining in the hands of dealers and unsold at the time when such tax was repealed by order in council, December 18, 1920, P.C. 1/3163, $165,000.
Herbert Bealey Adshead: With regard to the last
item in vote 516, is $500 the whole amount that was awarded to the widow because of the death of her husband while on duty?


William Daum Euler: I would like to ask first,
Mr. Chairman, whether if the items as they stand here are carried, I shall have an opportunity of making a statement on the subject that was under discussion last night.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Go on now. This item
was held for the purpose.


William Daum Euler: This vote was held up last
night in order that we might discuss the matter of chartering the vesel Vigilant by the National Revenue department, and also to discuss the matter of the purchase of that vessel in the year 1921 by Mr. Manley Chew from the Dominion government.
In the discussion last night two phases of that subject were developed, to which I would like to make reference. The first was that the steamer Vigilant was chartered at so high a price that it savoured of graft. That statement was made by the hon. member for East Simcoe, was a little more than hinted at by his colleague from the same county, and I may say was resented by myself, as the head of the department which chartered that boat, and I think ought to be resented by every member of the house unless better evidence is offered than was offered last night of the truth of that charge.
The second phase of the question was the claim that was made also by the hon. member for East Simcoe that the Liberal government had sold this boat to a Liberal member of' parliament on the very day that the Liberals
had taken office in 1921. The senior member for Halifax stated that the price of $18,000 which was paid for that boat by Mr. Chew to the government was so low that it savoured of graft. He borrowed the phrase from his colleague from East Simcoe, and he added to it, for good measure, I suppose, that someone had put money into, his pocket, and then, to make it still stronger, he said that he had no hesitation whatever in saying so. I may say in passing that I should think he might possibly have hesitated in making a statement of that kind if he had thrown his mind back to an incident not so long ago when a colleague of his in a former parliament made a statement about my hon. friend the Minister of Justice also with regard to a boat in the preventive service, which statement, I think, had about as much to do with the defeat of my hon. friends opposite as any other one thing. Both those charges, and they are charges I submit, Mr. Chairman, are very serious charges. The senior member for Halifax and the hon. member for East Simcoe are both men of maturity, men of standing who ought to realize that they have a responsibility in this parliament in making charges of this kind, and that responsibility is not lessened in any way by the fact that the senior member for Halifax was a member of the former government.
I wil deal first and very briefly with the matter of the charter itself, the charter given by Mr. Payette to the Department of National Revenue. The hon. member for East Simcoe, speaking on this particular subject last night, made this statement, as reported in Hansard:
I find that the steamship Vigilant formerly belonged to the government. Almost their first official act after coming into power in December, 1921-
He was referring to the King government:
was to sell this boat to a then Liberal member of parliament for $18,000.
The hon. member also said:
That up around Georgian bay, where this boat was formerly kept, the marine men, who know what they are talking about, regard this (the leasing of the boat) as a gross example of political favoritism.
He intimated that the charter price was altogether too high. I would submit that the price at which the boat is chartered is almost directly dependent upon the value of the boat itself, and in making his reference to the people of the Georgian bay district, whom he should know better than I, I was reminded of the fact that I had been rather careful at the time we entered into negotiations for the chartering of this boat. I am free to say that I felt at the time-and perhaps this
Supply-National Revenue

explains the expression of my hon. friend that I was perhaps reluctant to sign that charter -I remembered that the boat had been sold by the government to a former member of parliament, and I thought possibly there might be room for criticism if we were not satisfied that the transaction was in every way a sound one from a business standpoint. I took the precaution not only to get the opinion of the officials of the naval department, but I had some of them sent there to examine the boat. The head of the preventive service, Mr. Cowan, also went up there. In addition to that I secured letters and opinions from some of these very marine men in that neighbourhood of whom my hon. friend speaks. I will read a few of them, because they bear directly on the value of the boat, which I think is pertinent to the question. Here is a letter addressed to myself from Barrie, Ontario-and I am sorry that the hon. member (Mr. Boys) coming from that town is not present, for he was very active in the discussion last night. This letter is written by Mr. Hugh Calderwood, Barrie, whose business it is to give expert evidence on all matters relating to design and construction of vessels and who makes damage surveys, reports and valuations. He was the valuator of the Playfair boats when they were taken over by the Canada Steamships. He says:
Dear Sir,-
Twin Screw Steamer "Vigilant
Referring to your enquiry through Mr. J. T. Payette as to the present-day value of above vessel.	_
Would say that after taking into consideration the replacement cost of a vessel of this typo, and on making due allowance for depreciation, etc., I would place her present-day value, as of this date, at One Hundred and Thirty-six Thousand Dollars ($136,000).
The second letter is from Midland, probably the home town of my hon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Thompson).


Robert James Manion: Who is Mr. Calderwood?


William Daum Euler: A naval valuator. I am
informed he was employed by the Canada Steamships when they took over the Playfair boats. This Midland letter was written by Mr. R. S. McLaughlin, in charge of costs and estimates for the Midland Shipbuilding Company, Limited, which company, I am informed, is of good standing in that town. He says:
Dear Sir,-
S.S. Vigilant
Confirming what I indicated to you in our recent conversation, a vessel of the dimensions
(Mr. Euler.]
and speed of the above, with the machinery installation similar and with accommodations for twenty-two persons, would cost, under present conditions, $210,000 to build and equip for service.
The present value of the vessel to-day would be about $140,000, and it should easily be worth that figure to anyone requiring the particular type of service of which this vessel is capable, equipped as she is with machinery installation capable of driving her at a sustained speed of around twenty knots.
I have been aboard this vessel several times while afloat and have inspected it since being docked and can affirm that the hull and machinery are in excellent condition, in fact much better than the average in a vessel of its age. With thorough brushing and chipping and a good coat of proper paint this vessel would remain in a good state of preservation for many years.
Then I have a letter from the Midland Shipbuilding Company, Limited, written by Mr. J. Wilkinson, the manager. It is as follows:
Dear Sir,

In regard to your inquiry as to what we would consider replacement value of the b.b. Vigilant, would say that to the best of our knowledge a duplicate would cost, to-day, $200,000, ship to be fitted in every respect same as Vigilant, and built under government supervision. As to the present value of the Vigilant think that to anyone who has need of a ship of her class the ship is worth $130,000.
So much for opinions from the neighbourhood of Georgian bay, to which my hon. friend referred, with regard to the value of the vessel. The cost of the boat to Mr. Chew when sold by the government was, as I stated last night, $18,000. Mr. Chew himself informed me-and I have no reason to doubt what he says-that he spent some ten or twelve thousand dollars after he purchased her. Mr. Payette, before we would take the boat over, expended another $30,000. As a further indication of value, she is insured now for $70,000. Last night I stated, frqm information given to me by the chief of the preventive service, that she was insured for $75,000. I made a slight error; the figure is $70,000. As my hon. friend from Halifax remarked last night, that indicates a probable value of
at least $100,000.
Now, to get some idea of whether or not we are paying too much for the boat, it is fair to consider just what advantage the lessor can obtain. He pays an insurance premium on the boat of $3,850 a year. I am informed there is depreciation-perhaps my friend from Pictou (Mr. Cantley) knows more about this than I do-of ten per cent per annum. That, I suppose, would indicate a

Supply-National Revenue
depreciation of eight or ten thousand dollars a year. The boat was constructed for lake patrol service. She cannot carry cargo to any extent, and she is not equipped for passengers.
Mr .ARTHURS:	Will the minister say
why she was sold in the first instance?


William Daum Euler: I stated that last night.
Probably my explanation will give my hon. friend entire satisfaction as I go on, if he will allow me to proceed. In the opinion of those who know, the owner will have very little opportunity of getting the money that he expended on this boat after the charter with us expires. We obtained the opinions of various gentlemen with regard to the proper price to pay. Commander Phillips, of the naval department, and others expressed the opinion that $2,250 a month was a very fair price. In some quarters I am informed it is a low price. I say frankly that we have ourselves for a very short period paid in excess of that for a boat which is not worth any more than the Vigilant. For the steamer Hochelaga, when it was very urgent that we should have a boat on the Nova Scotia coast, where rum-runners were particularly busy, we paid at the rate of $4,500 a month for the limited period of six weeks.
I come now to the second part of this matter, as to which government, Liberal or Conservative, sold the boat to Mr. Chew. That was the question.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: You said last night it did
not matter anyway.


William Daum Euler: It mattered to my friends
last night, because this very vote was held up at the instance of the acting leader of the opposition in order that that information might be obtained.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is what the
minister said.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Why make so
much noise about it now?


William Daum Euler: I think my hon. friends
should be glad to get the information that they were so anxious to get last night. On page 3580 of yesterday's Hansard the member for East Simcoe said-I have read this before, but I will repeat it now:
I find that the steamship Vigilant formerly belonged to the government;-
That is true.
-almost their first official act after coming into power in December, 1921,-
That is, the first King government.
-was to sell this boat to a then Liberal member of parliament for $18,000.
Hon. members will recall that I contradicted that statement, and I said that the boat had been sold by the Union government to Mr. Chew. Later I corrected my own statement and said that it was not the Union government, but the Meighen government which followed the Union government. I think that is not very material, for certainly hon. gentlemen opposite will admit that they were practically one and the same thing.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Mr. Chairman, is it true that this boat was offered for sale many times, month after month and year after year?


William Daum Euler: I will come to that.


James Arthurs: I happen to know something of this boat. She lay in the harbour of Parry Sound for years waiting for a buyer-


Ernest Lapointe: Why didn't you say
that last night?


James Arthurs: -and the department-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Arthurs: I asked the minister the question, whether it is true or untrue-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Arthurs: If he does not want to
answer it, all right.


William Daum Euler: If my hon. friend will have patience I will give him exactly the information he is trying to give the committee.


James Arthurs: ifou are a long time getting around to it.


William Daum Euler: No. But my hon. friend will have an opportunity to give the information, if I do not. Perhaps he will let me continue. In the course of the debate, following that, the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black) then made the charge that the whole thing savoured of graft and that someone had received money out of it. I will give his exact words:
Mr. Black (Halifax):	That transaction
savours of graft and wrongdoing and someone has put money in his pocket. I do not hesitate to say it.
The committee adjourned in order that the facts might be obtained, that the order in council bearing on the transaction might be produced, and the correspondence, the charter and other documents laid on the table or submitted to my hon. friends opposite. I have these facts. The sale of the vessel was of course authorized by order in council, and I have under my hand certified copies of the order in council. I have also the recommendation made for the order in council. This recommendation, I might say for the informa-
Supply-National Revenue

tion of my hon. friends who do not know, is signed by the then Minister of Marine in the Meighen government, the Hon. Mr. Ballan-tyne. I shall not read the recommendation because the order itself is in the exact words of the recommendation. I shall read the order:
P.C. 4695:	.
At a meeting of the privy council held on the 28th day of December-


Charles Avery Dunning: What date?


