1929-02-12

Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved:: That the Auditor General's report for the year ended March 31, 1928, and the public accounts for the year ended March 31, 1928, be referred to the select standing committee on public accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 7, to amend the Civil Service Act (private secretaries).
Mr. GUTHRIE:: Explain.


Mr. RINFRET:: The object of the bill is to amend the Civil Service Act in one particular, with relation to the private secretaries of ministers and of the leader of the opposition. The amendment provides that When ministers or the leader of the opposition cease to act as such, such private secretaries may enter the civil service under certain conditions.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PENITENTIARY ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 8, to amend the Penitentiary Act (view by grand jury).
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Explain.


Mr. CHURCH:: This bill will allow grand juries to visit and inspect these institutions twice a year.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



POST OFFICE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 9, to amend the Post Office Act (newspaper ownership).
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Explain.


Thomas Langton Church: This bill was introduced
last session and passed the house, but objection was taken to it in the senate. The object aimed at is the disclosure of newspaper ownership, and it calls for a statement [Mr. Robb.)
giving the names and addresses of editors, owners, stockholders and others enumerated. The details are set ouit in the bill. Such statements are to be made in duplicate and forwarded to the Postmaster General, and there is a penalty for failure to comply with the regulation. Newspapers that do not observe the regulation are to be denied the use of t'he mails.
_ Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INSURANCE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 10, to amend the Insurance Act (lapsed policies).
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Explain.


Thomas Langton Church: The object of this bill is to give some protection to policy holders. At present, if premiums are not paid for three years the policy lapses, and the money in certain circumstances is confiscated. The bill is to meet this situation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BANK ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 11, to amend the Bank Act (mergers).
James Alexander Robb: Explain.


Thomas Langton Church: By this amendment no
agreement for a bank merger shall become operative until it has passed parliament. This substitutes the parliament of Canada for the Governor General in Council as represented by the Minister of Finance, and puts the law back where it was thirty years ago.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first
time.



WAR REPARATIONS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That the Minister of Finance be authorized to place to the credit of the custodian, out of the reparation money paid into the treasury for losses sustained during the late war, a sum not exceeding $2,500,000 and that provision be made 'as to the method and scale of nav-ments. "
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with

Harbour Commissions
the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Militia Pension Act in respect to the computation of the amount of pension payable to officers retired compulsorily or seconded, to be based upon the average annual amount of pay and allowances during the three years immediately proceeding retirement, and to amend the procedure for computing the pension for an officer who has served as a member or associate member of the defence council for a period of not less than three continuous years.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That the Technical Education Act be amended to provide that any balance of the ten million dollars appropriated under this act unexpended on the 31st March, 1929, shall remain available during any one or more of the five succeeding fiscal years, but no portion thereof shall be paid to any province after the 31st March, 1934.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to authorize a loan to the harbour commissioners of Montreal in an amount not exceeding $10,000,000 to carry on the construction of terminal facilities, upon approval by the Governor in Council of detailed plans, specifications and estimates for such works, and the deposit of debentures of the corporation to cover said loan.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the house go into committee at the next sittting io consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to authorize a loan to the harbour commissioners of Vancouver in an amount not exceeding $10,000,000 to carry on the construction of terminal facilities, upon approval by the Governor in Council of detailed plans, specifications and estimates for such works, and the deposit of debentures of the corporation to cover said loan.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to authorize a loan to the harbour commissioners of Three Rivers, in an amount not exceeding $2,000,000 to carry on the construction of terminal facilities, upon approval by the Governor in Council of detailed plans, specifications and estimates for such works, and the deposit of debentures of the corporation to cover said loan.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to authorize a loan to the harbour commissioners of Chicoutimi in an amount not exceeding $2,000,000 to carry on the construction of terminal facilities, upon ap-
Immigrants at Toronto
[Stage Direction]
proval by the Governor in Council of detailed plans, specifications and estimates for such works, and the deposit of debentures of the corporation to cover said loan.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to authorize a loan to the harbour commissioners of Halifax in an amount not exceeding $5,000,000 to carry on the construction of terminal facilities, upon approval by the Governor in Council of detailed plans, specifications and estimates for such works, and the deposit of debentures of the corporation to cover said loan.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.
IMMIGRANTS AT TORONTO On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: I
would like to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) whether he has any further information to give the house in connection with the matter I brought up the other day, with reference to German immigrants brought into this country to displace Canadian workmen in Toronto? '


Mr. HEENAN:: The last time the hon.
gentleman asked that question I suggested that in view of the fact that negotiations are now going on between the two parties to the dispute, we might refrain from discussing the question at the present time. The basis of the settlement is that the Canadian workmen are to be reinstated under the conditions and wages pertaining at the time they were dismissed.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the 
second reading of Bill No. 2, to amend the Grand Trunk Act, 1906-7.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Company defined.
Mr. SPENCER:: As this is the first time
we have had this bill before us, I think it only fair that it should be read.
(The sections of the bill having been read by the chairman)


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Short title.
Mr. BENNETT:: I would think that the
drafting of that section is erroneous; provisions cannot be cited as an act.


Mr. DUNNING:: I would not attempt to enter into a discussion between the gentlemen of the legal profession who drafted this bill and my hon. friend. I only desire to be sure that the change which is proposed in the wording will have no effect upon the intention of the bill. I have a layman's understanding of the intention of the bill, but as to the legal language necessary to make that intention effective, I am rather in the hands of my legal friends.


Hugh Guthrie: Let it stand; it is wrong now.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am quite willing to let that section stand in order that inquiry may be made.
Section stands.
On section 3-Pension fund.


Mr. HEAPS:: Would the minister give us
an explanation of this section?


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not give an explanation of this bill because I thought hon. members would make inquiries if they were not familiar with the situation which this bill, and the one which follows it, are designed to correct. At the present time there are two pension arrangements in connection with the Canadian National railway system; one with respect to the former government railways, known as the Intercolonial provident fund, and the other with respect to the former Grand Trunk railway system. There is no legislative authority for any pension system which would be applicable to the other employees of the Canadian National Railways, such as the employees of the former Canadian Northern and the Grank Trunk Pacific and all the other lines now comprising the Cana-

C.NJt.-Pension Fund
dian National railway system. The intention of this bill, and the one which will follow immediately, is to make it possible to extend to all employees of the Canadian National system the provisions of the present Grand Trunk pension plan.
I may as well make an explanation which will have a bearing upon the next bill, because the two dovetail. It is not proposed to abolish the Intercolonial provident fund, but only to stop entry into it. All rights will be preserved to those who are at present members of and contributors to the Intercolonial provident fund. Means will be provided whereby those who are now members of that fund may transfer to the general pension scheme now being inaugurated, should they so desire. In the course of a few years the logical result will be one pension system for all the employees of the Canadian National system, and for the employees of the hotels, express company, telegraph company, and steamship company. About 109,000 employees will be affected. There are 11,165 members in the provident fund of the Intercolonial, so 98,258 employees would be affected by the provisions of the scheme now being inaugurated. Of this 98,000 approximately 15,000 are of a non-permanent character, and therefore not pensionable. Deducting this figure from the former would leave in the neighbourhood of 83,000 men and women who would be affected by this scheme. The return to the employee under this scheme will be substantially identical with that now being paid by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and other great railway corporations on this continent. This is calculated upon the basis of one per cent of the average pay of the employee for the ten-year period previous to his retirement, multiplied by the number of years of service.


Mr. IRVINE:: What class of employees
would the minister consider as not being permanent? You do not mean the section men do you?


Charles Avery Dunning: Seasonal labour of all
kind.


William Irvine: That would not include the section man?


Charles Avery Dunning: All permanent employees.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Have the brotherhoods approved of the principles of this bill?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am glad my hon. friend calls my attention to that. It is now some two years, I think, since I authorized, on behalf of the government, the commencement of the working out of the plan now being presented. During that time the work has been carried on by the management of the system in cooperation with a committee of employees affected, and the bill which I now bring before the house is the result of an absolute agreement with regard to the provisions.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Will the minister inform the committee what qualifications an employee of the company must have before he is entitled to a pension? How many years of service must he have? How old must he be?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not before me the regulations containing all those details, but I will secure them in a few moments.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Will this act make any difference to the employees of the old Grand Trunk?


Charles Avery Dunning: None whatever. It will merely give the others the advantages which these now enjoy.


James Arthurs: I understand the minister to say that the employees of the Intercolonial may or may not take advantage of this scheme?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


James Arthurs: Will that be true with regard to employees of the Grand Trunk also?


Charles Avery Dunning: This scheme applies to the Grand Trunk employees at present and will continue so to do.


James Arthurs: No change?


Charles Avery Dunning: No change whatever in that regard.


