1929-02-15

PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 27, to incorporate Barclays Bank (Canada).-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 28, respecting the Pension Fund Society of the Bank of Montreal, the Molsons Bank Pension Fund, and the Merchants' Bank of Canada Pension Fund.-Mr. Guerin.
Bill No. 29, respecting a certain patent of Catelli Macaroni Products Corporation Limited.-Mr. Mercier (St. Henri).
Bill No. 30, respecting The Protective Association of Canada.-Mr. Boivin.
Bill No. 31, to incorporate The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company.-Mr. Thorson.
Bill No. 32, to incorporate The Wapiti Insurance Company.-Mr. Thorson.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING moved:: That the select standing committee on standing orders be instructed to consider the advisability of amending the standing orders so that certain estimates may be referred to a committee and so that bills reported from a standing or select committee shall be placed on the order paper for third reading after having been sufficiently debated by the house.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: I
thought that probably the Prime Minister would make some explanation of this resolution, but as he has not done so, I desire to take up the time of the house for a few minutes to discuss it.
This is what we term a double-barrelled resolution, containing two subject matters of importance. To that we take objection. We believe that when two such matters as are contained in this resolution are to come before this house for discussion, they should be separated into two different resolutions, so that the house may be in a position to accept the one and reject the other if it sees fit.
So far as the first part of this resolution is concerned, if the Prime Minister has it in his mind that certain estimates should so to
78594-10J
Rules of the Home

certain standing committees, we approve of that suggestion. This matter was discussed at some length in the house last year, and the Prime Minister made some promise at the time that the government would take into consideration the advisability of sending certain of the estimates to standing committees in order to expedite the business of the house. I am glad that the Prime Minister has taken this, perhaps the first, opportunity of introducing this matter to the house. So far as the second part of the resolution is concerned, I am rather doubtful of this proposal. It is proposed that private bills after going to a standing committee shall be placed on the order paper for third reading. It would appear from this resolution that on these private Ibills the house will not go into committee of the whole, and consequently the members of the house as a whole will not have the opportunity of securing the information that perhaps will be secured in the standing committees. To that we take objection.
I would like to call the attention of the house to an anomaly that this proposal is going to create if it is carried through. We are all here representing various constituencies, and in the final analysis every member of this house is on an equality, but when it comes to the question of bills introduced by private members for private persons or corporations, such bills have precedence over bills of a public nature that are introduced by private members, and under those circumstances, no matter how desirous any member of this house may be of trying to secure the passage of needed legislation of a public nature, he is to all intents and purposes blocked by the rules of the house. If there is going to be an opening up, to facilitate the passage of private legislation through this house by ensuring that it shall be voted upon,
I submit to the Prime Minister and to the house that the private member introducing public legislation should be put on a parity with the private member introducing private legislation. We have no objection to this matter going to a committee for consideration, but if that committee in its report makes a further discrimination as between public and private legislation, we in this corner of the house are going to take very strong objection to it.	.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thought the resolution
was so worded that no one was likely to take

exception to it. It is not, as my hon. friend has said, a double-barrelled resolution; it is a single-barrelled resolution. All the resolution suggests is that the select standing committee on standing orders be instructed to consider the advisability of amending the rules of the house. That is the motion. There are two subjects being referred to the committee for consideration. The committee may report in whatever way it may think best. It may bring in a report with reference to one subject at one time, and in reference to the other subject at another time, and in vew of what my hon. friend has said, that perhaps would be the preferable way for the committee to report. What I wish to make clear is that the resolution does not attempt finally to determine anything; it simply refers to a committee of this house certain subjects for consideration, and report to the house.
* As to the two particular matters being referred to the committee, I thought the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) was in complete accord with the government in wishing to have each of these matters considered. The first is the advisability of having a special committee to which the estimates in whole or in part might be referred for consideration. An hon member of my hon. friend's own group has at the present time a resolution on the order paper requesting that that very matter be considered.