William Daum Euler: The 28th December. I should like hon. members to note that.
-1921, the following minute of council was passed and was approved by His Excellency the Governor General on the 29th day of December, 1921.
His Excellency approved it on the following day. Then this follows:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report, dated 25th November, 1921, from the Minister of the Naval Service, submitting that the steamer Vigilant is no longer required by the crown. Endeavour was made to transfer this vessel to one of the several departments of the government, but owing to her type and the cost of maintenance she is not required.
The minister states that tenders for the sale of this vessel were advertised for in March, 1920, to be received up to noon of the 14th day of April, and in response the following offers were received:
Messrs. Keenan Bros., Owen Sound, Ont., $5,-
000.
Mr. Frank W. Callaghan, Toronto, Ont., $6,600.
The Anglo Coal Co., Ltd., New Campbellton, N.S., $10,500.
Captain W. L. Curry, Toronto, Ont., $12,000.
As these offers did not represent fair value they were rejected.
Since that time every endeavour has been made to effect disposal of the Vigilant by the distribution of particulars regarding her in all the maritime centres of Canada, as well as by direct solicitation. In November, 1920, Mr. Thomas M. Kirkwood, Montreal, offered $25,000 for this vessel payable 10 per cent cash, 15 per cent at the end of 6 months, 25 per cent at the end of 12 months, and 25 per cent at the end of 18 months, with interest accruing annually at 6 per cent to be guaranteed by mortgage and insurance made payable to the department, which offer was approved by order in council of the 19th November, 1920, (P.C. 2789). Mr. Kirkwood, however, did not complete the purchase.
Thereafter the department made further endeavour to effect sale and advised all parties interested that offers would be received up to 1st March, 1921, and in response, the following offers were received:
Mr. M. J. Shaw, Toronto, Ont., $4,100.
The Anglo Coal Company, Ltd., New Campbellton. N.S., $10,500.
Lt. Col. Joseph M. Syer, D.S.O., Midland, Ont., $24,200.
The highest offer as submitted by Lt. Col. Joseph M. Syer, D.S.O., was recommended for acceptance and approved by order in council

of the 11th March, 1921 (P.C. 767). On the 24tli March, Lt. Col. Joseph M. Syer, D.S.O., informed the department that owing to circumstances beyond his control, he was unable to complete the purchase of this vessel. Further endeavours were again made by the department to effect sale and as a result Mr. Thomas Mulvey Kirkwood on the 13th June submitted an offer of $18,000 payable $100 in cash, the balance to be spread over a period of 14 months with interest at 6 per cent per annum, to be guaranteed by mortgage and insurance made payable to the department. This offer was rejected as the terms of the payment were not considered satisfactory.
Gn the 9th July, Mr. Kirkwood submitted another offer of $18,000, payable $300 in cash and the balance in equal instalments every 6 months, to be spread over a period of 5 years, with interest at 6 per cent per annum, to be guaranteed by mortgage and insurance made payable to the department. This offer was likewise rejected.
On the 1st September, Mr. Kirkwood submitted an offer of $18,000 cash for the Vigilant, subject to inspection, which offer was recommended for acceptance, and approved by order in council of the 16th September, 1921, (P.C. 3429). Mr. Kirkwood, however, did not complete the purchase.
Now Mr. Manley Chew, Midland, Ontario, has submitted an offer of $18,000 for the vessel, payable $5,000 cash and the balance on or before the 1st July, 1922, without interest, to be covered by his promissory note and an insurance policy made payable to the department.
The technical officers of the department consider that in view of all circumstances, the government would be well advised in accepting Mr. Chew's offer, and they recommend its acceptance accordingly.
The minister, concurring, recommends that authority be granted for the sale of the steamer Vigilant to Mr. Manley Chew, Midland, Ontario, for the sum of $18,000.
The committee concur in the foregoing recommendation and submit the same for approval.
(Signed) James A. Lougheed.
I am almost through, but I want the committee to remember one or two points. First, the Liberal government took office on December 29, 1921. Secondly, the Meighen government had passed three orders in council to sell the boat some months prior to the Liberals coming into power. Thirdly, the recommendation made by the Hon. Mr. Ballantyne, minister in the Meighen administration, to sell to Mr. Chew, was on November 25, 1921, at least a month before the Liberal government came into power. Fourthly, the order to sell to Mr. Chew passed council on December 28, 1921, the day before the Liberals came into power, and it is signed by Sir James Lougheed, president of council in the Meighen government, as I have already indicated. It was signed the next day, December 29, 1921, by the Governor General, the very day that: the King government came into power.

Supply-National Revenue
The senior member for Halifax, whom I have already quoted, made this statement- I repeat it:
That transaction savours of graft and wrongdoing and someone has put money in his pocket. I do not hesitate to say it.
In view of the order in council which I have just read, and in view of those who passed it, I should like to ask the house whether it wishes to accept the accusation of graft against the government then in power which was made by the hon. member for Halifax. I wonder whether he would like a royal commission to ascertain whose were the pockets into which this money went.


Robert James Manion: I have not been able to catch the words the minister read. Would he be good enough, in fairness, to read again the statement of the senior memJber for Halifax, not just the one sentence but the context as well?


William Daum Euler: Very well; it is at the bottom of page 3588 of Hansard. I will read a little more, if you like:
Mr. Black (Halifax): You said she was insured for $75,000 and I am perfectly satisfied that she was valued at $100,000, because she could not get full insurance. The minister also said that at that time boats were cheap. I want to tell him that boats are no more expensive now-they are just as cheap to-day-than they were when she was sold for $18,000.
Mr. Euler: We have not purchased the boat.
Then follows the statement to which I referred before:
Mr. Black (Halifax):	That transaction
savours of graft and wrongdoing and someone has put money in his pocket. I do not hesitate to say it.


Robert James Manion: Read the next few lines.


William Daum Euler: I followed with this statement:
Do you suggest that we are paying too high
a rental?
Mr. Black (Halifax): Yes, absolutely.


Robert James Manion: That is exactly the point; that is exactly what the hon. member for Halifax was referring to.


William Daum Euler: I will pay my hon. friend the compliment that he is very fair-minded. There is a direct statement that there was graft and that somebody put money into *his pocket, inferentially money which did not belong to him.


Robert James Manion: I know my hon. friend wants to be fair; the hon. member for Halifax ;s not here.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Why?


Robert James Manion: Knowing him as well as I do I am certain he is not afraid to be here.


An hon. MEMBER:: Get him here.


Robert James Manion: I am not speaking to that hon. gentleman; I am speaking to the minister. He asked the question:
Do you suggest that we are paying too high a rental?
To that question the hon. member replied:
Yes, absolutely.
It seems to me, subject to the opinion of the house, that there is no doubt that the bon. member for Halifax was referring to the rental and not to the sale of the boat.


William Daum Euler: Then the charge is directly against myself, and I shall have to accept responsibility. However, the context shows that the transaction to which he refers was the sale of the boat in 1921, and not the chartering of the boat. My hon. friend from East Simcoe made a direct charge against myself, or against the department of which I am the head, when he said that something savoured of graft in the chartering of that vessel, but the hon. member for Halifax was referring to the sale of the boat in 1921. I will just read again what the hon. member said, and I will leave it to any fair-minded man whether this paragraph does not refer to the purchase and not the chartering of the boat. Let me read a little more of the context. The hon. member for Fort William said:
Nothing is charged at all; the only thing is that the committee wants the information.


Robert James Manion: Hear, hear.


William Daum Euler: I am not charging my hon. friend with making the statement complained of. He continued:
Perhaps I might point out something that has escaped other hon. gentlemen. When a government takes charge on a certain day it usually does so in the morning; the other party goes out the night before.


Robert James Manion: I have no apology to make for that.


William Daum Euler: I am trying to be absolutely fair, and the hon. gentleman will have an opportunity to reply. Just here I would like to ask my hon. friend whether that is not a reference to the time the Liberal government came into power in 1921 and the time the boat was sold, not when it was chartered?


Robert James Manion: Certainly, as far as I was concerned; but I brought out the point a few lines further down that all we wanted was the information, and we were not making any charges at all.
Supply-National Revenue


William Daum Euler: I hope my hon. friend understands very clearly that I am not attributing to him any charge of wrongdoing on the part of anyone; I am attributing that directly to only one person with regard to the purchase and sale of that boat, and that is to the senior member for Halifax.


Robert James Manion: I differ with the minister's interpretation, that is all.


William Daum Euler: I think there is no escape for this fact, that the reference with regard to graft and wrongdoing and money going into someone's pocket is made directly in connection with the sale of that boat in 1921, and that it cannot be interpreted in any other way. The hon. member for Fort William has admitted very fairly that the reference he made was to the time in 1921 when the Liberal government came into power. The remarks of the hon. member for Halifax followed immediately after that statement, and had reference to it.


Robert James Manion: I think not; the hon. member for Halifax had no reference to my remarks at all.


William Daum Euler: Very well; I will leave myself in the judgment of the house in the matter. If I may just summarize it, this i3 the situation: This transaction described by the hon. member for East Simcoe and the hon. member for Halifax-perhaps I should leave out the hon. member for East Simcoe -but described by the hon. member for Halifax and implied by the hon. member for North Simcoe as savouring of graft was completed by the Meighen government just one day before they went out of office. That is the fact. I do not believe for a moment that there was graft, even though the sale was made by the Conservative government, but I say if there was graft then my hon. friends opposite are condemned out of their own mouths. I have not very much fault to find with the remarks made last night by the acting leader of the opposition, but he did say that little or no business was done by the Meighen government after the election. I think that is an entirely proper attitude to take, but I think it is also in point to consider whether it was proper to make contracts of this kind three weeks after the defeat of the government.
I said a moment ago that I do not believe for one moment that there was any graft at all in connection with the transaction; of course there was no graft, although the hon. member for North Simcoe said that the vessel was sold for a price that was too low. I

would not have spoken at this length-and I am almost through-but for the fact that I very strongly resent the remarks made by the hon. member for Halifax and the hon. member for East Simcoe with regard to graft, corruption and wrongdoing. I suppose perhaps one should have more sympathy than censure for men who are so unfortunate as to suspect their fellow men without cause. I hesitate to give advice to my friend from Halifax, who has lived in this world a little longer than I have, but I would say to him and to his colleague from East Simcoe that I think they would be happier men if they would just try to believe that other men are as honest as they are. I believe that in the parliament of Canada we should observe the decencies and amenities at all times. At the beginning of this session I was pleased when the leader of the opposition and the Prime Minister exchanged some admirable courtesies, and the leader of the opposition pleaded that in conducting the business of parliament the amenities should be (Observed. I think every member should be in favour of that attitude, but I do deprecate insinuations of scandal and graft by members of parliament and members of political parties against each other. It is not necessary; it is no credit to parliament and I think it is nothing less than disgusting to the people of Canada. Men in public life are constantly under the closest scrutiny and are always in the glare of newspaper publicity. We cannot expect the public to have a higher opinion of us than we have of ourselves and of each other.
I say this with some reluctance, but I do think the hon. member for Halifax, the hon. member for East Simcoe and the hon. member for North Simcoe owe this house an apology for what they said last night. Members should not insult parliament by making serious charges and creating misgivings in the public mind without being reasonably certain that they have grounds for so doing.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, there are
certain features in connection with this matter to which I think we should pay some attention. The minister has given a very fair and partial statement-perhaps as full as is necessary-of the first part of this question, namely, the history of the purchase of the boat. Roughly, it is simply this; the vessel was purchased and the first payment made by Mr. Manley Chew on November 21, 1921, I think it was. The final order in council was passed on December 28, 1921, and approved of by His Excellency the Governor General on December 29, 1921. As the minister has in-

Supply-National Revenue,
dicated-I will not refer to it further than just in passing-several efforts to sell the vessel were made by the department of naval affairs during the preceding year or years. Whether the vessel was ultimately sold at a price that was satisfactory or should have been satisfactory is, I suppose, a question which we could wrangle over for quite a while. But in any case it was sold and, as far as I can see from the records, it was sold quite fairly. My hon. friends need not laugh; I am simply reciting the facts as the file discloses.
It will be recalled that one of the points at issue last night was the securing of these papers. The minister seemed, in a rather unusual manner for him, to have some reluctance to give out the papers.


William Daum Euler: None at all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He repeatedly suggested
that as it was a matter for the marine department, later changed to the naval department, he had not control of the papers. However, he promised to bring them down and has brought them down, and I wish to thank him for the opportunity of looking over them.
There are one or two things about this that the committee ought to take note of and consider. This vessel was sold to Mr. Manley Chew by order in council dated December 28th. There is this feature about it; at the time Mr. Manley Chew bought the vessel he was not a member of this house, but he was elected a member of the house on December 6, 1921.


William Daum Euler: He was a candidate.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He was a candidate probably, but he was elected.