Mr. PRICE:: Do I understand the minister to say that in future new employees entering the service in the Atlantic region, which has been governed in the past by the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island railway-employees' provident fund, will come under the Canadian National Railways pensions scheme and not under the old act?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Otto Baird Price: That is also approved by the representatives of the railway employees for all classes of labour?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Otto Baird Price: How will the amount of pension which will be allowed under the Canadian National Railways pension scheme compare as regards allowances, percentages, rules
C.N.R.-Pension Fund

and regulations regarding years of service with that of .the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island railway employees' provident fund? Is it as favourable to the employees? Do they get as much under the new act as before? Are the terms as agreeable to them and will they benefit to as great an extent from the new act which is being put into force as they have under the old act?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is very difficult to
make comparisons to enable one to answer categorically my hon. friend's question, because the difference is between a contributory scheme and a non-contributory scheme. Under the provident fund arrangement for the former government railway employees the employee contributed one and one-half per cent of his salary. Hence manifestly his payment out of the fund reflected that contribution. Under the Grand Trunk scheme which it is intended now to apply to all employees, there is no contribution from the employees. Hence it is practically impossible to make intelligent comparisons between the returns. The provident fund should really be discussed under the bill following this, but in order to give my hon. friend the information he desires I may say that it was necessary in order to meet the demands upon the fund, for the railway last year to contribute $379,000 more than the amount which under the arrangement it was supposed to contribute. That is to say, the Intercolonial provident fund has not worked out actuarially upon the basis which was designed for it, and is in fact, from year to year insolvent and dependent upon a far greater contribution from the railway than was contemplated or provided for in the scheme itself in order to enable it to pay the amounts due to pensioners from time to time.
In answer to the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mir. Heaps) I may say the regulations at present provide for fifteen years of service as being a necessary qualification for pension.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is there any age limit?


Charles Avery Dunning: Age sixty. The regulations of course are in great detail and my hon. friend will not expect me to carry them all in my head. I find now, on having the regulations regarding the provident fund in my hand, I did not give a strictly correct reply to his last question. At age sixty, a man may retire at his own request provided that he has fifteen years' service. He may retire at any age after fifteen years' service on account of mental or physical incapacity to follow his usual occupation in the service, with medical approval. He may retire at any 
age or period of service on account of permanent disability to follow his usual occupation in the service as a result of injuries received while on duty and actually at work in the service. With respect to the compulsory age limit, the compulsory retirement age is seventy years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that not 6ixty-five in some of them?


Charles Avery Dunning: Voluntary at sixty, compulsory at seventy.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
Charles Avery Dunning: There is one section
standing and I would like to leave the bill in committee for the consideration of the legal officers.
Progress reported.




[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of Bill No. 3 further to amend the Intercolonial and Prince Ediward Island Railway Employees' Provident Fund Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Board constituted.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister might explain the whole matter.


Charles Avery Dunning: Section one gives me an opportunity to state that the qualifications read by me a few moments ago in an attempt to reply to two questions from different quarters opposite, one relating to the Intercolonial provident fund and the other to the present Grand Trunk fund, involved me in transposing the answers to the questions. I replied to my hon. friend from Winnipeg in the terms which I should have used in replying to the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Price). The answer I gave as to the retirement age referred to the retirement age and conditions under the Intercolonial provident fund.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I thought you were a little generous before.


Charles Avery Dunning: I want to straighten myself out with my hon. friend from North Winnipeg, by giving him that information with respect to the Grand Trunk scheme, which will be the one most generally applicable. The retirement age is 65, but the

Narcotic Drug Act
employee may be retained after that age if the committee approve such retention as being in the interest of the company. An employee becomes eligible for pension at the age of 65, after 15 years' service, or at the age of 60 if unfit, according to medical report, and with twenty years service, at the discretion of the committee. There are a number of other provisions, very lengthy, but my hon. friend can readily secure a copy of the regulations and study them in detail.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Closing fund.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Has this been accepted by the employees?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved the second reading of Bill No. 4, to amend and consolidate the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Would the minister kindly give the house an explanation in regard to this bill?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: During the last session of parliament Canada ratified the International Opium Convention, and a sufficiently large number of other nations having also ratified, the convention came into effect in September last. Under article 2 of that convention, Canada undertakes to review periodically, and to strengthen, as required, the laws relating to the control of narcotics. Consequently the present would appear to be an appropriate time to bring the Canadian act up to date. A great many copies of the act are required for distribution to physicians, druggists and others in the ordinary course of administration, and it is felt that as the amendments proposed are somewhat numerous, it would, be preferable to re-enact the act as a whole, so that there can be no confusion in the minds of the public as to what the law on the subject really is. The more important amendments I might briefly summarize.
By section 4 we are providing that it shall be a criminal offence to sell or distribute not only a narcotic drug but any substance represented or held to be a narcotic drug. Section 4 is also being amended to provide that, at the discretion of the judge, whipping, in addition to imprisonment not exceeding seven years, may be imposed upon drug traffickers.
A new section is proposed, to make it an offence for an addict to obtain narcotics from more than one physician.
It is also proposed to increase the minimum fine for opium smoking from $10 to $50.
A new section provides that it shall be an offence to send narcotic drugs through the mails.
Section 14 of the present act outlines conditions under which a physician may prescribe narcotics to an addict for self-administration. This section has been redrafted to make it clearer.
The section providing for the production in court of the certificate of a Dominion or provincial analyst has been redrafted.
The section with regard to the forfeiture of drugs found or seized has been redrafted, in order to conform with conditions as they are now found to exist.
The section providing for forfeiture of vehicles used in connection with the drug traffic is being amended to include moneys used for the purchase of drugs, as frequently large sums of money have been expended by the department in this connection, and at the present time no legal authority exists for their being returned to the crown.
Provision is being made for the issuing of writs of assistance to certain officers engaged in narcotic drug work, as is done under the customs act.
The schedule of the act containing the names of narcotics is being redrawn to conform with the opium convention. Those are the principal amendments.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Importing or exporting drug without license.
Mr. CAHAN:: I should like to call attention to the propriety of whipping in the discretion of the judge as a penalty under section 4. There are some crimes for which I approve of whipping as a punishment, but I have some hesitation in approving whipping as a penalty for all the offences included in the general scope of section 4.
Narcotic Drug Act


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: If I have
any adverse criticism to make of this section, it would be along the line that the minimum penalties proposed are too light. I have enough opportunities already for the exercise of my sympathies without wasting any sympathy on a man convicted under this act, and who, in addition to fine and imprisonment is to be subjected, at the discretion of the judge, to whipping, I have no tears to shed for that man, if we may call him such, having the lash placed upon his back by order of the judge; in fact, I would go so far as not to leave it in the discretion of the judge as to whether this beast in human form should be whipped. I would make whipping compulsory, and see that it was laid on good and heavy. In a fit of passion a man may commit murder; under the law he must pay the penalty for his crime. In my judgment such a man is white as the driven snow in comparison with the low, degraded human beast who for a few dollars' profit will gradually murder his fellow-man by selling to him habit-forming drugs. I can conceive of no one deserving of more severe punishment than the person who, too lazy to work and earn an honest living, does not hesitate to dispose of these drugs to young boys and girls on the street, well knowing that they will become addicts and therefore regular customers. I have no sympathy for such a scoundrel. Do not withhold the lash from him. Put it on, and put it on heavy, and not once but several times during his term of imprisonment.
The only criticism I have to offer in regard to this section:
Upon indictment-if found guilty-he shall be liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding seven years and not less than six months, and to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars and not less than two hundred dollars and, dn addition, at the discretion of the judge, to be whipped;
is that the minimum penalty of six months is too light. If found guilty of the offence, then six months is too short a term of imprisonment as a minimum. I feel very strongly in this matter, and I repeat that in my judgment the worst crime that it is possible for a person to commit is the crime committed by these traffickers in drugs who insinuate themselves into the confidence of young boys and girls until eventually they become addicts and will crawl on their hands and knees to these traffickers and in their agony demand these drugs at any price. Do not let us waste any sympathy on those criminals. If I had my way I would cut out the words "at the discretion of the judge."


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Chairman, there is
an offence stated here which is in the nature of fraud. The section reads as follows:
Every person who
Then go down to subsection (f):
manufactures, sells, gives away or distributes any drug, or any substance represented or held out by such person to be a drug, to any person without first obtaining a license from the minister shall be guilty of an offence.
The drugs are those enumerated in the schedule to the act. Now, in the case of a druggist who deliberately defrauds his customer by selling him some harmless substance representing it to be one of the drugs specified in this act, is it the minister's idea that that druggist should be subject to seven years' imprisonment and to be whipped?


John Warwick King: Six months or
seven years.


Hugh Guthrie: And to be whipped?


John Warwick King: At the discretion
of the judge.


Hugh Guthrie: So far as I am aware all
cases of fraud under our criminal law are dealt with much more leniently. I never heard of the penalty of whipping nor a long term of imprisonment being imposed in case of fraud. Suppose a druggist, instead of chloral, sells some simple preparation, brown sugar, flour or water, he is guilty of fraud.


John Warwick King: He would not
come under this act. Chloral is not one of the drugs mentioned.


Hugh Guthrie: Cocaine.


John Warwick King: That is one of the drugs mentioned.