Robert Gardiner: His resolution asks that the estimates be referred to committees of the house, not one committee, but several committees, so that the work could be divided up amongst them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is a phase of the matter for the select standing committee on standing orders to take into account. The resolution does not commit the house to any particular form whatever. It is left open purposely, so that members of the standing committee may take into consideration all points of view. I think that answers my hon. friend's objection in that particular.
I had gathered that on previous occasions the house had felt that two very useful objects would be served were the rules amended so that the estimates, or some of the estimates might be referred to a committee or committees, namely that this course would result in a greater control of expenditure, and greater expedition in the matter of voting supply. The intention is not in any way to limit dis-

Privilege-Mr. Euler
cussion in the house, but rather to amplify the means of securing information by enabling members of the house to have the benefit of calling before a committee, and questioning officers of the different departments who are more familiar than the minister himself can possibly be with reasons underlying the request for certain appropriations. That and the saving of time is the sole object the government has in view in wishing to have the estimates considered in whole or in part by a committee or committees.
The other question it is suggested to refer to the committee on standing orders has to do with the procedure in connection with private bills, and is an endeavour to ensure that private bills will be brought to a vote in this house. My hon. friend (Mr. Gardiner) at the la^t session stated that he thought that was something which ought to be done.
I have his words here. He said:
It is true we may require some amendment of the rules. Personally I should like to see all bills come to a vote, and the members of this house supporting legislation that is not in the interests of the people made responsible for their vote.


Robert Gardiner: That included public as well as private bills.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It may include public bills as well, but it certainly includes all that this motion is intended to cover. I wish to assure my hon. friend that in bringing forward this motion the government had in mind only the endeavour to meet what appeared to be the wish of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Gardiner) and what at the close of last session was promised on the part of the government. I have just had my attention drawn to the fact that a similar suggestion was made by the special committee that amended the rules two years ago. I believe we are perfectly secure in allowing the standing committee to consider both these matters and report upon them to the house. If the report is not satisfactory, it can be discussed when it is before us.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order
on this discussion. I do not like to intervene, but this is a notice of motion by the government, and I submit that under rule 38 no debate is permissible. The motion either comes
within paragraph (a) of subsection 1 or within subsection 2. The rule reads:
The following motions are debatable:-
Every motion
(a) standing on the order of proceedings for the day, (except government notices of motion for the house to go into committee at a later date).
And this is subsection 2:
All other motions, including adjournment motions, shall be decided without debate or amendment.
This is a notice of motion. The Prime Minister merely gives notice that on a future day he will move such a motion. I submit that the whole debate is out of order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will see in the votes and proceedings of yesterday that notice was given yesterday; I am moving the motion now.


Hugh Guthrie: I did not know that.


Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: May I ask the Prime Minister:	Would the committee
on standing orders be allowed to make any recommendation with regard to public bills and orders, as well as private bills? I rather gathered that from his remarks.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would answer my hon. friend first of all by saying that the committee may do whatever it likes-.. There is no desire to restrict the committee in any particular; it controls its own business. In the second place, my motion speaks of bills; it does not say private bills. I think that answers my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of
privilege, and because it is of some public interest, I should like to be given an opportunity of making a correction of a news item which appeared yesterday in the Canadian Press, including the Ottawa papers and the Toronto Globe. It has to do with the tabling in the Ontario legislature of the report of the Ontario Liquor Control Board. Portions of the article appear to be quotations from the printed report itself. The paragraph to which I take exception is not necessarily a quotation-as to this I cannot speak definitely, not yet having seen the printed report
C.N.R.-Pension Fund

-but it received publicity and should be contradicted. This is the paragraph:
Under present conditions much liquor is shipped from Canada ostensibly bound for Mexico and Cuba, but never gets further than the United States.
This undoubtedly has reference to liquors which are exported from the province of Ontario from river and lake ports. I desire to say that for some years no clearances whatever have been given to vessels ostensibly clearing for Cuba or Mexico or South American points. So far as exports through ocean ports are concerned, those must be landed in the country to which they are cleared, because they go out under guarantee bonds for double duty, which bonds cannot be, and never are, released until proper landing certificates are produced by the shipping companies.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
ORIENTAL GRAIN COMPANY On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, on April 16 last an order of the house passed for copies of documents in connection with a claim of the Oriental Grain Company against the Vancouver Harbour Commission. When will those documents be produced in accordance with that order?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish I could tell my hon. friend. I can only promise to have the matter looked ;nto and endeavour to give him an answer later on.