William Daum Euler: It does not matter anyway.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That does not matter.
He was elected on December 6, 1921, and whatever note may be taken of it the fact is that, as a member of the house, he carried on all the subsequent negotiations to which I am now going to make reference.
The purchase called for a down payment of $5,000, which was paid at the time, November 21, I think it was 1921, and the balance, $13,000, to be paid on the 15th July, 1922. He was to have deposited, and did deposit, a note covering the balance of $13,000, without interest to July 15th. I think he was supposed to deposit, and I presume he did so, a chattel mortgage on the property, and he was also to insure the boat, which the documents before me show was done. On July 1, 1922, Mr. Manley Chew intimated to the
government-mark you, at this time he was a member of parliament-that he did not find it convenient to pay the balance of the money on the due date, namely, July 15th. He tendered a further note of renewal for three months, which, I gather from the documents, was accepted. But to cut the story short, and not follow all the details, the amount of the final payment, namely, $13,000, was not paid until July 23, 1924, or two years later. I will read a brief summary of the case as I find it on the file, placed there by the officers of the department. I do not think it is a signed document, but it has certain initials on it in the usual way. It is a chronological statement regarding the sale of the Vigilant to Manley Chew, M.P. I would like to read these brief paragraphs, which summarize the transaction:
November 0, 1921: Mr. Chew informed his offer accepted, requesting that certified cheque for $5,000 note for $13,000.
November 21, 1921:	Mr. Chew forwarded
certified cheque $5,000.
November 25, 1921:	Mr. Chew's request
granted. Promisory note for $13,000 forwarded to him for completion.
November 30, 1921: Mr. Chew requested forward insurance policy $13,000.
December 2, 1921: Mr. Chew enclosed note $13,000 payable July 1st, 1922.
December 5, 1921: Above letter acknowledged.
January 16, 1922: Mr. Chew requested to hasten insurance policy.
January 23, 1922: Reply regarding insurance policy.
May 1, 1922: Mr. Chew forwarded insurance
policy.
May 6, 1922: Above acknowledged.
June 27, 1922: Mr. Chew advised his note for $13,000 due 4 proximo.
June 27, 1922: Mr. Chew enclosed renewal note at three months from July 1 for full amount $13,000.
June 30, 1922: Mr. Chew informed above settlement not satisfactory and requested to make payment $3,000 cash and forward note 3 months for $10,000 at 6 per cent.
July 6, 1922: Mr. Chew's office acknowledged above.
July 26, 1922: Hastener sent by department to letter of June 30.
August 16, 1922:	Hastener again sent to
letter of June 30.
August 12, 1922: Mr. Chew advised unable to make payment.
August 18, 1922:	Department advised prepared to grant further period not more than six months in which to make final settlement, providing Mr. Chew forwards cheque $3,000 not later than September 1.
September 7, 1922:	Hastener sent letter
August 18.
September 13, 1922: Above acknowledged by Mr. Chew's office.
September 19, 1922: Copy department's letter August 18, enclosed.
And so :.t goes on with a chronological statement showing that the department repeatedly
Supply-National Revenue

conferred with Mr. Chew regarding settlement, and asked him to hasten the adjustment of this claim. It went on until finally Mr. Chew paid the $13,000, presumably after making some sale to Mr. Payette. All this was two years after.
Then we find a letter on the file from the Justice department. They had evidently been asked whether interest could be collected. No interest had been paid by Mr. Chew, and the aggregate amount of the interest was $1050. On July 30, 1924, R. J. Orde, Judge Advocate General, stated in a letter to the deputy minister:
While the question is not free from doubt, yet I am of opinion that, having regard to the terms under which the vessel was sold to Mr. Chew, the deputy minister's letter to him of the 18 August, 1922, and Mr. Chew's action subsequent to the receipt of such letter, a claim for interest on the amount of Mr. Chew's indebtedness which remained outstanding subsequent to the 1st of July, 1922, might be successfully prosecuted, and such being the case there seems to be no legal reason why Mr. Chew should not be called upon to pay interest on such indebtedness.
As far as I can discover from the file, no interest has been paid to date. It may have been, but I ask the minister if he will make a note of it and let me know later.


William Daum Euler: Of course I would not know that. It was purchased from the naval department, not from the customs department.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am simply going by the file as I have been able to read it. Of course it is a departmental file.


William Daum Euler: A naval department file.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


William Daum Euler: So the collection of that has nothing to do with the Department of National Revenue.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will ask the minister to take note of the fact that, according to the Justice department memorandum which I have just read and what I have been able to see on the file, Mr. Manley Chew has not paid the interest on that deferred payment for two years and I would suggest to the minister that inasmuch as the Dominion of Canada is now paying Mr. Chew these sums of money, this interest might very well be deducted from them. Those are roughly the facts in regard to the sale of the vessel.


William Daum Euler: In order to keep the record
straight it would be fair for the hon. member to make it clear whether the department is paying money to Mr. Chew or not. The department is not paying Mr. Chew; the department is paying Mr. Payette, from whom we chartered the vessel.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think the minister is
quite right in asking an explanation of that. The other file shows that Mr. Chew is interested in the vessel.


William Daum Euler: Not at all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not want to get into a controversy with the minister over what might be a technicality. Would the minister note that this amount is outstanding, and, if possible, see whether there is any way of collecting anything against the vessel? We will leave the matter at that for the moment. Roughly speaking, that is the history of the sale or disposal of the vessel by the government. I will summarize the matter by saying this. Unquestionably very lenient treatment was accorded Mr. Chew in regard to the payment under his agreement of the $13,000 which was allowed to run for two years after the last due date, namely, July 1, 1922.
In regard to the so-called charter of the vessel, the question naturally arose in the minds of all of us, when it was indicated that the vessel had been sold for $18,000, whether $2,250 a month for a vessel that had been sold previously by the government for $18,000 was not almost an outrageous price to pay.


Charles Avery Dunning: Or else the sale price
was too low.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Quite so, or else the sale
price was too low. It was indicated that the new owners had spent quite a large sum, some $30,000, on the property.


William Daum Euler: Approximately.


Henry Herbert Stevens: When the minister speaks about the vessel being worth $130,000 to-day, the fact is, according to the file, that the vessel cost the Dominion of Canada $124,400 in 1904. That was the contract price. I take this from a letter written and signed by Mr. William Kearns for the Auditor General under date of May 15, 1924:
S.S. Vigilant, built by Poison's Iron Works, total cost, $124,400.


William Daum Euler: There were extras, I am
informed, amounting to another $12,000, making the amount $136,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Possibly. I am just
quoting the Auditor General's report, which is on this file dealing with the disposal of the vessel, so that I cannot go beyond that. The minister a moment ago appealed to the committee in regard to the fairness of his statement that it was proper to allow a ten per cent per annum depreciation; that is, that in figuring the rental rate paid to these people, it was fair to allow them a ten per cent

Supply-National Revenue
depreciation. If we apply a ten per cent depreciation to the vessel from 1904, the year in which it was built, down to 1921, there would not be very much value left. If we are going to allow a ten per cent depreciation in order to make up a rental of $2,250 a month, it is only reasonable to allow that depreciation from the cost of the vessel down to the time of its sale.


William Daum Euler: An appraisal was made of the vessel before it was sold.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But the minister cannot
have it coming and going. He cannot allow Mr. Manley Chew and Mr. Payette ten per cent depreciation as a justification for paying $2,250 a month.


William Daum Euler: Would the hon. member
admit there was a certain value placed upon that vessel at the time we chartered it? We have had various figures given ranging all the way to $136,000 or $134,000. He will admit that is the value of the boat or was the value at the time we chartered it. He will also admit that from that time on there must be a depreciation each year.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister read-and
I will only take his own statement-a valuation, and if he will read it again he will find that it stated that it was a replacement value.


William Daum Euler: $200,000 and then, with depreciation off, $136,000 or $140,000, as the case may be.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We will accept the minister's reasoning. It amounts to this; that a vessel built in 1904 and sold in 1921 for $18,000, although it is now depreciating at the rate of ten per cent per annum and that depreciation should be allowed as a justification for the rental, is still worth $136,000. I will leave it at that.


William Daum Euler: Is it not true that it costs a good deal more to build ships now than it did twenty or twenty-five years ago?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I agree with that. I think it costs more although I am not too sure on that point. I notice that on the north of Ireland and on the Clyde they are building ships to-day at prices very nearly as low as they did in pre-war periods.


An hon. MEMBER:: A hundred per cent
more.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not a hundred per cent
more. I turn to the question of the charter. We submit-and I think there is justification in the file for our contention-that altogether 56103-230
apart from what value may be placed on this vessel, a rental of $2,250 per month with the charterer to supply all the crew, expenses, supplies and everything except insurance, is too high a price to pay.


William Daum Euler: She was not on service for
all the year.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, according to the terms of the charter she was on service seven months in 1927 and she is to be on service nine months in 1928 and nine months in 1929. But during the period she is to be tied up the government pays all expenses of taking care of her, watching her and keeping her in repair. After I have completed my observations I am going to ask the minister to be good enough to tell us all that he has spent on operation, upkeep and repairs. We asked for that last night and those figures ought to be furnished to us.
There is a letter on the file dated April 18, 1927, having to do with the chartering. I want to direct this particularly to the attention of the minister because he stated that Mr. Manley Chew had nothing further to do with the vessel.
I want to say very frankly that I gather from the file with which I have been dealing, ' although some letters that ought to be on it are apparently not there-and I am not complaining about that although it makes it rather difficult to get a connected understanding of the matter-that when Mr. Payette took possession, it was under some arrangement made between Mr. Chew and Mr. Payette. It looked to me as if Mr. Payette and Mr Chew went into partnership in regard to this vessel, and that Mr. Payette put up the balance of the purchase money, $13,000, in order to join with Mr. Chew.in the ownership. Then the negotiations were carried on almost entirely between Mr. Chew, the minister and Mr. Cowan, acting for the department. The correspondence-there is a lot of it and I am going to read very little-shows that Mr. Chew was a very important party in the matter. For instance, we have Mr. Cowan asking when Mr. Chew will be back, and Mr. Chew wires:
. Please have officer arrive Tuesday next. Will start Monday to open boilers and machinery and have help to assist in examination of hull.
Mr. Cowan wires to Mr. Chew:
Your wire received. Do not make any arrangements to open boiler.
That was in 1927, just before the Charter was entered into. This was during the negotiations for the chartering of this vessel. Then in March, 1927, Mr. Chew wires Mr. Cowan:
Six hours after notice boat will be delivered to dry dock. Cost two hundred dollars.

Supply-National Revenue

There is a lot of correspondence and memoranda of that character passing between Mr. Cowan and Mr. Chew. Mr. Chew writes on March 9, discussing the question of the chartering of this boat. Mr. Cowan writes to Mr. Chew on March 12 on the same subject. There is another letter from Mr. Chew on March 15, 1927-all- this correspondence takes place in 1927. Mr. Chew writes again on March 23 to Mr. Cowan on the same subject. Mr. Cowan on March 26 wires to Mr. Chew. Then from Mr. Chew's office comes a letter signed by one of his staff to Mr. Cowan, dated March 24. Then we come to the letter which I desire to read, dated April 18, 1927. The negotiations had proceeded regarding the chartering of this vessel, and Mr. Chew, not on behalf of his firm, but in his own name, writes to Mr. Cowan, the chief of the preventive service at Ottawa, as follows:
Dear Mr. Cowan,-
I was talking to Mr. Euler, in Kitchener, over 'phone. He said you had brought in to bim a draft of a charter and the price was $2,000 per month. I felt this was a small price. However, I would like you to let me know as soon as you arrive in Ottawa by wire so I can go down there. We can get with Mr. Euler and complete the charter.
I might say for your information that I am having all the work done on the bottom of this boat that the report calls for, and I expect this will be completed and she will be out of the dock in two or three days' time. This will leave her in the position that by putting on a good force, the work that is necessary to do could be completed in a very short time. I won't do any further work after she leaves the dock until arrangements have been made with you for the charter.
Now I ask the minister to note that Mr. Chew states that he had discussed this with him in Kitchener.


Charles Avery Dunning: Over the phone.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, and he says this:
I felt this was a small price. However, I would like you to let me know as soon as you arrive in Ottawa. We can get with Mr. Euler, and complete the charter.
And t'he figure mentioned in this letter is $2,000 a month. That is the point I am desirous of bringing to the attention of the minister.	)


William Daum Euler: Shall I give the explanation now?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Interrupt me, if you like.