Hugh Guthrie: For any drug mentioned
in the schedule a dishonest druggist may substitute some innocent mixture, and by so doing he commits fraud, whereupon he would become liable to the penalty here prescribed. The act was not so before. Is there any reason for the addition of this special clause?


John Warwick King: Yes. We find men of the low type mentioned by my hon. friend trafficking in these drugs and selling substitutes. They are the persons to be dealt with.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are really benefiting their customers.


John Warwick King: It is a fraud
under this act. This is a little different from other acts.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: A man goes into a drug store half insane, and the druggist out of his good

Narcotic Drug Act
nature gives him some very simple remedy to get clear of him. At once he is subject to whipping under this act. I say that is a brutal enactment that this legislature should not pass.


John Warwick King: Of course, the
druggist that my friend refers to would be fined under section five. This section four relates to the drug trafficker,-the man who makes a business of selling opiates to people.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Confine it to that class.


John Warwick King: We do.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: You have not done so.


John Warwick King: I think so. The
druggist would' be dealt with under section five, and be subject to a fine.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Chairman,
as I understand this bill, those charged with the enforcement of it may prosecute on indictment or may proceed on summary conviction, and I understand that in the more moderate cases they select summary conviction; only in the aggravated cases do they pursue the remedy by indictment. That has been my experience in some prosecutions. It is only for an indictable offence that this more severe penalty is imposed. So the ordinary case of a druggist selling a harmless remedy to an addict would be a proper one for summary conviction, and not for proceeding by way of indictment.


John Warwick King: That is correct.


Mr. MANION:: Suppose that a cocaine
addict comes into a doctor's office-as I have known to happen many times-the doctor in order to get rid of him gives him some boracic acid, which looks like cocaine, and charges him nothing.


John Warwick King: There would be
no offence.


Robert James Manion: It does not appear clear
from a reading of the bill; but the minister states that that doctor would not become liable to these severe penalties.


John Warwick King: Section four is
to take care of the professional trafficker.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Who are the other lawful authorities besides medical men referred to in section (d) ?


John Warwick King: Section five provides that information: a bona fide wholesale druggist, or a druggist carrying on business in a bona fide drug store, or veterinary surgeon, dentist or druggist, and so on.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Are medical men referred to there?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I suggest that as the Minister of Justice is not in his seat, as the Solicitor General is not in his seat, and as there seems to be no member of the government to give a legal interpretation of it, the clause be held over. I am not prepared to accept the opinion of the Minister of Pensions and National Health on a strictly legal question, because I think he is entirely wrong in the interpretation he gives.


Mr. STEVENS:: Ask the Minister of
Agriculture.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would rather take the
opinion of the Minister of Agriculture, because he is accustomed to the administration of a series of acts which impose varied penalties.


John Warwick King: I can assure my hon. friend that the minister has had the opinion of the Justice department. This bill was drawn in conference with that department.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Has the minister the opinion of the Department of Justice that an honest druggist or a doctor practising his profession in a country town who gives away some simple substance to an addict, the addict being under the impression that it is a drug within the meaning of the act, is not liable under this section? Of course he is liable. It is simply incomprehensible that the Minister of Justice, having his attention directed to the point, should have given the opinion which the Minister of National Health now reports.


John Wesley Edwards: There would not be much difficulty in regard to paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of section 4. So far as paragraph (e) is concerned, there is a safeguard which is indicated on the opposite page: any person who commits an offence under paragraph (e) shall be proceeded against by indictment and not summarily. Paragraph (f) is the one which perhaps might be improved by further consideration, but the other paragraphs strike me as being all right.


Mr. BOYS:: Why should there be a distinction between procedure by indictment and procedure by summary conviction? I have been trying my best to get at the reason. In the old act the minimum punishment in both cases is the same-six months. I have no desire to say a word which will aid any-
Narcotic Drug Act

one who commits a breach of this act, but for the life of me I cannot see why the prosecuting officer should be in charge of the whole procedure; he can say whether it shall be by summary conviction or by indictment. The fact remains that the offence as defined in the paragraphs from (a) to (f) is identical; you have the same offence and you will have the same evidence in each instance. That being so, why in the world should a man in the one case be proceeded against by indictment, with the consequences which follow, namely, imprisonment for any term as high as seven years, whereas, with the same evidence touching the same offence, merely because some prosecuting officer chooses to proceed by summary conviction, the magistrate can impose a sentence of only eighteen months? I could understand it if the offences were described differently; in other words, a serious class of offences should be dealt with by indictment, with the maximum penalty of seven years. One could understand that. But here you have, in all these paragraphs, the identical offence; and then, for some reason which I confess I cannot appreciate at all, it is left to the prosecuting officer to say whether the proceedings shall be by summary conviction or by indictment. Why should that be so? Police magistrates have jurisdiction now to try cases by indictment, and if the accused desires so to be tried he may be, and the magistrate may impose any penalty he thinks fit, from a minimum of six months up to seven years; he makes the punishment fit the crime. You cannot do this, however, if the prosecuting officer chooses to lay the offence as summary conviction. Although the offence is identically the same, although it might be desirable that the man should be severely punished-the magistrate might feel it his duty to inflict such punishment-the hands of the court are tied because the proceedings have been laid as summary conviction. There should be some change in this respect. May I direct myself for a moment to what has been said with regard to (f). I do not think it is worded properly, and it would seem to me that an accused might answer the charge under that paragraph by simply proving that he has a license. What does the paragraph say? It reads:
Manufactures, sells, gives away or distributes any drug, or any substance represented or held out by such person to be a drug, to any person without first obtaining a license from the minister.
That is to say, if he first obtains a license he may go ahead and do any of these things.


John Warwick King: Under the conditions laid down.


William Alves Boys: But why should a man be permitted to do any of these things, even though he obtain fifty licenses? The obtaining of a license should have nothing whatever to do with it; if the offender is guilty of misrepresentation, he is guilty of fraud and he should be successfully prosecuted, and whether he has a license or not has nothing whatever to do with that phase of the matter. I quite appreciate that it is the desire of the department to get people to purchase licenses; that is a different proposition. But do not let the nature of the act-whether it be a crime or not a crime-be dependent upon the possession or non-possession of a license. The main point I wish to emphasize is the one I have already referred to. The provisions in the old act give power to the magistrate to impose costs, and that is eliminated here. I do not know what the reason is; possibly there is a provision in the general act in this respect giving the magistrate the right to impose costs. However, I should like the minister to explain this point: Why, for the same offence and upon the same evidence exactly, can you have a prosecution either by indictment or by a summary conviction, with such a tremendous variation in the maximum penalty provided in each case?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The difficulty seems to have arisen from an attempt to insert, in paragraph (f), some words that do not fit the other provisions contained in it prior to the insertion of this amendment. Previously the section was perfectly correct, it read:
Manufactures, sells, gives away or distributes any drug to any person without first obtaining a license from the minister.
That was proper. But when you insert these words:
[DOT]-or any substance represented or held out by such person to be a drugyou use language that does not at all fit the rest of the provision. It is clumsy. I quite agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Boys). I had some experience in defending some parties charged under this act, and we were really at the mercy of the prosecuting officer, who might decide whether he would proceed by indictment nr by summary conviction. He could have chosen the more severe course in an offence that was after all not a very serious cne. It seems to me that we ought to segregate the offences in respect of which procedure might be taken by indictment from those in respect of which it would be proper and fitting that procedure be taken by way of summary conviction. In that way you would ensure certainty and you would secure a greater