IMPOSITION OR ABROGATION OF FISHING DUTY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. ERNST (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, on March 12 last an order of the house passed for the production of certain correspondence relating to abrogation of duty on fish landed from steam trawlers. I have not yet received the return. I should like to ask the government if I may expect it some time in rhe near future.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I am safe in saying, that my hon. friend may expect the correspondence. We will do the best we can to have it brought down.



BRITISH PREFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) if it is the intention 
of the government to put into effect the clause requiring 50 per cent empire labour and material in all imported goods enjoying the British preference.
Hon. V . D. EL'LER (Minister of National Revenue): Yes. It came into effect on February 1.
THE BUDGET On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. W. JACOB'S (Cartier): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) if he is prepared to give us any information as to when t'he budget is to be brought down?


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: We are working very hard now in preparation of the budget, and I hope to' be able to make my hon. friend a statement before the end of the fiscal year.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from February 12 consideration in committee of Bill No. 2 to amend the Grand Trunk Act, 1906-7-Hon. Mr. Dunning-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 2-Short title.
Mr. DUNNING:: Mr. Chairman, this bill was left in committee on account of a legal question connected with section 2. I have taken up with the law officers of the crown the remarks of my hon. friends opposite, and am informed that the desire is to get a citation for pension purposes which will be reasonably concise and will relate specifically to the matter of pensions. The law officers have redrafted the section to read:
The said act as amended by this act may for pension purposes be cited as the Canadian National Railways Pension Act, 1929.
That I think meets the objection raised by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and the member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie).


Mr. BENNETT:: My hon. friend will observe that t'he effect of his amendment is to designate legislation of ten years ago with legislation of to-day as the Canadian National Railways Pension Act of 1929. This is not customary. If the date, 1929, be left out I can of course appreciate the amendment.


Charles Avery Dunning: Apparently the Department of Justice desires to have in connection with the citation of every act a date, and for pension purposes of course this particular act

Civil Service-Private Secretaries
does complete what was formerly done. At least am I right in assuming that the point my hon. friend raised previously has been cured by this suggestion?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think so; but I do net think my hon. friend's method of designating the principal act of ten years ago and this amendment as an act of 1929 is correct.


Charles Avery Dunning: For my part, Mr. Chairman, I am quite prepared to strike out the date, 1929, on the assurance of my hon. friend that no legal difficulties will be caused thereby, the reason being that it is a matter of citation for regulation purposes purely. I do not see that it will make any difference whether "1929" is an or not. I shall be glad to meet my hon. friend by striking it out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Fund applicable to other companies owned or controlled by His Majesty.
Richard Bedford Bennett: "1929" in the fourth line should be struck out in this section also.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes; I move that the section be so amended.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
On the order: The house again in committee on Bill No. 4, to amend and consolidate the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act.
Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: I move that the bill be not now referred to committee of the whole but that it be referred to a special committee consisting of nine members to be nominated at the next sitting of the house, after the chief whips have conferred and made a selection of those whom it is considered best fitted to act.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The motion must have unanimous consent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are very glad that this is being done, Mr. Speaker, with respect to a portion of the bill. I have received telegrams indicating that the druggists of the country are very anxious to know exactly what their position will be under the amended and consolidated act, and I am satisfied that
there would be a far greater opportunity for medical men on this side of the house who are familiar with the act to present their views if a special committee were appointed. In any event, there would still be the opportunity for discussion in the house when the bill came back, and when hon. members could exercise their judgment in the premises.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: I am having the bill referred to a special committee in view of the discussion we had the last time it was before the committee of the whole, and in deference as well to the representations of the officers of the department and those to which my hon. friend has referred-that is, the views of druggists, who are the legitimate dealers in narcotics in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No 7, to amend the Civil Service Act (private secretaries).
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Private secretaries, appointment.
Robert Gardiner: Explain.