William Daum Euler: I was a bit reluctant to add anything to the question of the financial difficulties that Mr. Chew had, as recited by my hon. friend, but the simple explanation of the connection of Mr. Chew with Mr. Payette, so far as the negotiations are concerned, is

this:	Mr. Chew did have an interest in the
boat at the time the negotiations began. He was in partnership, I understand, with Mr. Payette, and it was necessary for them to spend $30,000 to put the boat in shape so we could use it. They started out to spend $15,000, but they found it cost them nearly $30,000, and Mr. Chew was not in a position to put up his share of that and Mr. Payette insisted that he take over the whole boat, and he made the charter with us. That is the explanation. In regard to the $2,000, we did offer then $2,000 at first. Mr. Chew thought that the amount was too low, and they demanded $2,500. A compromise was made. We split the difference, and gave them $2,250.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not disputing what the minister says at all. I am merely citing what is disclosed in the correspondence. The point is fairly well established, which is what I suspected, that Mr. Chew and Mr. Payette joined forces and became partners. Later on, the minister says they made a settlement, and Mr. Chew left the matter entirely to Mr. Payette. As to that, I do not know.
On May 2, following this letter of Mr. Chew dated April 18, Mr. Cowan, chief of the preventive service, writes to Mr. Chew as follows:
On my return to the department this date after an absence in the east of a few weeks, I discussed the matter of chartering the Vigilant with the minister, and I am now instructed to advise you that the department will be interested in chartering this boat on a long term charter providing the price is fair and reasonable, with provision in the charter for the purchase of the boat by the department at any time before the charter expires.
Then there follows this paragraph, which I submit to t'he minister and to the committee:
I am still of the opinion that a fair price as a basis of charter for this boat would be in the neighbourhood of $2,000 per month, the department to supply the crew, also fuel, deck supplies, water, food, etc.
We have the obvious willingness of Mr. Chew on April 18 to enter into the charter for $2,000 a month-


William Daum Euler: I wish my hon. friend would read where he says so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I say obvious willingness, because he is anxious to close the charter.


William Daum Euler: He says the amount offered is too low and asks for an interview, which followed, at which interview they asked $2,500, out of which came the compromise agreement to split the difference. I do not think is is fair to assume that Mr. Chew was willing to accept the $2,000.

Supply-National Revenue.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think it is obvious from his letter.


William Daum Euler: If he had said to me that he was willing to take $2,000, that is all he would have received; I can assure my hon. friend of that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is a little unfortunate that this letter was not in the ministers hands when he was negotiating for the charter.


William Daum Euler: I cannot take out of it what the hon. member does.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The letter speaks for itself. It says:
I was talking to Mr. Euler, in Kitchener, over phone. He said you had brought in to him a draft of a charter and the price was $2,000 per month. I felt this was a small price. However, I would like you to let me know as soon as you arrive in Ottawa, by wire, so I can go down there.


William Daum Euler: What for?


Henry Herbert Stevens: We can get with Mr. Euler and complete the charter.
What charter? The draft charter which had been sent to him by Mr. Cowan.


William Daum Euler: Not at all. The hon. gentleman must remember that Mr. Chew was in partnership with Mr. Payette, and Mr. Payette had to be dealt with in the negotiations as well.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am simply taking out of this correspondence what is in it.


William Daum Euler: I am very sure the hon. gentleman would not think of me or say of me that if I were offered that boat at $2,000 a month, I would deliberately offer $250 a month more than was asked for.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would not.


William Daum Euler: That is the inference from
your remarks.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It seems rather strange
when we read the official documents on this file, which is the official property of the government and of the house-


William Daum Euler: But they do not bear out
what you say.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I say this: Here are the words, and I will leave them to the house to take out of them whatever meaning it wishes. Here as the letter from Mr. Manley Chew to Mr. Cowan, chief of the preventive service, dated April 18, 1927:
56103-230J
I was talking to Mr. Euler, in Kitchener, over 'phone. He said you had brought into him a draft of a charter and the price was $2,000 per month. I felt this was a small price. However, I would like you to let me know as soon as you arrive in Ottawa, by wire, so I can go down there. We can get with Mr. Euler and complete the charter.


William Daum Euler: It does not say at that
rate.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Very well. That is what
Mr. Chew says on April 18. This is what Mr. Cowan says on May 2 in a letter to Mr. Chew:
I am still of the opinion that a fair price as a basis of charter for this boat would be in the neighbourhood of two thousand dollars per month-


Charles Avery Dunning: "In the neighbourhood." '


Henry Herbert Stevens: Wait a moment.
-the department to supply the crew, also fuel, deck supplies, water, food, etc.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot see why hon.
members should become excited over that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is a statement of fact from this correspondence.


William Daum Euler: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? I know he wants to be fair, as I do.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly.


William Daum Euler: For the information of the
committee, I may say that I havei a great deal of confidence in the chief of the preventive service, Mr. Cowan, who carried on most of the negotiations. Has the hon. member there the recommendation from Mr. Cowan to pay $2,250? Because I followed his recommendation.


An hon. MEMBER:: He cannot find that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I can find it if I have
time. Here is a letter from Mr. Cowan about a week later. It is a long form-page letter, but I will read the part that is desired by hon. members opposite.


An hon. MEMBER:: Read it all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, I do not think it
is necessary:
I have the honour to report that I have this day had a conference with the owners of the Vigilant re the rnatter of chartering this boc+. for patrol duty in Atlantic waters. As an outcome of this conference the owners of the Vigilant have made an offer to charter this boat for patrol duty on the basis of a letter addressed to me this day as follows:
Supply-National Revenue


William Daum Euler: That is what I wished read. The recommendation came from the chief of the preventive service.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think we were justified on those letters in calling into question the amount being paid for this vessel, namely $2,250 a month. The point at issue between the minister and ourselves is simply this: Is the charter of this vessel at $2,250, or $56,000 for three years, plus all expenses except insurance, a fair price to pay to the owners? That is the whole question at issue.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I submit that the price
paid is very, very generous; in fact I am inclined to think excessive. The minister

may justify it on the score of emergency or the difficulty of securing vessels, but I venture to say that a boat as suitable as this could have been secured at a lower rate.


Mr. CAHILL:: Where?


An hon. MEMBER:: On the Clyde.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, I expect you could,
but I am not suggesting that you should go to the Clyde. I say that is the issue. I do not think that the facts which I have recited will be disputed. Will the minister now tell us what has been spent by the government in operation, upkeep and repairs on this vessel since the charter date, namely, May 20, 1927?


William Daum Euler: At the outset let me say
that it was extremely difficult to get a boat. There was an emergency; we had no boat on the Atlantic coast; a great many rum-running vessels were operating there; we had to do something speedily. Owners of boats of a similar type demanded as high as $4,500 a month. I merely leave it to the committee whether $2,250 is a fair and reasonable amount. The question has been asked, what it has cost to operate this boat. It cost in the neighbourhood of $5,500 a month. In my opinion that is too much. As a matter of fact, as I said last night, we are getting rid of all the privately-chartered boats, and within a very short period we will have only our own boats, properly equipped. One of the reasons why we do not propose to purchase this boat is because it costs us too much to operate it. We can build one of our own and operate it at 50 per cent less. A boat that we own, the Margaret-it is known to everybody-actually costs us $13,500 a month to operate. It costs something to protect the customs revenues on the coast. I am not sure whether my answer is sufficient.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. Will the minister
be good enough to tell me how much has been spent since the date mentioned, May 20, 1927, in operation, upkeep and repairs-the total amount?


William Daum Euler: I am informed about $0,500 for the annual overhauling. It was done last winter at Halifax in the navy yard.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What has been the cost
of operation?


William Daum Euler: At the rate of $5,500 a month outside the charter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does that $5,500 a month include the months the boat was tied up?

Supply-National Revenue


William Daum Euler: No, that is the cost of operation during the months she is in actual service.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How much did it cost
when she was tied up?


William Daum Euler: About $200 a month-two
watchmen on the boat; that is all.


James Arthurs: How many months was
she tied up?


William Daum Euler: Three months in each of
the last two years.


Henry Herbert Stevens: From May 20, 1927, to
May, 1928, she has cost $38,500 for operation, $6,500 for repairs, and $2,250 per month for charter. Now one other question. Is the insurance kept up? I know they are obligated to pay it, but have the owners kept up the insurance or has the department paid it?


William Daum Euler: It has not expired yet, I
might say also with regard to costs that we have a boat called the Bayfield, loaned by the Department of Marine, which costs almost as much for operation as does this boat we have under charter. And it is our own boat, costing nothing for charter fee.


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: I understand that
the minister rather indicated that what I said last night applied to the purchase of the boat.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Anderson Black: My remarks-


William Daum Euler: I didn't indicate it; I said it.


William Anderson Black: My remarks applied to the charter of the boat particularly. If I said anything improper or that should be retracted with regard to the minister I am perfectly willing to withdraw it. I did not of course make any charge of graft or anything of that kind against the hon. gentleman himself. There are many points in connection with the boat which I could discuss but I will not take up the time of the committee doing so, because I feel it would be useless; the item would oarry under any circumstances. But I will say this with regard to the charter: First of all I believe that the department that sold the boat got all she was worth when they sold her. She was twenty-four years old, useless for anything except for yachting purposes. If you tell me that any sane man would buy a boat for pleasure, an antiquated yacht twenty-four years old, then I say such an individual cannot be found. And that was the only purpose she was fit for. I will say further that in order to make her seaworthy I am almost certain, from my knowledge of
shipping, that the engines were not fit to operate the boat; they had to be taken out and new ones put in. And unless some arrangement were made for chartering the boat no sane man, in my judgment, would spend $30,000 equipping her unless for some special purpose.


William Daum Euler: The naval department said
they were in first-class condition.


William Anderson Black: If that boat were
for charter to-day I would defy the owner anywhere to get $1,000 a month for her, on the terms of the charter under which she is at present employed. That is an excessive amount for the boat. I believe $750 would be a much more equitable and fair arrangement.


William Daum Euler: I want to ask a fair question. Could the hon. gentleman give me information-knowing about ships as he does -where in Halifax or anywhere else we can get two boats at $1,000 a month-boats similar to this? If we can get them and they are seaworthy we will take them at $1,000.


William Anderson Black: I cannot at the
moment, offhand. There are not many such boats afloat. She was built for a yacht.


William Daum Euler: She was built by the government of Canada for patrol on the lakes.


William Anderson Black: Where is my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough? He is not here. But will anyone acquainted with shipping say that a boat of 243 tons, twenty-four years old, is worth $2,200 a month, without expenses, not even the lay-up expenses in the time she is off charter? The thing is absurd.


Mr. THOMPSON:: Last evening, speaking on this subject, I said:
I find that the steamship Vigilant formerly belonged to the government; almost their first official act after coming into power in December, 1921, was to sell this boat to a then Liberal member of parliament for $18,000.
The Minister of National Revenue says this is incorrect. If it is incorrect then the government themselves are to blame, because they took power on December 29, 1921. On March 22, 1928, certain questions were submitted to the government in connection with this boat:
Mr. Ernst:
1.	Is the patrol boat "Vigilant" now engaged in the customs preventive service?
2.	If so, where?
3.	Is the "Vigilant" owned by the Department of National Revenue, or under charter?
4.	If under charter, from whom, and what are the terms of the charter party?
Supply-National Revenue

5.	Was the "Vigilant" formerly owned by the government?
6.	When was the "Vigilant" sold, to whom, and for what amount?
Mr. Rinfret:
1.	Yes, under charter.
2.	Atlantic waters off Nova Scotia-base Halifax.
3.	Under charter.
4.	John Thomas Payette, Penetanguishene, Ont. $2,250 per month for period of seven months, 1927; nine months, 1928; nine months, 1929.
5.	Yes.
6.	29th December, 1921 to Manley Chew, Penetanguishene, Ont., for $18,000.
Exactly what I said. This government came into power on December 20 and this boat was sold on December 20.


William Daum Euler: Did my hon. friend hear me recite the order in council under which the beat was sold by the Meighen government?


Hugh Guthrie: He said that if he was misled your answer misled him.


William Daum Euler: If he was mistaken he ought to make amends.


Charles Avery Dunning: The answer did not mislead him.


Alfred Burke Thompson: The Secretary of State, in answer to a question, said that this boat was sold on December 20, 1021.


William Daum Euler: That is the day the Governor General signed the order in council.


Alfred Burke Thompson: I do not know about the Governor General signing it, but here is an answer to a plain question.


William Daum Euler: If the hon. member admits he was mistaken I am willing to accept his statement.


Mr. CLARK:: He believed the information you gave him.