measure of justice; moreover, it would facilitate matters for those in charge 'of the prosecution : they would not have to decide whether a particular offence should be taken by indictment or by summary conviction. After all, there is room for injustice here. The prosecuting officer might have some prejudice, some particular grudge against an individual, and the result might be that the accused would be liable to a very severe penalty. On the other hand, a person equally guilty might be let down very lightly. It is a dangerous power to place in the hands of any individual, and we ought to be more specific in regard to these provisions.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In discussing a matter
which is strictly legal perhaps it is almost an impertinence for a layman to offer an opinion, but I recall very well the revision of this act some years ago. The conditions which led to the insertion in the act of the right to proceed summarily arose out of the repeated experience of law officers in their efforts to enforce the act. They found themselve3 faced with cases where it was not thought desirable to proceed by indictment and with others where magistrates, when the procedure was by indictment, would hesitate to impose the heavy penalties provided, and in many cases would let the offender off altogether Many cases of this kind arose in the city of Vancouver, and I can only speak for that city because I am not acquainted with what occurred elsewhere, although I do recall that at the same time there was quite an agitation in the city of Montreal, where the spread of the drug traffic was becoming alarming, as it was in Vancouver. At that time, about 1920 or 1921, I recall that there were known to be over 3.000 addicts in nay own city, and those interested in the suppression of this traffic were very much alarmed. After an extensive study of the situation which was undertaken by social workers, magistrates, police officers and others, these provisions were placed in the act during that revision. I am not competent to express an opinion in opposition to those of my legal friends surrounding me, but I would very much regret any action by this house which would weaken this act by lessening the power of the magistrates and police officers to secure convictions and enforce the act. Since this act has been administered in this way for almost ten years with no demand for a change, as far as I know, other than the small changes suggested by the minister, I would regret to see the power of the courts and the police departments restricted in any way.
Narcotic Drug Act
As to this question of whipping, I think I was the member who first introduced that question many years ago, and while I deplore the use of the lash as much as anyone yet there is a class of offenders whom it seems impossible to intimidate at all except by confronting them with the certainty of the lash if they are caught. I am not now speaking of the drug addict; I think we are all sympathetic towards the poor creature who becomes a drug addict. I think the most pitiful thing on the face of the earth is a person who has become a victim of this habit, but when we revised this act formerly we were trying to reach that impossible creaturp who made a living, very often a fabulous fortune, and who often moved in the best society, by selling and distributing these drugs. I believe it was only because of the agitation of some ten years ago and the teeth which were put into the law at that time, together with the vigorous administration, that a considerable reduction in this habit has taken place throughout the country. I think it is less prevalent now than was the case then; I believe if we had before us the opinions of experienced officers we would find that to be the case. My own opinion, based upon some knowledge, is that it is less. Do not let us take out of this act any teeth it has; if we could put a few more into it we would do well. We must reach that type of individual described by my hon. friend from Frontenac in vigorous terms, that type who is preying upon the unfortunate victims of drugs and who deliberately schemes to inoculate, if I may use the word, high school girls and boys in order to introduce them to the use of drugs, a practice which we found being carried on a few years ago. If we can restrict individuals of that type we should do so, and I submit that we can very well leave this to the discretion of the presiding judge as to whether or not the lash should be applied. I do not recall in my observation of the records of cases in recent years, any instances where judges having the discretionary power to administer the lash in cases of violent holdups and the sale of drugs, improperly used that power.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We had a recent case in
the city of Montreal where the lash was imposed, but later it was proven beyond doubt that the man convicted was absolutely innocent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It may be that the wrong individual is sentenced sometimes, but in almost every case the crime itself warrants the application of the lash where it is applied.

Narcotic Drug Act

There was a case in the English courts recently; a man was hung for murder and was subsequently proven to be innocent. I will admit that there may be some cases of this kind but they are very rare and I think we can properly leave this power to the discretion of the judge.


John Wesley Edwards: I have been under the impression that the particular punishment provided in this subsection referred only to subsection (e). Am I wrong in that understanding?


Robert James Manion: In view of the differences of opinion existing in connection with section 4 I do not think it should be proceeded with to-day. Consider subsection (f), for instance, with which we have been dealing; the more one studies it the more one realizes that it is wrong. It says:
Every person who manufactures, sells, gives away or distributes any drug-
"Drug" must mean the drugs mentioned in the schedule, opium, morphine, cocaine, and the other derivatives. The subsection proceeds :
-shall be guilty of an offence-
This is a most despicable thing; the person mentioned here is supplying to some other person a drug which forms a terrible habit through which the life of the man, the woman, or the child may be ruined. But the remainder of the subsection presents another question. It says:

or any substance represented or held out by such person to be a drug-
In that case at the worst a man is only committing a very small fraud. Take the case I mentioned earlier, that of a druggist who is being bothered by someone whom he knows to be a cocaine addict. This addict keeps troubling the druggist, and in order to get rid of him the druggist gives the addict a little boracic acid which would pass as cocaine for the time being. That druggist would be subject to punishment, not only imprisonment but whipping. At the worst he would have only committed a little fraud. He would have taken a dollar or two from the man for some boracic acid which might be worth five or ten cents. He might give him the boracic acid just to get rid of him and there would be no harm done. I think the minister should hold up this clause and not attempt to press it through to-day. It should be looked over by the Justice department and also by his own department.


John Warwick King: I have no objection to it standing over.


William Alves Boys: My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), perhaps without intending to do so, has put me in rather a false position. I have not the slightest desire to make this act less severe; it is quite the reverse. I claim the way it stands now it is less severe than it would be if it were worded as I suggested. My hon. friend has said that the purpose of this legislation is to prevent the magistrate from being too lenient, if I understand him correctly, and he proposes to divide it and have one come under indictment and one by way of summary conviction.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not say that.


William Alves Boys: If I have put the wrong interpretation on what my friend said, I will be very glad to give him a chance to correct it. You have only to look at the section to see that the minimum penalty is six months and $200, and it is identically the same in the section which follows and which covers summary convictions. If you proceed by way of indictment, the magistrate may give as low a penalty, under that, as he could under the summary conviction clause.


John Warwick King: That would be
left to the court.


William Alves Boys: If a prosecuting officer saw fit
to proceed by way of summary conviction, the magistrate could only impose a fine of $200 or imprisonment up to eighteen months, even though the crime might warrant much more severe punishment. Where the procedure is by way of indictment the magistrate can go as high as seven years or as low as six months. What is the object of having a double-barreled proposition? The only effect it can possibly have is to place it in the hands of the prosecuting officer. If the only procedure was by way of indictment the accused could elect to be tried by the magistrate, which would be summary in that sense, or he could have a trial by a judge and jury.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I would like to have
section 5 stand, and I think it would be better if the whole bill were not considered just now. I add to what the member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) said, by pointing out that the kind friend with the subterfuge of boracic acid comes under the section which imposes the severe penalty of seven years and whipping. The druggist who is licensed can do that with impunity, and if he should sell improperly he is only liable to eighteen months imprisonment. So the kind angel who is willing to help a poor fellow is liable to seven years and whipping, and the man who deliberately breaks the law is only liable to eighteen months.

Narcotic Drug Act


John Warwick King: He is not a kind
angel.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: Under section
(f), would a doctor, following his usual medical practice, be obliged to obtain a license from the minister?


John Warwick King: No. If he made a practice of selling drugs he would have to obtain a license, but not for his ordinary practice.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: The paragraph
says, "manufactures, sells, gives away or distributes." I believe that a doctor, in the usual course of his practice, would come under one of those headings. I feel sure that every hon. member is in sympathy with the department in their efforts to control this traffic in drugs. This is something we should take every precaution to control properly, but in doing that I think we should carefuly safeguard those things which have to be properly and legally done. I think this paragraph should be amended in some way so that a doctor should not be penalized for doing what he is supposed to do.


Mr. KAISER:: The wording of this clause
should make it very clear as to whether it applies to the trafficker in drugs or otherwise. Certain confusion exists in the minds of many people regarding this act, and especially those who are victims of these drugs. It says here:
(1) Every person who
(d) has in his possession any drug save and except under the authority of a license from the minister first had and obtained, or other lawful authority;
Some people believe that they can secure a license from the minister to purchase these drugs for their own personal use, and if they have a drug in their possession obtained in this way it is perfectly safe, but if they secure a drug by other means then they are liable to the penalties of this act. This paragraph says that they can have a drug in their possession by virtue of a license from the minister or other lawful authority. What do you mean by "other lawful authority?" In the other clauses the only authority mentioned is that of a license from the minister.


John Warwick King: A wholesaler's
license. If my hon. friend will look at clause 7, it will throw some light on what he is worrying over. Clause 7 reads:
The provisions of paragraphs (d) and (f) of section four shall not apply to a duly authorized and practising physician, veterinary surgeon or dentist, or any druggist carrying on a bona fide business in a shop or store, who does not manufacture any drug; but every physician, veterinary surgeon, dentist and druggist, shall 78594-5J
make to the minister, as and when required, a declaration in the prescribed form, stating that he is engaged in the sale or distribution of opium, morphine, cocaine, and their respective salts or derivatives, or otherwise, as the case may be.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: What about the patient,
the man who is a victim of the drug habit if he is found with any of these drugs?


John Warwick King: He would be in unlawful possession and would be liable.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: A poor addict is liable to be brought before the court, sent to prison for seven years and whipped because he is a victim of circumstances, haunted by a habit which he may not have contracted willingly but which has been forced upon him. That is a condition which to my mind is absolutely obnoxious.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: The underlined
words in paragraph (f)-
or any substances represented or held out by such person to be a drug.
[DOT]-seem to have been inserted in accordance with the note of explanation opposite page 4 which reads:
There have been several cases in which the drug actually handled in a narcotic transaction, proved to be Novocaine, which is not dealt with under the act. In some of these eases, the trafficker was honestly of the opinion that he was handling a narcotic drug, and in view of the increasing use of Novocaine in this regard, this addition to the act is considered necessary.
Why not add the word " Novocaine " to the drugs mentioned in the schedule, and then you could do away with those underlined words in paragraph (f) which seem to be objectionable?


John Warwick King: There might be other substitutes than Novocaine.


George Black: Put them in as you find them from year to year.