Alfred Burke Thompson: If the Secretary of State gave an incorrect answer-


Charles Avery Dunning: He did not.


Alfred Burke Thompson: From the papers produced on the floor of the house, the negotiations were entered into prior to that date, although the sale was not completed until after this government came into power. I never found any fault in my remarks with the price obtained.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Alfred Burke Thompson: Some gentlemen are
laughing.. But turn to page 3380 of Hansard and see whether you can find any remarks of mine finding fault with the price paid for the boat. It is true the minister read certain
Mr. Thompson.]
letters from personal friends of Mr. Chew and of Mr. Payette giving their ideas as to the value of the boat. A boat is worth what you can get for her, the same as a house. The figures read by the minister to-night are very interesting as to the value of the boat, showing what practical men were prepared to give for her-men who were in need of a boat. Take the firm of Keenan Brothers, Owen Sound, who wanted a boat of this type. They examined her, and what were they prepared to give for her? Five thousand dollars. Mr. Callaghan of Toronto made an offer of $8,600 for the boat.


William Daum Euler: I gave those figures before.


Alfred Burke Thompson: Certainly. These were practical men who wanted a boat and this is what they were prepared to give for this one. The Anglo Coal Company, Limited, of New Campbellton, N.B., offered $10,500, and Captain Curry of Toronto offered $12,000. The government refused to accept these offers, considering them too low. As the minister has said, she was advertised again and some man offered $25,000, but his terms of payment were so unsatisfactory that they could not be accepted. Then this same man who offered $25,000 offers $18,000 at a later date, this time all cash subject to inspection. Apparently he inspected the boat and found her unsatisfactory, because he withdrew his offer. Then Mr. Manley Chew came along and submitted an offer of $18,000, payable $5,000 cash and the balance on or before July 1, 1922, without interest, and the government accepted that offer. I am satisfied that the price paid by Mr. Chew was satisfactory.


William Daum Euler: May I tell my hon. friend that the price was never criticized by myself or anyone else from this side of the house; it was criticized by hon. gentlemen opposite.


Alfred Burke Thompson: I did not criticize the price received for the boat, but I criticized the rental being paid. Here is a boat sold by this or by the then government for $18,000.


William Daum Euler: Not by this government.


Alfred Burke Thompson: By the government of the day, and it is claimed that $30,000 was spent in repairs. The papers are not brought down and there is nothing to show how this amount is made up. I would like to know in whose machine shop these repairs were made, it would be interesting to know how that amount was spent. But even taking the figures of the government as correct, we have a total of $48,000. This boat is chartered; she

Supply-National Revenue
cost $48,000 altogether and the government will pay $56,250 for twenty-five months' use. If that is not extravagance I do not know what it is. Another point on which I would like a little information is this: I understood the minister to say to-night that it cost $6,500 for repairs. Is that correct?


William Daum Euler: For the annual overhaul.


Alfred Burke Thompson: When was that paid?


William Daum Euler: It was last winter's overhauling in our own yards at Halifax.


Alfred Burke Thompson: Was there any amount paid?


William Daum Euler: Approximately $6,500.


Alfred Burke Thompson: When was that paid?


William Daum Euler: I have not the exact date at the moment; it may not be paid yet, but that is what it is going to cost.


Alfred Burke Thompson: I think that is correct, because the impression I got from the minister was that this money had been paid already. Now I understand him to say that it may not have been paid as yet.


William Daum Euler: I am not certain, but it is going to cost us that much anyway. The work was done in our own yards by the Dominion government, without profit. Whether or not it has been actually paid I do not know, and it does not matter particularly because we will have to pay it anyway.


Alfred Burke Thompson: The reason I am asking is because the question was asked as to how much the government had spent on repairs for this boat, and the answer was that they had spent $1,565.18. I assume that is in addition to the $6,500 which the minister now says it will cost to overhaul the boat annually.


William Daum Euler: At the time the question was placed on the order paper these repairs had not been made.


Alfred Burke Thompson: I gathered that that amount had been already paid; however, in 1927 the department paid $1,565.18 for repairs. All I have to say is that the statements I made last night were based on the answer of the government to the question I asked, and therefore . my statements were substantially correct. I have nothing to withdraw and I still stand by the statement that the government are paying an extravagant rental for this boat.


William Daum Euler: If, as the hon. gentleman says, he was misled by an answer given to a question on the order paper as to which government sold that boat to Mr. Chew, does he still persist in the charge that it savoured of graft and wrongdoing?


Alfred Burke Thompson: I did not say it was graft; I said it savoured of graft.


William Daum Euler: Does the hon. gentleman adhere to that statement?


Alfred Burke Thompson: I say that the price paid is so extravagant that one is forced to that conclusion.


Charles Avery Dunning: Why not make a charge and pledge your seat on it like a man, instead of making insinuations?


James Arthurs: As far as I have heard, no charge has been made from this side of the house that there was anything wrong with the sale of the boat, I know something about this boat; she was taken up to Parry Sound by the then government and advertised for sale after being repainted and refitted. She was advertised as being in first class, seaworthy condition. She lay there for many months and I understand that tenders were called for on two or three occasions.


William Daum Euler: Three orders in council were passed accepting offers which were never carried out.


James Arthurs: Offers were made, none of which were carried out, because there were no buyers for that class of boat. This boat was built for the Department of Marine and Fisheries twenty-four years before she was sold; she was built for the lake service and was absolutely no good for carrying cargo or passengers. Her general lines were more those of a yacht than anything else. She was of no use for visiting the various resorts on the great lakes or taking the inside channels on account -of her great draft; in proportion to her size she was too deep for that part of the country. The result was that she was unsalable, and I believe that when the government secured $18,000 for her they got twice what she was worth in the ordinary market. If we consider the sale of other boats, about which there is no question of what government sold them, we can show some horrible examples of prices obtained. I hold in my hand the answer given to a question on May 3, 1926, regarding certain boats sold by the present government. The question was:
Are the following ships: Emperor of Havana; Emperor of St. John; Emperor of Fredericton; Emperor of Montreal; Emperor of Midland; carrying on a service between Canada and Cuba ?
Supply-:National Revenue

Were these ships formerly the property of the Canadian Merchant Marine? If so, what were the respective names at that time?
What was the cost of each, and the price at which each was sold?
I will not go into the details; I will just give the cost of these boats and the price for which they were sold by the present government. They were not twenty-four years old, but were in seaworthy condition. The Canadian Sailor, afterwards the Emperor of Havana, cost $690,409.84 and was sold for $40,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: Will my hon. friend say what government built that boat, and what government paid for it?	.


James Arthurs: We are not talking about what government built it; we are talking about what it was sold for. This government sold those boats.


Charles Avery Dunning: Last night my hon. friends insisted on knowing who sold the other boat, and if there is any question of value, let my hon. friend say who built the boats.


James Arthurs: My hon. friend can talk
afterwards; I am going on with this list. The second boat was the Canadian Warrior, later changed to the Emperor of St. John.


Charles Avery Dunning: If you want to rake up
a scandal in the merchant marine


James Arthurs: The Emperor of St.
John cost $819,671.26 and was sold for $40,000, less than five per cent of her original cost. This was an up-to-date boat, absolutely seaworthy in every respect, and not twenty-four years old as was the Vigilant.


William Daum Euler: I would like to know what
point there is in this discussion with regard to the estimates.


James Arthurs: The whole discussion this evening, Mr. Chairman, has been regarding the price of the Vigilant, and I think I am perfectly justified in making a comparison. The next boat, the Canadian Sower, afterwards known as the Emperor of Fredericton, cost $716,856.63 and sold for $40,000. I could go on with the other two or three boats, but they were all sold for an average of less than six per cent of their cost. They were practically new boats and they were sold to the president of the Liberal association, I am led to believe, in a certain county in the province of Ontario.


Charles Avery Dunning: Which boats?


James Arthurs: Sold for the purpose of
going into direct competition with our own boats on established routes on the Atlantic.
fM* Arthurs.]


Robert James Manion: Better not ask that again, or we will tell you.


James Arthurs: So far as the Vigilant is concerned, the minister has stated that this boat was sold for $18,000. He has stated that repairs amounting to $30,000 were put upon her, but he has only the word of the charterer for those repairs. I am confident that my hon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Thompson). would know if any material repairs were made on a boat located in Midland harbour during all the ensuing years. As a matter of fact we are paying the owners of this boat more than the entire cost of the boat every season, and keeping it in perfect condition in addition to that. We have agreed to return the boat in the same condition as we got it. The boat was twenty-four years old when it was chartered, and I think the whole question is whether we are paying a reasonable price for the services of this boat. We have been told that there was an emergency, but this emergency has been there right along. The rum runners were down on the coast last year as they are this year, and they were there the year before; they have been there all the time. If there was an emergency, why charter a boat for three years at an excessive cost? That is what we are questioning.


William Daum Euler: It would be quite impossible to get them to charter the boat unless it was taken for a period of time, because large expenditures had to be made.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: I want to quote from Hansard, page 3588, so that we will have the whole thing on the record.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I am going to
read this if it takes half an hour.


Mr. SHORT:: You started it last night;
go to it.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: If the hon.
member is through with his foolishness, I will begin. If that is his usual behaviour, I am surprised at anyone sending him as a member to this house. Hansard reads as follows:
Mr. Black (Halifax):	Did I understand the
minister to say that that boat was sold for $18,000 and that she is now worth over $100,000?
I want to draw the attention of the house to the fact that this is the first remark made

Supply-National Revenue
by the hon. senior member for Halifax. I will read it once more:
Mr. Black (Halifax) :	Did I understand the
minister to say that that boat was sold for $18,000 and that she is now worth over $100,000?
Mr. Euler:	I did not say over $100,000;
I said she was insured for $75,000.
Mr. Black (Halifax):	You said she was
insured for $75,000 and I am perfectly satisfied that she was valued at $100,000, because she could not get full insurance. The minister also said that at that time boats were cheap. I want to tell him that boats are no more expensive now-they are just as cheap to-day- than they were when she was sold for $18,000.
Mr. Euler:	We have not purchased the boat.
Mr. Black (Halifax):	That transaction
savours of graft and wrongdoing and someone has put money in his pocket. I do not hesitate to say it.
Up to that point there is not one word in the whole speech except-


Harry Bernard Short: Read what Mr. Euler says in regard to that.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: There is not one word in the discussion last night with respect to the leasing of the boat.


Harry Bernard Short: What did Mr. Euler say?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I will read that:
_ Mr. Euler: Do you suggest that we are paying too high a rental?
I rise only for the purpose of putting this whole thing on Hansard, so that anyone reading it will have it all together.


Robert James Manion: I am sure my hon. friend wants to bring the whole matter out, but on page 3588, just a few lines down, the following appears:
Mr. Black (Halifax):	Let us see a copy
of the charter.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: That does not matter.


Robert James Manion: It just shows that he was talking about the charter.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I rather sympathize with the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Thompson) to-night. Apparently when he asked a question in the house some time ago as to the date o-f the purchase, he came to the conclusion that it was a Liberal government which sold the boat to a Liberal supporter, and he immediately concluded there was something wrong with the sale.


An hon. MEMBER:: It would naturally make you suspicious.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Unfortunately I must say that there are some hon. gentlemen opposite who suspect everything, and I have my own suspicion about anyone who suspects everything of being wrong. I think he made as plausible an explanation to-night as he could under the very embarrassing circumstances, but I would like to quote what the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Boys) said last night-page 3587 of Hansard:
Mr. Boys: One of the reasons is that it was sold a little too cheap and sold to a supporter of the government at the time, which in itself invites criticism. The hon. member for East Simcoe has gone so far as to suggest that the whole transaction savours of graft.
I merely quote that to show this; at least one hon. member, from a constituency very close to the other hon. member, construed the remarks of the hon. gentleman that way. All the circumstances have been related tonight by the Minister of National Revenue. The boat was sold for $18,000, and it would seem that the government got all the boat was apparently worth at that time, or at least all they could get for it. It is apparent that the hon. gentleman put a wrong interpretation on the Whole transaction.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I should like to get the
discussion around to a point rather more harmonious. I refer to a remark made by the minister that we on this side of the House are inclined to attribute dishonesty to all our opponents. I sum not making any particular claim for honesty myself and I will take the committee into my confidence and say that my forebears on my father's side were originally and for generations, pirates on the coast of Aberdeenshire. My mother's progenitors were, I know, cattle lifters from Inverness. Both these occupations were counted the professions of gentlemen at that time.
To return to the subject matter of debate, this vessel, the Vigilant, is an old boat. I remember distinctly when she was built in Poison's yards at Toronto in 1904. Indeed I think we forged the main Shafting for her as well as the stem stern post and recorder frame, at New Glasgow.


Charles Avery Dunning: It was a good shaft too.


Thomas Cantley: Certainly it was a good
job and she is afloat yet. The question comes up of the value of the boat at the time She was sold. I think she was well sold when she was sold for $18,000. That is proved by the circumstances. Mr. Chew paid $18,000 for her and two years after was content to sell her to [DOT] Payette for $13,000, dropping $5,000 on the transaction. That, I think, is disclosed by the papers laid on the table.


William Daum Euler: No.
Supply-National Revenue


Thomas Cantley: If the Minister will look
over them I think he will find I am correct. Mr. Chew was evidently not able to complete payment of the balance due for the vessel and deposited with the government Payette's cheque for $13,000, in settlement of the balance due on the purchase price of $18,000. Payette's cheque of SI3,000 was given Chew in payment of the purchase of the vessel from him for that amount. Chew was evidently content to drop $5,000 on the transaction. Chew paid Payette's cheque over 'to the government so that he could get title to the vessel and turn same over to Payette, who had bought her from him. The minister has made a comparison between the hire paid for the Vigilant and that paid for the Hochelaga. I should like to point out to him one or two pertinent facts:	The Vigilant has not classification at
Lloyd's. Her name does not appear in Lloyd's register at all, having simply been wiped off the register books when she failed to comply with the requirements as to classification and registration at Lloyd's. The Hochelaga on the other hand is classed "100 Al", and her record is clean and complete up to the last issue of Lloyd's register, 1928. The Hochelaga was built by one of the most celebrated firms in Great Britain, as a yacht for one of the royal personages of Europe, Ibuilt under Lloyd's special survey with extra heavy scantlings and platings, for navigation in northern waters, and was a beautifully finished, high-powered craft.


William Daum Euler: We obtained a first class
certificate from the marine inspector for the vessel when she left Midland after she was overhauled.


Thomas Cantley: Probably the department
did, the owner had to get that or she would not have received a clearance from customs, but that was only a temporary certificate and to the effect, in short, a certificate that her boilers were fitted to carry a certain steam pressure. The fact remains that the vessel has no classification at Lloyd's, whereas the Hochelaga, built years after the Vigilant, maintains her class.
The minister referred to myself when discussing the matter of depreciation and insurance. A vessel of her class,-I mean a steel vessel-should be insurable for, say, ten- per cent per annum with a return in the premium . clause to the effect that if she has no casualties during the year, one per cent shall be returned. making the net insurance nine per cent per annum. The vessel's depreciation should not run to more than five per cent, which would wipe off her value in twenty years.


William Daum Euler: She is old and she would
surely depreciate more rapidly.


Thomas Cantley: According to the minister they spent $30,000 on her.


William Daum Euler: That will depreciate.


Thomas Cantley: She cost originally $124,000, and if five per cent had been written off yearly, her costs would have been reduced to $18,600 or within a few hundred dollars of the amount for which the government sold her to Chew.


William Daum Euler: I think we are forgetting entirely that Mr. Chew himself spent some $10,000 or $12,000 on her before the $30,000 was spent by himself or Mr. Payette.


Thomas Cantley: Possibly he did, and all
I have to say is that any man or group of men who would spend $30,000 on that old craft, then over twenty years of age, built on the upper lakes a quarter of a century ago with light yacht scantlings and platings in proportion, would be very foolish.


William Daum Euler: I am inclined to agree with
my hon. friend, but the supposition on the part of Mr. Payette was that it would not cost him more than $15,000. He found, when he got at the work, that it cost him nearly $30,000, and this is one of the reasons why Mr. Chew dropped out.


Thomas Cantley: Evidently he did not know what he was doing.


William Daum Euler: That might be true.


Thomas Cantley: That is the general experience of most men who pick up old vessels and try to make new ones out of them. I have endeavoured to show what would be written off the hire for insurance and depreciation, which I think, would amount to $8,100. This, deducted from the season's hire of $20,250, leaves $12,150 for the owner, or about thirty-two per cent or close to one-third of the -cost of the investment. The man who has his vessel insured up to its full value, with five per cent depreciation and thirty-three per cent on his investment, is doing very much better than the average ship-owner. I think a hire rate of $1,500 per month, which is much more than the bon. member for Halifax would allow, would be a pretty generous rate to pay for that craft.
I turn now to the so-called charter party. It is not really a charter party at all, but an agreement for hire with an option to purchase. I do not know who wrote it-probably Mr. Cowan-but it is evidently gotten up by somebody who has had little experience in shipping

Supply[DOT]-National Revenue
Why such an agreement was adopted by the minister, rather than the ordinary charter form, I do not know. There are several charter forms in general use and well known in the trade,-the "Baltic" form, the "AJB.C." and several others to which I do not need to refer because they deal with special trades. As to clause 5 of the agreement which reads:
Any coal in tile bunkers of the vessel at the time she goes into commission shall be paid for by the party of the second part at market price.
May I ask the minister why this clause was inserted?


William Daum Euler: I presume 'because it was
their property and we were going to use it. We bought it. That is all.


Thomas Cantley: I understand this vessel
is now driven by internal combustion engines, and not by steam.


William Daum Euler: No.


Thomas Cantley: Who made the statement that she was?


William Daum Euler: I do not know.


Thomas Cantley: The statement was, I
think, made last night that this vessel had been fitted with internal combustion engines.


William Daum Euler: That was another vessel altogether.


Thomas Cantley: A discussion arose as to
whether they could be bought abroad.


Charles Avery Dunning: That was a different
vessel.


Thomas Cantley: If it was, I beg the minister's pardon. I misunderstood him. The minister made a comparison between this vessel and the Bayfield. The Bayfield is practically forty years bid. Will he make any comparison between the Hochelaga and the Bayfield? He paid $4,500 a month for the Hoche-laga, a pretty stiff hire, but he was getting a good vessel, and the question arose in the maritime provinces why the Hochelaga was taken off the service.


William Daum Euler: She did no more work I am informed than the Vigilant.


Thomas Cantley: She did no more work?


William Daum Euler: No.


Thomas Cantley: How much work did the Vigilant do? How miany Captures did she make? I understand that nothing from nothing leaves nothing, so they are about even. But one vessel has been on the route for something over a year, and the other vessel has been on for only two or three months.
The other curious fact in regard to this transaction is this: Instead of the vessel being delivered where she was to be employed, as is the usual 'custom, delivery of the vessel was taken at her home port in the lakes, and the department bore the entire cost of transferring her from Midland down to the Atlantic coast, where she was intended to operate, and then, after taking care of her over the winter while not in the government employ, they undertook on the completion of her hire period to return her again to Midland to her home port. That is fine for owners but it is not business.
Now I refer to the question of the department looking after the vessel during the time she was laid up. That is an obligation of the agreement; I will not call it a charter. Some reference was made last night to another vessel that for some time was in the custody of the government, under this same department, -the Longley case-but there they were not so particular as they bound themselves to be under this agreement in regard to this vessel.
A good deal more might be said in regard to the matter. I do not think the minister acted very wisely in leaving this matter to the gentleman who carried on the negotiations and concluded the agreement for hire to which he refers. I think the minister would have been better advised if he had turned the matter of chartering the vessel over to somebody in the Marine department who was acquainted with business of this character. This is more like a farmers' agreement than a charter party. It is not a charter party, and by no stretch of courtesy could it be called a charter party. However, such as it is, it will be sufficient to call for very considerably more by way of hire than I think the vessel is worth.


James Alexander Robb: May I say to the committee
that we have now spent two hours discussing this interesting question, and possibly it is about time that we returned to the item under consideration, and attempted to make some progress.


Mr. IRVINE:: I was just about to make
the same remark, and I wish the minister had made it an hour ago. If we spend as much time discussing approximately $200,000,000 as we have spent discussing this amount of $2,000 per month, we shall not only need higher indemnities, but our funeral expenses as well. I think that hon. gentlemen to my right have established that perhaps we are paying too much rental for the vessel, but it is under a contract that does not expire for another year, and I cannot see that we can do anything to alter it. I think also that the minister has done justice to himself in answering the
3644	COMMONS
Supply-Marine and Fisheries-Radio
charges of graft in respect to the chartering and sale of the vessel. It is only a small boat of two or three hundred tons, and after all this discussion, if it had been a sailing boat it would have been blown off the seven seas long ago.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Ocean and river service-radio service-to provide for the general improvement of reception conditions to licensed broadcast listeners, $190,000.
Leon Johnson Ladner: I share with the Minister
of Finance the desire to expedite the business of the house, and normally I would have hesitated to make some remarks with respect to this item, but when I find that 458,026 persons, citizens of Canada, have signed a petition, addressed inadvertently to the Prime Minister of this country when it should have been addressed to the members of the House of Commons, protesting against the arbitrary manner in which the radio licenses in question had been cancelled, I think it is a subject matter for consideration by hon. members of this house.
It appears that of the 458,000 citizens who signed this petition, which has since been presented formally to the Prime Minister, making two or three cartloads, 82,468 were owners of radio sets. Why have these people registered such a vigorous protest? That is a question which enters my mind. I have taken occasion to examine the official data as well as the data supplied by the International Bible Students' Association with regard to this matter. I have no brief for the International Bible Students' Association. I am not identified with that organization in any way, and I believe that I can in a dispassionate manner, therefore, make some observations which should be pertinent to the controversy.
In my judgment there has been hasty action. Knowing the minister as I do, I cannot believe that either he or his deputy were apprised of all the facts before this arbitrary step was taken to cancel the license of this organization. I find upon examination of the official and other documents that since August, 1926, a radio license has been granted to the International Bible Students' Association; that the Universal Radio of Canada, Limited, is a commercial organization, "to sell time on the air," to use their expression. Their call letters are CJYC. They received on January 18, 1926, a license on certain terms. The terms were that that organization would build a broadcasting station some eleven miles outside the city of Toronto. In compliance with that condition of the license, that radio station was built. These licenses-they are several in number-were, according to the record I have
[Mrt Irvine.]
seen, cancelled on three weeks' notice, and practically no reasons were given for the cancellation. This organization had radio licenses almost four years ago. In November, 1924, a license was issued to them for broadcasting at Saskatoon. On April 1, 1926, licenses were issued to Edmonton and Vancouver.
Now, Mr. Chairman, it is apparent that the International Bible Students' Association, and the organization known as the Universal Radio of Canada, had been established in this country for a considerable time, recognized by governmental authorities, and granted the licenses or privileges to broadcast their ideas. I am not -contending that the views so broadcast were good, bad or indifferent; I do not know anything about them; I never heard any of their programs and I have read very little about them. But I do know that whatever they were broadcasting had the approval of the government for four years, and that when those rights were can-celled the organization, having enjoyed those privileges for four years, was not told: Now, complaints have been registered against you; come before this department and justify your broadcasting or satisfy the complaints which have been made, otherwise we will cancel your license. That course of action, I consider, would be the fair and square way to deal with the situation. I submit there is a serious responsibility upon the minister to explain why this arbitrary action was taken. The minister stated that certain complaints were made.
Now, a gentleman by the name of Walter Frederick Salter, whom I happen to have known for over sixteen years, and whose integrity and standing are beyond reproach to my personal knowledge, has made a statutory declaration dealing with this question. He is the vice-president and general manager of the International Bible Students' Association of Canada. The minister will recall that he tabled a return of the correspondence that had passed between the Department of Marine and Fisheries and certain people throughout the country. Mr. Salter in his declaration, which was sworn to on May 12, 1928, declares in paragraph 2:
I have examined carefully the correspondence tabled by the Department of Marine and Fisheries in the House of Commons in response to the request for said correspondence by J. S. Woodsworth, member of parliament for North Centre Winnipeg; on behalf of A. A. Heaps, member of parliament for North Winnipeg, and find the letters of divisional radio inspector S. J. Ellis of Toronto contain statements which I declare are incorrect, viz.:
(a) That we employed 100 returned soldiers to canvass for names to the petition of protest. The fact is that we did not employ any