Mr. RENNIE:: I would like to ask the minister a question about the addict. Is any provision made by the government to take care of those addicts except to send them to gaol? I think it would be more fitting if the government had institutions to which these men could be sent to be cured, and when they were cured they could be allowed to have their freedom. If they commenced the habit again, they could be sent back to some of these institutions instead of being sent to gaol and whipped.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
understands that the matter of treatment comes within the provincial jurisdiction. I am informed that two provinces in Canada have passed legislation whereby the addict
Narcotic Drug Act

can be taken into a hospital and retained there for treatment, whereas in the other provinces the addict cannot be kept in hospital if he does not wish to stay there.


George Septimus Rennie: I do not know where those institutions are that the government has control of. There are private institutions and insane asylums.


John Warwick King: Two provinces
have passed legislation making it possible to take the addict into an ordinary hospital and retain him there for treatment. I refer to Nova Scotia and Alberta. The other provinces have not advanced that far and an addict cannot be kept in hospital if he does not wish to stay there.


George Septimus Rennie: We do not desire to pass a law to send these addicts to gaol; we would rather have them sent to proper places for .treatment.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: The point is well taken that in some places in Canada they regard these people who are victims, as addicts who should be treated and treated with some degree of kindness. According to the minister's statement the Dominion government looks upon them as a most horrible kind of criminal.


John Warwick King: The minister has made no such statement.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Under this act he can have them sentenced to seven years in the penitentiary and to be whipped.


John Warwick King: No.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: That was the minister's statement a few minutes ago.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend is entirely mistaken. This does not refer to the addict; it is to whip the man who sells the drug to the addict.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: The bill does not say that; it says " any person who has in his possession the drug." Many a medical man has endeavoured to cure these people by giving them a small amount of drug, thinking the weaning process is the better way to produce a cure, and he may entrust a patient with a small portion of a drug. The minister says that is not the legal way to act; that the doctor should treat the man in his office, and if a doctor acts on his conscientious opinion and a man is found with the drug in his possession, the bill says that the way to treat him is to imprison him for seven years and whip him.


John Warwick King: No.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: I think the minister would be well advised if he left the whole

bill over for the present, because there are three or four members who have particular cases which they would like to draw to his attention. I do not believe any person will defend the selling of a drug in certain cases, but the minister knows as well as I do that the difficulty is to distinguish between the man who is an addict, perhaps a nervous case, and a man with some physical disability who requires drugs.


John Warwick King: Provision is made for that.


Arthur Edward Ross: I know, but at the same time there are certain abuses of this act. Just in to-day's paper there is another example of bringing before a court a physician who should never have been brought into court. I am referring to a case in my constituency. If the minister saw that case and knew the history of that medical man he would be the first one out of his kind heart to say that he would never have such a case go before a court. The man is not a responsible party and yet, by the use of these stool pigeons of the department he is to-day facing, if this legislation goes through, perhaps a public whipping. I graduated with the man; a man of finer character never graduated from any university; but through his medical practice he has acquired certain habits which have put him into this position, and by means of stool pigeons of the department he is to-day facing a public whipping. I should like to have time to study this bill and there are two or three other members who would like to do so also. I would ask the minister to leave it over for another sitting.


John Wesley Edwards: I am sure the object of all of us is the same, namely, to make this bill as perfect as possible; I do not for one moment believe the minister has any idea that the addict should come under the lash. I know it is not in my mind to be unjust, or unreasonable, and if the bill is open to any such interpretation it is our duty to remove such a conception. We are all anxious to assist the minister in every way possible, to use the expression of the hon. member for Vancouver, to keep the teeth in the act so that we shall get after the persons we really want to get after. I feel I am speaking for those who sit on this side when I say that we do not want to take up the time of the committee with captious criticism, but I would like to study this measure more thoroughly and with an honest desire to assist in every possible way.

His Majesty the King


John Warwick King: I am sure there is no desire to push the bill through the house hurriedly. I am anxious that the bill should be thoroughly understood by the members and given every consideration because I am satisfied that we are in agreement with its object, namely, to control if possible the traffic in these narcotic drugs and to frame legislation so that the officers *who are charged with the enforcement of the act will have the instrument necessary to put a stop to this traffic.
Progress reported.



HIS MAJESTY THE KING


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to
inform the house that a message has been received from the senate acquainting this house that the senate doth unite with the House of Commons in their address to His Most Excellent Majesty the King, expressing the thankfulness and rejoicing of the people of Canada on the promise of complete recovery of His Majesty, and have filled in the blank space therein with the words "senate and".
And also, a message requesting this house to unite with the senate in an address to His Excellency, the Governor General, praying His Excellency to transmit the joint address of both houses to His Most Excellent Majesty the King, expressing the thankfulness and rejoicing of the people of Canada on the promise of complete recovery of His Majesty in such a way as to His Excellency may seem fit, in order that the same may be laid at the foot of the throne, and that they fill in the blank space therein with the word "commons".


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a message be sent to the senate to acquaint their honours that this house doth unite with the senate in an address to His Excellency the Governor General praying His Excellency to transmit the joint address of both houses to His Most Excellent Majesty the King expressing the thankfulness and rejoicing of the people of Canada on_ the promise of complete recovery of His Majesty, in such a way as to His Excellency may seem fit, in order that the same may be laid at the foot of the throne, and have filled in the blank space therein with the -word "commons"; and that the Clerk of the House do carry the said message to the senate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the Root Vegetables Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Regulations.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I assume from a glance
at the bill that the minister has received some representations in regard to this matter.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have myself received
a request from the Fruit and Produce Credit Association of Vancouver. I will read their resolution, and the minister can state whether the bill as drafted will cover their request. The memorandum I have reads:
Vancouver, January 15, 1929.
The following resolution was passed by Vancouver Wholesale Fruit and Produce Dealers at their meeting here to-day:
Resolved that we the wholesale fruit and produce dealers of Vancouver go on record that the Root Vegetables Act of 1922, and grades established therein for potatoes and onions, does not conform to the standard required for good commercial practices, and we would recommend that the government, by order in council, and on recommendation of growers, shippers and the wholesale trade, have authority to establish grades as required by said order in council.
I would1 ask the minister if he contemplates in this bill meeting such a request as that.


William Richard Motherwell: Similar representations have come not only this year but for many years, and not only from British Columbia, but from right across Canada asking for the same thing, and also asking for grades to be established for export purposes, with fees to be charged in connection therewith. When we come to the section, there may be a question whether we should use the word "order in council" which is sometimes objected to, as against a ministerial order. I have an open mind on the subject, and when we come to that section we can take that up.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I would draw the minister's attention to the new section 3 which it is proposed to substitute for the present section, requiring the inspection and the issuing of a certificate or permit for vegetables intended for export, and the imposition of fees for such inspection certificates or permits. The explanatory note says:

, Root Vegetables Act

At the present time practically all the potatoes marketed from New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia in carloads are moving under a government certificate of inspection for which a fee is charged, but there is no provision under the act legalizing this service.
It appears to me that the proposed amendment goes much further than simply legalizing what is taking place in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia at the present time. If a regulation is made under this section, it may require all shipments of vegetables for export to be submitted to inspection. It may introduce a new and compulsory feature into the act, and there is a feeling on the part of a good many shippers of potatoes that the compulsory feature should not be introduced into the act; that is, it should not be obligatory upon any shipper to submit his shipment to inspection. It should not be necessary for all shipments to be submitted to inspection. At present practically all shipments are submitted to inspection and inspection certificates applied for, as the explanatory note says, but why should a shipper who perhaps has a customer in Boston or some other foreign market who is quite content to accept that shipment without a certificate, be obliged to call in the government inspector, obtain a certificate, and pay a fee therefor, when he has nothing to gain thereby? I am simply suggesting to the minister that if he wishes to carry out the object set out in the marginal note, he is going much further than he needs to go. If he used the word " authorizing " instead of " requiring " in paragraph (b), it would meet the purpose set out in the explanatory note.


William Richard Motherwell: A great many
vegetables in the maritimes, British Columbia and elsewhere are now inspected at the shipping point, and a fee of $4 is charged for the service. We find the desire constantly growing that this inspection service be made general, because occasionally a shipper gets across a bad shipment, which injures the reputation of all the vegetable growers of Canada. We are following here the same course we took in connection with the grading of fruit. There we took authority to prescribe to what parts of Canada it would apply. It now applies to all parts of Canada except the maritime provinces, which are exempted in the meantime. In the past we have found this difficulty, that we have had to wait until all Canada was ready before we took a forward step of this nature. Having regard to the great extent of Canada, you sometimes have to wait many years for all parts to be ready, and in the meantime,

while one part of Canada is not ready, all the other parts are sweating under the collar to make progress. Here we are providing that the minister, on the recommendation of the vegetable growers and allied interests, may prescribe the time when any regulation shall come into force, and the particular kind or kinds of vegetables to which it shall apply, and the part or parts of Canada in which it shall be in force. Now, British Columbia has always been in the forefront in demanding that their product be graded, and graded well. Rather than hold them back or press this inspection on other parts of the country before they are ready, we are taking authority to put it into force as required. I may say that if there is any general demand from Nova Scotia that this grading be not applied there, it will not be applied. I can assure my hon. friend that this authority will be exercised with the same care and discretion as it was under the Fruit Act.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Have any requests been
received from Prince Edward Island, for instance, where nearly all the potatoes now are moved under certificates of inspection?