Supply-Marine and Fisheries-Radio
one; that all the work was done freely and voluntarily by workers throughout Canada, some of whom were members of our association; some of whom were citizens indignant at the action of the government; and some of whom were returned soldiers, but the number of returned men working in Toronto could not at the outside number more than half a dozen. No one received payment for securing names to the said petition.
Then he answers several other accusations and reviews the nature of the complaints, and in paragraph 3 declares;
Considerable of the correspondence-
That is, in the return.
-refers to the activities of the said association prior to the issuance of radio broadcasting licenses and is therefore not relevant; three items refer to Vancouver, five to Edmonton, six to Saskatoon, and the balance of the correspondence to Toronto, which may be divided as follows:
(a) as to programs, 14;	(b) interference,
44; (c) miscellaneous, 22.
So you will find from tlhese facts, Mr. Chairman, and from the further analysis which is made of the correspondence, that the objections are comparatively few in number. On the other hand, when the license was cancelled it will be observed that over twenty thousand letters expressing appreciation of the programs were forwarded to the Department of Marine and Fisheries and duly acknowledged. Then large meetings were held in various parts of the country.
Now, I shall be interested in learning from the minister why these licenses were cancelled without the parties directly concerned being given an opportunity of modifying their programs, shortening their wave length or reducing the time; in other words, why were they not allowed to do something to meet the objections raised, or why were not some means suggested by which they could satisfy those objections? The fact is, as I have stated, no opportunity was afforded them. Arbitrarily the department wiped them off the air and thus deprived nearly half a million people of the right of listening to programs which they claim they enjoyed.
I appeal to the minister to act in the spirit of British fair play and in the spirit of true British justice, which we find prevailing in our courts. In this case an established right had been granted by the government and exercised for years. As we have seen by the return, the objections to the programs broadcast by the Bible students' association were comparatively few, while those interested in their continuance number nearly half a million. In view of these facts I submit to the minister that it is not too late for him to right the wrong which appears to have been done
to a very large number of people. From my knowledge of the minister, I believe he is broad enough and big enough and in his outlook so statesmanlike that with all the facts now before him he will not hesitate to wipe out this injustice and introduce a policy which will meet with general approval. In my judgment it does not matter whether the government intends to formulate a national policy for the control of radio. I observed that when the subject was discussed this afternoon a large number of members on the government side expressed disapproval because of the difficulties involved in the carrying out of such a policy. But whatever the future policy of the government may be, it seems to me only fair and reasonable at this juncture that these people should be restored to their original rights. Then the department will be in a position to follow the usual procedure, that is, allow the parties a hearing so that the matter may be gone into fully before final action is taken. This is the only just and reasonable course to pursue. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that I 'have no special interest in this matter beyond my sense of duty as a member of this house to see justice done to Canadian citizens, no matter from what part of the country they come, no matter what creed they adhere to, no matter what political views they entertain.


William Irvine: Mr. Chairman, before making a few remarks on this item, I desire to ask the minister if any other denominations at the present time hold licenses similar to the license cancelled by the minister and to which cancellation hon. members have taken objection.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed there are
two: one is held by the United Church of Canada, operating a small station in Vancouver; the other by the Christian Missionary Alliance, operating a small station at Edmonton.


William Irvine: I think the hon. gentlemen who have already spoken on the question of the cancellation of the license of the Bible students' association have presented all the facts necessary to be brought to the attention of the committee or the minister. The hon. acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. (Ladner) have, I think, covered the ground thoroughly in respect to the facts. I wish the minister would tell us now that he is prepared to reconsider the question and to place the Bible students on
3646	COMMONS
Supply-Marine and Fisheries-Radio
t'he same basis as any other denomination in Canada. If he would do that he would save a lot of discussion and hon. members would get home earlier. I do not wish to censure the minister for his action. I can understand that he would receive information of a kind on which possibly he might have acted hastily. No doubt there were people interested sufficiently to use whatever means were available to obtain the cancellation of the Bible student's license, and they, acting without the knowledge of the Bible students, were able to present to the minister a strong reason why the license should be cancelled. Now that the other side of the question has been investigated and information is at hand, I feel that the minister in his fairness will he prepared to reconsider the matter.
The committee is aware of the great stir which this cancellation has created throughout Canada. I discuss the matter now not only because there are involved certain principles which I wish at all hazards to safeguard, but also because the people of my own riding have taken a very decided interest in the matter. I have received numerous letters from all sections of the constituency, as well as resolutions passed at a great many public meetings, and I have been urged to do what I can to induce the minister to change his attitude in respect to the cancellation of this license.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre sets forth the reasons given for the cancellation. He lays emphasis on the fact that a very considerable investment had been made both by the Bible students and by Universal Radio of Canada, Limited, and he points out that by the action of the minister these investments are practically lost. He also advanced' reasons why the reconsideration which I am asking for should be given. Along with the other hon. gentlemen who have spoken, I wish to urge the minister to reconsider his decision. I make a plea on behalf first of all of toleration. I do not necessarily agree with the Bible students; I do not know whether I agree with them or not. I do not know enough about them. Indeed, I do not care whether I agree with them or not. I know I do not agree with a great many other people but that does not trouble them at all, and it troubles me less. But there is certainly no good reason why we should attempt to shut off in any way organizations or individuals with whom or with which we do not agree. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, we fought this battle for so-called liberty long ago; our forefathers, we had hoped, had de-

cided the question. We do not wish to have to fight it over again. Now, the question here involved is this: discrimination has been shown in respect to radio licenses merely because an organization criticizes other people and differs in its religious views from others. Is that the slightest shadow of a reason why they should be prohibited from using the air with the same liberty as any other organization? Toleration, then, is the first principle on which I make my plea to the minister to reconsider his attitude. To suggest that religious teaching must be censored by anybody is to go a long way indeed; and merely because this organization has been objected to by other denominations is no reason why its license should be cancelled. If that were a reason for the cancellation of the license, what should be done in this parliament? Have we not heard condemnation and counter condemnation this evening on the part of both major parties? Yet there is no censor to come along and muzzle either opposition or government; they go on forever, like Tennyson's brook. The principle is the same with respect to radio.
I say with regard to the Bible students' association that if they have said things about competitive bodies-if I may put it that way -if they have criticized other religious organizations, then the Bible students themselves will lose thereby. We are not the guardians of their faith, neither are we the judges as to who is right or wrong. We must leave the responsibility with these bodies concerned and give them all equal liberty. I repeat if the Bible students have said things about the Presbyterians or the United Church or any other religious body, which statements are considered by these bodies as improper, it will not hurt them; it will reflect on the Bible students. It will ultimately bring its own reward. We can safely leave that to take care of itself. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to the charge that they had' hogged or monopolized the air. That is a matter for the discretion of the department; the department should be able to regulate these matters without difficulty.
I ask for the Bible students' association equal liberty in the case of the air. A few minutes ago I asked the minister the question whether there were other organizations of similar character now holding licenses to broadcast. I am informed there are. If that is the case I submit that the minister must either cancel those licenses or allow the Bible students to go on the air also. I am not very much interested which he does. If he wishes to cancel the licenses of all religious

Supply-Marine and Fisheries-Radio
bodies that would suit me perfectly well. There is plenty of room on the platform for everybody. I understand that the air is a limited avenue after all, and it has to be controlled. I am not offering any criticism on that score. But I do criticize the selection of one group for treatment of this sort while the others go free. If the minister will cancel all these licenses of religious bodies and say that henceforth we shall not have religion on the air-I am not sure whether you have it anywhere else anyhow

if he will say that from now on we shall keep the air clear of religion, that is a logical position to take and I have no criticism to offer. But when he says that he is going to shut out these particular users of the air, then I take issue. We cannot lay that down as a principle. It is unsafe, unsound and unfair; it cannot be justified. I insist therefore that all religious bodies shall have the same opportunity to broadcast, or, in the alternative, that all shall be prohibited absolutely. As I say, I am not interested which of the two courses the minister follows.
With regard to the policy which may sometime be evolved respecting the control of radio, I have this to say. I favour government control; individuals and corporations have controlled everything on the earth and everything beneath the earth; I hope they are not going to control the air. I would suggest that the government now take charge of the air while there is an opportunity to do so, and I suggest that when they lay down their policy they use the air for two things, education and entertainment. I hope the3r will not put politics on the air at all, because that is propaganda and certainly is not educational, especially when the two parties are in conversation with each other.


Mr. McMILLAN:: And the third1 party wants to clear the atmosphere.


William Irvine: I am afraid the party who has just spoken has not cleared it very much; he has befogged it a little more. If we are going to have the politicians on the air I am afraid we will have many -more recriminating remarks than were made by the Bible students; I am afraid we will have much more inaccuracy, and I would certainly insist that I have a right to the air equal to that of the Prime Minister or the leader of the opposition, because I suggest that the matters I talk about are to my mind equal in importance to the matters they talk about.
I would confine the air to educational and entertaining features, particularly scientific matters. I would put the best scientists in Canada on the air to teach the people the
latest achievements in the realm of science. Then let me insist that we cut off all advertising, whether it be the advertising of cigarettes or of booze. I even think it might be a good job to cut off the newspapers as well, because the kind of news they send out over the radio is not enlightening; it is the cheapest sort of scare headline material and it is unfit for children to hear. Why should we want to know about -a murder in Shanghai or a robbery in New York? That is rubbish. If we are to have news come over the radio I suggest that the government see to it that we have real news, news about life and about the great problems of the modern world instead of reports of the robberies which take place from day to day.


An hon. MEMBER:: How can we control
New York?


William Irvine: We are not worried about New York; let New York control itself, because we are having all we can do to control Canada. I insist that we take charge of our own radio and control it, and that we lay down the principle that only education and entertainment shall be broadcast. There should be no advertising whatever and no political talks, and certainly much of the news which is now on the air should be either severely censored or cut off entirely.
I want the assurance of the minister that the present discrimination against the International Bible Students' Association will be removed immediately. I notice that in the supplementary estimates there is an item for a commission to investigate the question of radio. I do not know whether that is to deal with this particular problem, but I suggest to the minister -that it is not necessary for a royal commission or any other kind of a commission to carry on an investigation in order to find out whether discrimination should be practised against one religious body. I think at this moment parliament is perfectly capable of dealing with that question. If the commission is to be appointed, let it investigate the broadcasting problem in general and lay down a general policy for the government, by which we may have proper control of the air. I maintain that parliament must settle this point as to the principle of equal opportunity, and I believe parliament is prepared to settle it now. I urge that the minister now give us the assurance that this discrimination which I have indicated, which has come about either by mistake or by haste on the part of the department, shall be immediately removed.