William Richard Motherwell: We always take it
for granted that Prince Edward Island is ready for any reform of this nature, as they always have been in the case of other commodities. We have had a request from New Brunswick to apply the principle to all of Canada, and to 'themselves particularly. About a month ago a deputation came from the maritimes, headed by the Minister cf Agriculture of Prince Edward Island and composed of a number of representative potato growers from New Brunswick. They were strongly in favour of this very thing. They pointed out that the grades of both potatoes and onions were so obsolete that they were quite out of line with the competitive grades that they came in contact with in the United States. They not only wanted better grading, but they desired that every exporter of potatoes to the United States should comply with the same form of inspection. That law is applicable to all our export commodities outside of grain. You cannot ship butter, cheese or eggs overseas without an export certificate; the same thing applies to apples except from the maritimes. So it is the rule rather than the exception.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: If the present inspection
is working satisfactorily, why the need of further inspection by this particular branch of the Agriculture department-why this duai inspection?

Root Vegetables Act
(c) prescribing the units of sale for vegetables in small quantities;


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think there will be dual inspection. Once you adopt a system for export the trade falls into line. For butter, or cheese-


James Dew Chaplin: Let us stick to vegetables, and leave out butter and cheese.


William Richard Motherwell: -they will adopt automatically the grades designated as suitable for export.


John Wesley Edwards: Does the
minister make these regulations only at the request of provincial organizations?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


John Wesley Edwards: It says:
The minister on recommendation of vegetable growers and allied interests, through their respective provincial organizations, may make regulations:-


William Richard Motherwell: That is all.


John Wesley Edwards: Unless you
get such recommendation you do not make regulations?


William Richard Motherwell: Ye3. We have
been in touch with provincial organizations all across Canada. They ane as nearly unanimous as can be in regard to this matter.


John Wesley Edwards: It is different from the procedure followed in the grading of eggs, in which case the department goes ahead without any recommendations.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. As we get
more experience with this class of grading legislation we find it pays to get a large body of public sentiment behind us before putting any regulations into effect. To-day we are in touch with many more representative organizations than we ever were.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Chairman, last session
the Minister of Agriculture introduced a bill which in its scope applied to market gardening, compelling market gardeners to sell their produce in neighbouring cities and towns by weight, not by measure. If my memory is correct, that bill was withdrawn in view of the discussion which took place. We had representations-I was overwhelmed with them from the island of Montreal-against compelling the market gardener there to weigh all his vegetables as he sold them from house to house. Moreover, I made inquiry of the department of weights and measures, and I found there was no scale manufactured and sold in Canada which would enable the market gardener to comply with the provisions then proposed. Now I see by section 3 the minister may make regulations:
By this simple phrase is it the intention of the minister to make by order in^ council exactly those prohibitions which this house refused to impose when the former bill was introduced?


William Richard Motherwell: No, this is to
modify the section to which he refers, so that it may not apply to any quantity of a bushel or under. We will specify the size of the container and allow vegetables to be sold by measure as well as by weight. It is in compliance with that demand, Mr. Chairman, that the proviso referred to by my hon. friend has been inserted in the bill-not to dodge it, but to comply with it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Of course, I cannot make
a study of the minister's mind, but the clause is so wide as to enable him to do exactly the opposite to that which, he says, is intended.


William Richard Motherwell: No. The main act
requires that those things shall be sold by weight; this- modifies that requirement and enables them to be sold by measure.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I shall have to accept the
minister's explanation, but I can assure him
___not by way of intimidation-that if he
attempts to exercise his discretion as I have suggested, he will create an election issue in the island of Montreal which will be more potent than any other that I can think of.


William Richard Motherwell: We have no desire to create an election issue.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Regulations etc.
William Richard Motherwell: I think, Mr. Chairman, we have discussed every subsection of this section on the issue raised.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Form and dimensions of packages fixed by regulation.
Mr. COOTE:: Will the minister explain
what is meant by "allied interests" in subsection 1 of the new section 3?


William Richard Motherwell: That means the
produce men generally, including wholesalers and retailers. Quite frequently we find they are more familiar with the market requirements than the growers themselves.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The principle introduced by
subsection (b) of the new section 3 was up last year, and I think at that time it was pretty well understood that the compulsory element was not being introduced. Certainly I have no objection at all to legislation being

Root Vegetables Act
enacted to carry out the object mentioned in the explanatory comment; but I do object to subsection (b) of section 3. It enables an oganization, which may not be at all representative of the shippers and the producers, to pass, at a meeting perhaps very slimly attended, a resolution upon which the government may act by order in council, although the great majority of the producers of the province may be opposed. I am informed that in Prince Edward Island, to which this applies to a large extent, there is no demand for such a provision. There were, I believe, a few resolutions from New Brunswick; I do not know whether there were any from British Columbia. But so far as Nova Scotia is concerned, the province from which I come, the potato growers will not want the government to take power by order in council to compel all shippers, at a fee of so much per barrel, to submit their produce to inspection.


William Richard Motherwell: We are following
exactly the same course which we take in respect to all our export surpluses, such as butter, cheese, eggs and so forth. Where-ever there is a very decided objection as was the case in Nova Scotia in the matter of fruit, we exempt that territory until pressure from the rest of Canada becomes so strong that, in the interests of the country as a whole, it is felt that the provision should apply throughout the Dominion. That time has not yet arrived and we have not applied the law to Nova Scotia as regards fruit. Surely, then, my hon. friend can trust us to follow the same course with respect to vegetables; it seems to me to be the least objectionable course to take. The rest of Canada -British Columbia-will have a greater grievance against us for not making the application general than my hon. friend has against us for wishing to apply it to the maritime provinces. The great majority in the maritimes now desire to have certificates. My hon. friend (Mr. Barber) is a produce man and he knows the value of certificates; they do not ensure perfection, but they are a tremendous factor in facilitating our export trade.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is admitted that in the
maritime provinces most of the shippers are requiring certificates. But, inasmuch as the explanatory section states that the practice is not legal, and you wish to legalize it, why not legalize it without going very much further?


William Richard Motherwell: I have a number of recommendations from Prince Edward
rMr. Ilsley.]
Island-they come from Charlottetown and other places-asking for this law. The communications come from a wide range of places throughout Canada, and we have been getting them for a number of years. This is the seventh year in which the demand has been repeated. In fact, if you go back over the years to the previous government, you will find that in the session of 1920-21 a bill was brought down. It did not go through; but finally, as one district after another has come to realize the advantage of a grading system, they are all rapidly falling into line. Now we are endeavouring to crystallize the desire into law, and I trust there will be no serious objection.


Mr. FOSTER:: I come from a district that grows potatoes, and I can assure you that the people there are clamouring for inspection. In my own town both shippers and growers are demanding it. I believe it is a good thing. As it is now, one buyer wishes to have inspection, while another takes the attitude that he can get by without it, and the result is that he is likely to ship inferior produce.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Vegetables unfit for use not to be sold.
William Richard Motherwell: This and the ensuing sections are merely clerical changes to give a wider definition.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
On section 10-Penalty for violation of act.
William Richard Motherwell: The penalty applies to the regulations as well as to the act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.	[DOT]


Mr. HUBBS:: For a return showing the names and present addresses of all officers of the C.E.F. who have had their pensions reduced under section 14, subsection 1, of the Pensions Act, which reads: "Pensions shall be paid to, and in respect of a member of the forces, in accordance with the rank or acting rank, for which he was being paid pay and allowances at the time of the appearance of the injury or disease for which he is pensioned."

Unopposed Motions jor Papers



BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY-CAPITAL STOCK

Mr. GOTT (for Mr. Church):: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, agreements, telegrams, orders in council and all other documents during the years 1927, 1928 and 1929 between the government of Canada or any member thereof or any official thereof and the president, directors or other officials of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada or any other person or persons regarding their application for increase to seventy-five millions of the capital stock of the said company and/or in relation to their application for legislation of 1928 and 1929.



SEVEN SISTERS FALLS

Eccles James Gott: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, leases, agreements, reports, orders in council, and all other documents between the Minister of the Interior or any other member of the government of Canada and the government of Manitoba or any member or official thereof and any other person or persons in relation to the Seven Sisters Falls in the province of Manitoba, or any leases or grants in relation thereto.



CANADIAN TOBACCO GROWERS' COOPERATIVE COMPANY

Eccles James Gott: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, reports, recommendations, communications or other documents of any kind pertaining to any transaction between the government of Canada and the Canadian Tobacco Growers Co-operative Company, of Kingsville, Ontario, both prior to and following their assignment.



TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS MADE BY OR AFFECTING CANADA

Charles Hazlitt Cahan: For a statement showing each and every treaty or convention made by the government of the United Kingdom with any foreign state, now outstanding and in effect in whole or ft part, which in terms applies to the Dominion of Canada, or which the parliament of Canada has confirmed by statute or by resolution, or to which, in whole or in part, the government of Canada has given its formal adhesion; giving the date of each such treaty or convention, the name of foreign state with which such treaty or convention was concluded, and citing the references to the publication of each such treaty or convention;
2.	For a similar statement showing each and every treaty or convention made or concluded by Canada with any foreign state, citing similar references to the publication of each such treaty or convention; and
3.	For a statement showing each and every enactment of the parliament of Great Britain, which, by its express terms or by necessary implication applies to the Dominion of Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I see no objection to the motion being adopted, but I hope my hon. friend recognizes the extent of his request. In order to give him a statement of each and
every enactment of the parliament of Great Britain, which by its express terms or by necessary implication applies to the Dominion of Canada, we may have to employ experts. However, I will say to my hon. friend that we will do the best we can to get all the information he desires.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Eccles James Gott: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, agreements, orders in council and all other correspondence between the government of Canada or any member thereof or the Minister of Finance or any official of the government and any other person or persons or the president, directors or officials of any other bank in relation to the merger of the Standard Bank with the Canadian Bank of Commerce or correspondence during 1928 and 1929 in relation to the proposed merger of any other chartered banks other than the aforesaid.


James Alexander Robb: There is no objection to bringing down all the correspondence asked for down to the words "Standard Bank with the Canadian Bank of Commerce" but I desire to direct the attention of the house to the last two lines of the motion which ask for the correspondence during 1928 and 1929 in relation to the proposed merger of any other chartered banks. Speaking from memory I do not think there is any other correspondence, but everyone knows how easily a run on a bank may be started, and it seems to me it would be well to strike out the last two lines in the general interests of the country.
Motion as amended agreed to.



NATURAL RESOURCES-AVESTERN PROVINCES

Eccles James Gott: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, agreements, orders in council and all other documents during the years 1925 to 1929 between the government of Canada or any member thereof or any officer thereof and the governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, or any officer or member thereof, regarding the return of the natural resources of these provinces or any readjustment thereof.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At the last session of parliament a similar return was asked for and was made, including all the correspondence up to a certain date. On the opening day of this session the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) asked me to bring down such further correspondence as we had had with the prairie provinces and also with British
St. Lawrence Waterway

Columbia in respect to the transfer of the natural resources. That return was made the following day, so that all the papers requested in this return are now down. I think this motion might be dropped.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I think it might be better to leave it on the order paper and let the Prime Minister make this statement to the hon. member himself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to be discourteous; I thought the hon. member would read my remarks in Hansard and feel quite satisfied, but if it is a matter of courtesy I shall be glad to let it stand.
Motion stands.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY BEATJHARNOIS POWER PROJECT

Eccles James Gott: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, agreements, notices, orders in council and all other documents between the government of Canada or any member thereof or the Minister of Public Works and any other person or persons relating to the passing or approval of plans of any company or companies under the Navigable Waters Protection Act or as to the legislation of the Great Lakes and Atlantic Canal and Power Company or any director or official thereof or any other similar company seeking_ similar powers for the development or generation of water-power from the St. Lawrence river between Cornwall, Hungry bay and the head of navigation at Montreal or with the governments of Quebec, or Ontario, or any member thereof in relation to the said question commonly known as the Beauharnois power and canal proposition.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps as a matter of courtesy we should let this motion stand until the hon. member is here.
Motion stands.
SEVEN SISTERS FALLS Mr. HEAPS:
For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence or any other documents in connection with the lease of the Seven Sisters Falls site, on the Winnipeg river, to the Winnipeg Electric Company or any subsidiary thereof.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: This motion is covered entirely by one passed a few moments ago; the same documents are asked for, so I cannot see any good reason for bringing down two sets of papers on the same subject.
[Mr. Mackenzie King.l


Abraham Albert Heaps: With the consent of the
house I will withdraw the motion, as it seems to be covered by the previous one.
Motion withdrawn.



TITLES OF HONOUR


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That a special committee of this house consisting of eleven members be appointed forthwith to investigate and report upon the advisability of qualifying, amending or rescinding the address to His Majesty the King, which was adopted by this house in May, 1919, dealing with the conferring by His Majesty of titles of honour or titular distinctions upon His Majesty's subjects domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada; and also to consider and report upon the appropriate action, if any, which the parliament of Canada should take with respect to the acceptance, enjoyment or use by persons domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada of titles of honour or titular distinctions or decorations conferred by any foreign government, governmental authority, potentate or power; and also to consider and report upon the advisability of instituting orders of merit, distinctions or decorations, which may be conferred by His Majesty upon persons domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada, on the advice of the government of Canada, in recognition of distinguished public services; and that such committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to report from time to time to this house.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, the address which
was passed by this house in May, 1919, and which was forwarded by His Excellency the Governor General of Canada to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in June, 1919, reads as follows:
To the King's Most Excellent Majesty.
Most Gracious Sovereign.
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada in parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty, praying that Your Majesty may be graciously pleased:-
(a)	To refrain hereafter from conferring any title of honour or titular distinction upon any of your subjects domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada, save such appellations as are of a professional or vocational character or which appertain to an office.
(b)	To provide that appropriate action be taken by legislation or otherwise to ensure the extinction of an hereditary title of honour or titular distinction, and of a dignity or title as a peer of the realm, on the death of a person domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada at present in enjoyment of an hereditary title of honour or titular distinction, or dignity or title as a peer of the realm, and that thereafter no such title of honour, titular distinction, or dignity or title as a peer of the realm, shall be accepted, enjoyed or used by any person or be recognized.

Titles of Honour-Mr. Cahan
All of which we humbly pray Your Majesty to take into your favourable and gracious consideration.
The despatch which was sent by TTis Excellency the Governor General, dated Government House, Ottawa, 12th June, 1919, No 495, reads as follows:
My Lord,
I have the honour to transmit, herewith, with the request that it may be humbly laid at the foot of the throne, an address to His Majesty the King from the House of Commons of Canada on the subject of the conferring of honours on British subjects resident in Canada. I have the honour to be,
My Lord,
Your most obedient, humble servant,
Devonshire.
The Right Honourable
The Viscount Milner. G.C.B., G.C.M.G.,
Secretary of State for the Colonies.
(a)	By warrant under the Royal Sign-Manual. or
(b)	By restricted permission conveyed through the Keeper of His Majesty's Privy Purse.
Section 2 deals with the granting of restricted permission, and section 3 with the granting of unrestricted permission. Sections 4 and 5 read as follows:
4.	Restricted permission is particularly contemplated for decorations which have been conferred in recognition of personal attention to the head of a foreign state, and which are therefore of a more or less complimentary character, but will also be granted for decorations conferred on other exceptional occasions when in the public interest it is deemed expedient that they should be accepted.
5.	Restricted permission will generally be given for decorations conferred in the following cases, but, as indicated in the preceding paragraph, wall not necessarily be limited to these cases:
That despatch was answered by despatch No. 347 from the Secretary of State for the Colonies to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada, which reads as follows:
My Lord Duke,
Downing Street,
7th August, 1919.
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Your Excellency's despatch No. 498 of 12th June, transmitting an address to His Majesty the King from the House of Commons of Canada relative to the conferring of titles of honour on British subjects resident in Canada, and to request you to inform your ministers that the address has been laid before the King who was pleased to receive it very graciously and that His Majesty will take it into consideration and will in due course intimate his pleasure with regard to the matters of which it treats.
I have the honour to be,
My Lord Duke,
Your Grace's most obedient, humble servant,
Milner.
Governor General His Excellency
The Duke of Devonshire, K.G., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O.	&c.	&c.	&e.
No further despatch is to be found in the record of the communications betwesn the Secretary of State and His Excellency the Governor General. A short time thereafter His Majesty the King issued certain amended regulations respecting foreign orders and medals applicable to persons in the service of the crown, and similar regulations applicable to persons not in the service of the crown. His Majesty expressed the following views:
1.	It is the king's wish that no subject of His Majesty in the service of the crown shall accept and wear the insignia of any foreign order without having previously obtained His Majesty's permission to do so, signified either:
Then the section goes on to give a number of special cases where such permission is granted. Section 6 reads as follows:
6.	The desire of the head of a foreign state to confer upon a British subject in the service of the crown the insignia of an order must be notified to His Majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs either through the British diplomatic representative accredited to the head of the foreign state, or through his diplomatic representative at the Court of St. James.
When His Majesty's permission has been obtained then the order may be worn. I have had a return brought down showing that since the passing of the address which I have read, some 646 foreign orders, distinctions, decorations, have been conferred by foreign governments upon British subjects resident in Canada and the king has given his consent to these by warrant in due course. These recipients have all served in either the military or the naval forces of Canada, and His Majesty the King is evidently of opinion that they do not come within the scope of the address which was passed by this house and which I have read in full. Other foreign governments have from time to time asked for permission to bestow decorations or distinctions upon British subjects domiciled in Canada, and in each case His Majesty has declined to give his consent. I think we may read between the lines that His Majesty, acting in his discretion, does not intend to consent that foreign governments should bestow titular distinctions and decorations upon his subjects domiciled in Canada when he is prevented from bestowing, by right of his own prerogative, similar titular distinctions and decorations, in view of services

Titles of Honour-Mr. Cahan
rendered to the state by British subjects domiciled in Canada. I do not wish to go into particulars, but a list of those decorations or distinctions which His Miajesty on the advice of the government of Canada, I think-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: -well, I do not know upon whose advice, but upon proper advice, or acting upon his own discretion refused to approve-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. I thought he was going to say that approval had been given on advice, but if approval was refused on advice, he is quite correct in saying that the government advised against giving approval.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That was what I intended to state. The approval was refused on the advice of His Majesty's advisers who formed the government of Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is right.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: A number of those who
have received such foreign decorations still continue to wear them although His Majesty's approval has not been obtained, and since His Majesty's approval was refused to a number, certain foreign governments have granted decorations and distinctions to British subjects domiciled and resident in Canada without even asking for His Majesty's approval.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: When the hon member says "British subjects domiciled in Canada," does he mean Canadians or British subjects who have come from other parts of the empire and are living here?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Canadians are British subjects domiciled in Canada. I am using the terms of the address. Although His Majesty has declined to approve the acceptance of those foreign distinctions and decorations by Canadians, they are still worn on public occasions by those Canadians who have received them, and, moreover, certain foreign governments have not respected the request, I may say, of His Majesty that foreign decorations and distinctions should not be conferred upon His Majesty's subjects in Canada until proper representations have been made to His Majesty through his Secretary of State.
One point is this: the address which was passed by this house is very wide in its scope. For instance, if I had time I would refer to the St. John Ambulance Association, which

performs most notable services in some of the cities of Canada. This association has been in the habit, in case of the saving of life, or of sacrifices made by distinguished surgeons and physicians, or of the services of nurses attached to it, of recommending from time to time the granting of certain decorations and medals. Those who are now domiciled in Canada can no longer receive such distinctions or decorations from His Majesty the King. I think the whole matter of the address should be reconsidered because of its scope. If that address is adhered to, should not His Majesty's views in respect of foreign decorations be fully respected? For myself I am of the view, having regard to His Majesty's position in the government of this Dominion as well as of the empire, that this House of Commons should not restrict and in fact prohibit His Majesty, in the exercise of his prerogative, from conferring distinctions and decorations upon his subjects in Canada who have given distinguished services to the state or to society.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon.
friend allow me just a word? I say this for his convenience. He mentioned just a moment ago that if he had time he might make a certain reference. I should like to mention to him that it is my intention at six o'clock to move the adjournment of the house. I hope he will feel that he can continue tomorrow if he has not concluded at that time.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Shall I be in order?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, the hon. member may go on .to-morrow.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was under a misapprehension.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thought so,
and I desired to -clear it up.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Why should His Majesty
be prohibited by this house from conferring decorations or distinctions, or even medals, upon those who have given of their best in the saving of life; upon nurses who, in case of plague, have run all possible risks without fear, simply in the performance of their social duty to their fellow men and women? If you go beyond that, why in this country, when men have rendered notable services to the state, should His Majesty be denied the exercise of his prerogative-and this is the sole country in the empire in which he is denied that right-to confer titular distinctions or decorations upon persons who have rendered such distinguished services?
In the United States I find that they have a number of distinctions which they confer

Titles oj Honour-Miss Macphail
upon notable citizens. I know of no other civilized country in the world in which such distinctions add decorations are not conferred for notable public services. Why then should we in Canada, at the present time deny the prerogative of His Majesty the King to confer such distinctions for such services? I am not dealing now with the peerage or with those titles or distinctions that are passed down from father to son by inheritance, but in my humble judgment we should permit of certain classes of distinctions being conferred upon Canadian citizens. Under the present constitutional usage, I presume these will be conferred upon the advice of His Majesty's advisers in Canada, and the government of the day will be responsible to the Canadian houses of parliament and to the people of Canada in respect of the conferring of such distinctions.
There is something in human nature that is urged to the utmost endeavour and to the extreme of self-sacrifice by incentives such as these. I will give you an instance, a matter of personal interest to me. I believe my name was submitted once for a distinction which I felt that I could not accept- perhaps that is the way I should put it. But when my own alma mater, Dalhousie university, without any knowledge on my part, conferred upon me, and at the same time upon the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) the degree of Doctor of Laws from that university, it gave me a feeling of satisfaction and I might almost say a feeling of pride such as I have never experienced under any other circumstance in my life. This was an honour conferred upon me by my own alma mater, and I really felt unworthy of it, but it has ever since been to me an incentive to devote myself with more zeal, if that be possible, to the well-being and advancement of my alma mater, than I had ever done before.
And so it is in public life. Take, for instance, the chief justices of our courts, men of great ability and distinction. The former usage was a happy one-that when a judge was appointed chief justice of the court he was given a titular distinction almost as a matter of course, because the services which he had rendered to the bar and the eminence which he had attained in his profession recommended him for a distinction of that kind; so I think a great deal is to be said in favour of recognition by the state in some way of the services of those who have made great sacrifices for the state, and if we are to depart from what I regard as the good, wholesome usage of allowing our king to exercise his
prerogative in that respect, I think we should consider whether we should not provide in Canada some distinguished service order which might be conferred upon the recommendation of the government of the country.
It is merely to suggest that this matter should receive the fair and unprejudiced consideration of this house that I, have moved, as a private member solely, that a committee of eleven be appointed to consider the question. I am not wedded to any particular number, but eleven members would I think allow full representation of all the vi-ws of the various sections of the house on the committee, where I think this question should be studied, and studied earnestly. I think that this house to-day is in a better posilion to deal with the question, without prejudice and without rancour, and in a better position to deal with the whole question de novo, than the house was at the time this address was passed under somewhat strained and perturbed conditions. I therefore move, Mr. Speaker, the appointment of this committee.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):	Mr. Speaker, I am entirely opposed
to the idea of appointing a committee to consider the question of granting titles to citizens of the Dominion of Canada. I think that anything that tends to create caste in this country is a mistake. So far as I have been able to observe, titles go to the wrong people- there are some notable exceptions, it is true. They go to people who have been able to make a lot gf money by special legislation, and at the expense of some other hard working people in this country. If we are to grant titles, let us grant them to the farmers and the labouring people in this country who make less than SI,000 a year, even in this year of glowing prosperity, and there are a good many of them. I was very glad when titles were abolished, and I have always been rather glad for one thing: It made it less easy then for those outside of Canada to spot the people who did the damage. Although we know them ourselves, we are not anxious to advertise them to the world. Take the notable instance of Lord Beaverbrook, a famous Canadian, who became rich by making cement so dear that they have to use board sidewalks in western Canada, and so he was given a title. During the war the finest men, if they did win a distinction, did not want it ever mentioned; you could not induce them to tell why they got it. They felt it was simply a matter of guessing, and the guess fell on them. We all realize what a lot of nonsense and unfairness was connected with
78	.	COMMONS
Titles oj Honour-Mr. Mackenzie King
it. I think the very best Canadians are the ones who are least known. Because a man is well known and learned and is a judge, it does not necessarily follow that he has served his country well. I would not go so far as to say that all the judges are the good servants of the country, but I would say that they have been good servants of one of the great political parties in Canada, and they have been sufficiently honoured without a title.
I do not want to take up further time. I am entirely and wholly opposed to bringing back titles in Canada. We have enough pomp and splendour and nonsense now without adding to it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Whatever views one may
entertain with respect to titles, I think that the form in which the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) has presented his motion is one which ought to commend itself to the house. The hon. member has asked for a committee to reconsider a resolution which was adopted by the house some time ago. He has pointed out that notwithstanding that the resolution precludes His Majesty from conferring titular distinctions and honours upon his own subjects domiciled in Canada, nevertheless the heads of foreign countries are in a position to confer such honours, and apparently have been conferring them, and that these honours are being worn by British subjects domiciled in this country. That of itself is a matter which is deserving of investigation, and it might be well worth while to have a "committee of the house look into that phase as well as others. If we are to have no titles, titular distinctions or honours in Canada, let us hold to the principle and have none, let us abolish them altogether; but if the sovereigns or heads of other countries are to be permitted to bestow honours on Canadians, for my part I think we owe it to our own sovereign to give him that prerogative before all others.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But by the same resolution our citizens are forbidden to wear foreign decorations.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Not by the address.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The committee might go into all these matters. What I wish to point out at the moment is that there are anomalies in the present situation which have arisen out of the resolution, and without expressing my own view, I at the moment should like to have the matter looked into by a committee of the house. So

far as the government is concerned, we are quite prepared to have the resolution adopted.


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


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I gathered, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. Prime Minister was going to move the adjournment of the house. As it is six o'clock I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at six p.m.
Wednesday, February 13, 1929