Milton Neil Campbell: If the minister is prepared to give us such an assurance as the hon. member has asked for I shall be glad to sit
3648	COMMONS
Supply-Marine and Fisheries*-Radio
down, because I presume the debate will end, but since I do not see the minister making any move to do so I have a few remarks I should like to make. I have received letters from many of my constituents with regard to this matter, not merely from members of the International Bible Students' Association but from very many people who belong to other churches. These are people who, in their religious life, do not accept the teachings of this association; they have very little use for the doctrines enunciated and the principles laid down by that body but they have a respect for the principles of free speech, of toleration and of liberty, principles for which our forefathers fought and for which they shed their blood. These are the reasons why many of my constituents belonging to other denominations have sent protests to me, which I feel obliged to place before this house.
In November, 1924, a broadcasting license was issued to the International Bible Students' Association at Saskatoon; in 1926 similar licenses were issued to these people in Edmonton and Vancouver, and later on in Toronto. Until recently there was no complaint whatever about the operation of these stations. In my own home I am able to tune in on their programs, but if they do not suit me I can tune out and try something else. Ho-wever, I want to say that when I have the choice of having my children listen to some of the stuff which the hon. member for Wetaskiwin characterized as rubbish, and for which I would use a stronger adjective if I were not in this house-stuff that can be hardly dignified with the name of music, consisting of the poorest type of jazz; if I have to choose between having my children listen to that sort of thing as against some of the elevating and enlightening programs broadcast by the Bible students, I prefer that some of this other material be taken off the air and that the Bible students' programs be allowed to remain, even though I may not agree with their religious views. Indeed, I think the question of religion should not enter into this matter in any way; the principle of religious freedom and religious toleration was supposed to have been settled centuries ago. Who is to be the judge of whether or not these doctrines are -offensive? Are we going to leave it to a member of the Roman Catholic church to say whether or not the doctrines of the Protestant sects are offensive, or to a Presbyterian to judge whether the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church are right or wrong? I think we can hardly re-

cognise any such principle as that, and therefore I say that the government, representing the people of Canada, have no right to interfere in a question of this kind and to allow any prejudices against this religious organisation to determine their action.
As far as the records show, any complaints made to the department previous to the cancellation of the licenses were adjusted immediately by the association. I think the minister will admit that one of his inspectors states in his report that these people were very fair and always ready to adjust any complaints. On January 16 last the deputy minister of Marine and Fisheries at Ottawa granted an interview to an official of the association from Toronto. Perhaps I might quote from a memorandum placed in my hands with respect to that interview:
-the deputy minister gave the representative of the association to understand that there were no complaints in regard to the stations generally, but informed him of one specific complaint in regard to a station in the west. As it proved, the complaint was not in connection with any of the programs of the International Bible Students' Association-
This refers to Saskatoon.
-but in connection with a feature broadcast on behalf of another organization. Immediately steps were taken to cancel the contract made with this organization.
If that had anything to do with the final action of the department, it seems to me to be very unjust, because immediately this complaint wias mentioned the contract with these other people was cancelled, and certainly no blame is to be attached to the Bible students.
Some time ago, at the department's r.wn suggestion, station CKCX at Toronto was shifted from 291.1 metres to 475. This increased the power of the station to a very large extent and therefore interfered with American and other stations. You will find a great many complaints to the department in connection with that, but the people making the complaints did not know that it was something the department had requested; surely the association is not to blame for a thing of that sort. Then there was a complaint from a certain church in Toronto that the latter part of their service was cut off, because the time was then allotted to the Bible students' association. Again I say that is a matter for the department and the department only. The department regulates the time these stations are on the air, and that is not a question for the Bible students' association at all.
Of course there have been many protests, some of them justified, and a great many of

Supply-Marine and Fisheries-Radio
them made under misapprehension-complaints that should have been directed to the department and undoubtedly would have been had the complainants understood the exact situation. I would ask the minister if it is not fair to place side by side with those complaints all the letters of approval that have been placed in his hands by the Bible students' association themselves, and all the other protests, by petition and otherwise, that have been placed in the hands of the department since their refusal to renew the license. Surely, if a representative of the people of this country wants to act in accordance with public opinion he should weigh the complaints on the one side and the approval and satisfaction on the other. If he would do that, I say to him in all seriousness that there is only one conclusion he could arrive at, and that would be to leave the situation as it was and allow them to continue their programs. Perhaps if certain adjustments had been made by the * department these complaints would have been entirely eliminated.
There has been discrimination against a certain religious sect. I am not holding a brief for the Bible students' association; I would be just as ready to take the stand I am taking if the discrimination was being made against the Roman Catholic church, the Anglican church, a Jewish synagogue, the Baptist or United church, or any other religious body. If I were a member of the Bible students' association I think I would rather welcome the action of the government. The minister and his colleagues know very well that intolerance and oppression are the very things which have lifted the Christian church up. Persecution and intolerance are the very things that will strengthen any religious body; it is the very thing that will propagate it and make it stronger in this country.
May I quote from a speech delivered by Mr, James Simpson, vice-president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, made in the Pantages theatre at Toronto on May 6. He says:
I am pleased to have the honour of appearing upon the platform to-night to join in the protest against the cancellation of the licenses granted to the International Bible Students' Association. As one of the many radio owners of Canada, I have had the pleasure for the past two years of listening in when lectures were being delivered by the representatives of the association, and when their musical and choral programs were being broadcast.
Having regard for the fact that there are so many sharp divisions amongst the religious denominations of the world upon fundamental and minor questions of doctrine and of theology, I cannot see any reason why discrimination should be practised against the International Bible Students' Association.
Further on he states:
If Judge Rutherford did no more good during his visit here than expose the wrong done to the children and workers in the southern cotton fields by the bill passed by congress, and the injustice suffered by coal miners, awakening in the minds of some such thoughts that would eventuate in a measure of relief to these unfortunate ones, his visit was well worth while.
And then again:
I would regret to think that we had reached the stage in the development of religious thought when ministers of the gospel could not longer endure criticism and attack.
I would direct the attention of the minister and his colleagues to that statement. Surely no other religious sect has arrived at the position where it cannot endure criticism and attack. The Christian church certainly must survive that; that is the very thing that will build it up if it is on a sound basis, as it should be. Mr. Simpson continues:
This experience makes me appreciate more than ever the necessity of labour being vigilant in the defence of the three greatest rights that have been handed down to the British people: the right of free speech; the right of free assembly; and the freedom of the press.
_ I feel that in their fight to recover the licenses which have been taken from them, the International Bible [Students' Association are merely continuing the struggle which has been fought in this country upon many occasions. I am not unmindful of the fact that right here in the city of Toronto the labour movement has had try fight for the right of free speech, and that victory was only won by continual vigilance.
And further down he says:
I am not satisfied that there has been the opposition to the association's broadcasting as has been represented to us. In fact I think the government of this country owes it to the people of Canada to report fully the nature of the protests which have been made against the broadcasting of the International Bible Students' Association.
Then, in dealing with the charge levelled at the association that its doctrines, or some of its speakers were un-British, he says:
The mere charge against the International Bible Students' Association that their teaching is un-British does not satisfy me, as I have personal knowledge of many instances where men who have been guilty of honestly criticizing the governments of their nations, and who, for the time being, were regarded as disloyal and unpatriotic, have had monuments erected to their memory. One remarkable instance of this character was when the Hon. David Lloyd George had to escape from the town hall in Birmingham dressed as a policeman, to save himself from the attacks of an infuriated mob because he dared to express sentiments disapproving

3650	COMMONS
Supply-Marine and Fisheries-Radio
of the Boer War, and yet, later in British history, he was regarded as the man who saved the mother country during the great war.
Further on he states:
from the viewpoint of labour in this country, it is establishing a very dangerous precedent to discriminate against any organization because their views might be, to a certain section of the population, unpopular.
And again:
I have not the slightest doubt but that there will be strenuous objections to a broadcasting station being used by organized labour to disseminate their thought and advocate their principle.
I should also like to quote from a speech delivered by Arthur Black Farmer, at the same meeting; he said:
I am a Baptist. I am a son of a man who for forty years trained men for the Baptist ministry. I have been steeped in Baptist doctrines and traditions and I may say that I am more proudly and enthusiastically a Baptist to-day than ever before in my life.
Also I am a Canadian, born of Canadian-born parents, and on one side of Canadian-born grandparents, all of British stock. I am deeply conscious of the privilege and of the responsibility of my British citizenship.
Because I am a Baptist I must take my stand for freedom of speech whenever intolerance by whatever name it may call itself places freedom of speech in jeopardy. Because I am British I must take my stand for British justice and liberty when the traditions of British justice are threatened.
Further on he says:
Neither truth nor error may be combatted bv force or law. "Truth struck to earth will rise ao-ain." Error driven into darkness by means of force multiplies like mushrooms in a dark cellar.
You have here an unwarranted and unjustifiable interference with free speech on the part of a government presided over by the grandson of William Lyon Mackenzie, that great exponent of liberty. The Prime Minister's grandfather was not afraid to risk fortune, reputation and even life itself in the interest of free speech, and it is not too much to expect of a government presided over by his grandson in a position of power that he should at least apply to a small body of citizens the principles for which his grandfather was prepared to sacrifice his life.


Mr. SPENCER:: I should like to have
some explanation from the minister.


Charles Avery Dunning: You have prevented him all day.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not see really that I can add very much to the statement which I made in good faith on the 12th of April last, and in which I still believe regarding

the whole situation. There is a certain amount of misapprehension on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite as well as of a certain number of the people. The statement i3
made that we have cancelled the license. That is not exactly the case. We did not cancel the licence which these people enjoyed in the past. The law specifically and clearly states that all these licenses are yearly licenses and that they expire on the 31st March of each year. That means that the minister has power to renew or to refuse to renew any license. There is n,o vested or acquired right because a company or an individual has operated under a license for a year. If that were the case, it would be no use stating in the law that these licenses are yearly licenses.


Leon Johnson Ladner: May I ask the minister a
question on that point?


Charles Avery Dunning: Let him make his statement. The hon. member has made his.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not mind. Go on.


Leon Johnson Ladner: How would the minister
make a comparison with licenses granted to banks for ten years? Would it be argued that the government could simply cancel a bank's right to do business practically without any grounds? The licensing system is generally recognized.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: What is the use of any limit being stated in the law if it is not to be observed? What is the use of stating a limit for the duration of a certain thing if you do not observe that limit? If there is to be no limit, there is no reason for stating in the law that it is to be for five or ten years. I submit that, according to the law as it stands to-day, the minister, provided that he has certain reasons to justify his action, has a right, to refuse to renew any license. Nobody will contend that I am bound to renew a license simply because it has been in operation for a certain number of years.
Hon. members may ask that I give some reasons in justification for my refusal to renew. I have given certain reasons; I have produced certain documents which to my mind justify the decision of the government in the matter. Those who have spoken do not accept the strength of the reasons which I have advanced, the strength of the evidence which has been given. Are those hon. gentlemen not placing themselves in the position of a loser in a case before a judge, contending that the judge was not right in adjudging the way he did; that the reasons he advanced

Athabaska Election
were not good reasons; that he should have considered other facts that he did not consider? Is that not the situation to-day? The minister, the department and the government are placed in the position of a judge examining a case which is submitted to them.


Leon Johnson Ladner: They have heard only one side.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have heard both sides of the case.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Not before the department cancelled the. license.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is no cancellation.


Hugh Guthrie: It is a notification equivalent to a cancellation.


Milton Neil Campbell: What is the difference
between a refusal to renew and a cancellation?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: When I did not renew the licence I exercised the power given to me by a law enacted in 1913-a long time ago. This is a power which is given to the minister. He may be criticized and the government may be criticized if the reasons given are not good ones. That may be a source of dispute, but clearly I have the power to refuse to renew a license even if it has run for ten or fifteen years. According to my hon. friends my reasons are no good; but they are really, as I said, in the position of a loser in a case who says that the judge is not right in his judgment; that he should have taken into consideration certain things that he did not consider; that he did not adjudge the case properly; that he did not take cognizance of the law as it stands, and that he did not appreciate as he should all the facts of the case that were placed before him. That is the whole situation. Is any hon. gentleman ready to say that I am not to take into consideration complaints or representations made to me by the listeners? I submit that the main principle in connection with this question of broadcasting is to take care first of all of the listeners-in.


Robert Gardiner: The minister places himself in the position of a judge. Did he take evidence from both sides before he made a decision?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We knew the situation.


Robert Gardiner: Did the minister take evidence from both sides before he made a decision?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: What evidence would my hon. friend require? I had complaints before me.
56103-231J


Robert Gardiner: In all cases before a judge there is a complainant and a defendant.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: Would he mot take evidence from both those parties?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, but most of the things which have been represented to us are not denied. They are not denied to-night by those who are advocating freedom of speech. They are admitted under the general plea of freedom of speech. Everybody admits that. The representatives of the International Bible Students' Association did not deny most of the charges which were made against them. They contended they had that right.


Mr. HEAPS:: In the correspondence that was brought down you had complaints going back to 1919 or 1918. Did you take that into consideration when you cancelled the license?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. This proves that we were rather lenient. If we started having complaints in 1919 and we did not act then, we cannot be accused, as we have been accused to-day, of acting too hastily.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There was no radio in 1919


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Certainly if there was no radio there were no complaints.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am endeavouring to point out to the minister that there were complaints in the correspondence brought down for 1918 and 1919.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think my hon, friend is mistaken.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am not.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned', without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, June 1, 1928