Mr. RINFRET:: The object of the amendment is to give to private secretaries who are not already in the civil service the privilege of entering therein, but only in the event of the ministers, whose secretaries they are, ceasing to act in that capacity. The amendment is also to apply to the secretary of the leader of the opposition. If my hon. friends will consult the notes which accompany the bill they will see that the question of private secretaries has been on many occasions a matter of concern to the house, inasmuch as there are many different clauses or sections of the act dealing with it. The difficulty is to reconcile the very natural desire of a minister to have a confidential secretary with the equal desirability of assuring a certain degree of permanency in the service to the gentleman who fills that position. Before 1906 the private secretary to a minister was a member of the civil service and received additional consideration of $600 a year. I may point out, however, that prior to that time the minister could appoint anyone to the civil service, and therefore, when
152	COMMONS
Civil Service-Private Secretaries
he desired to have the services of a secretary, he could first have him appointed to the service. At that time the remuneration was $1,500, to which could be added the $600 which was the special allowance for a private secretary; or, in the alternative, the minister might choose a man from the service and pay him the additional gratuity. The revised statutes of 1906 embodying the Civil Service Act contain the provision, section 81, that any member of the civil service might be appointed private secretary to the head of a department and might be paid an additional salary, not exceeding $600 a year, whilst so acting. That confirmed the provision which existed before, but owing to the fact that the Civil Service Commission had taken over appointments to the civil service the minister was deprived of the right to appoint his own secretary. In 1908 a change was made in the act, the amendment, as will be seen in the explanatory notes, reading:
39. Any person chosen by a minister to be his private secretary may, without examination and irrespective of age, be appointed for a period not exceeding one year, and paid as a clerk in subdivision B of the second division, and after one year's services as such secretary he shall be deemed to be appointed to such rank.
That gave to the minister the privilege of appointing one man of Ms own choice; after one year of service this man would become a member of the civil service in a certain subdivision, and would receive a salary ranging from $1,200 to $1,600 plus the additional $600 which I have mentioned, and which always has been a special grant to secretaries belonging to the service. In 1912 the section was amended with regard to the subdivisions of the service open to such secretaries; this gave them a larger salary and a better position. In 1918 that section was replaced by the section now in the act, which reads as follows:
Any person may be appointed by a minister of the crown or other member of the government to be his private secretary, and if sueh person does not hold a permanent position in the civil service he may be paid such salary as the governor in council may prescribe, if he holds a permanent position in the public service he may be paid an additional salary not exceeding six hundred dollars a year whilst so acting.
The position to-day is that a minister may appoint his secretary at a salary prescribed by order' in council or else take a man already in the service and add to the salary of that man the $600. The objection which has been made to that situation is that a young man becoming private secretary to a minister has no assurance of permanency in the service; at any moment he may lose his posi-
tion. The objection which was made to the former provision allowing a minister to ch-oose his own secretary who, after one year, became a member of the service, was this: If a minister wanted to abuse the statute, or if he only made full use of it, he could choose a new secretary every year and allow the former secretary to enter the service, and I am quite sure that this provision was amended for the purpose of preventing any such action. If members of the committee will look at the present bill they will see that we have sought to remedy that possible objection by adding a provision that in the case of a minister ceasing to be a minister, and in that case only, the private secretary of such minister will be appointed to a permanent position in the public service, and I do feel that 'this is a very reasonable proposal to make. It is not intended at all to give the ministers any opportunity of appointing men to the service without passing the necessary examination, to any greater extent than is required to meet this particular situation. In fact no privilege at all is afforded the minister, because only when they cease to be such do their private secretaries receive an appointment in the service. If hon. members will look at the sections I have read, which are printed in the bill, they will find that while this may seem a small question to some of us it has received the consideration of the house on many occasions in attempts to find a solution for it. The proposal we now bring forward is .that if a minister chooses-as his private secretary a man from outside the service, such secretary will have the security of an appointment to the permanent service if, for one reason or another, his minister ceases to act as such.
It may be pointed out that this will add many civil servants to the different departments, but I do not think that point arises; if a minister picks a man from his department, instead of appointing a man from outside the service, that man will have to be replaced in any event. For instance, if instead of choosing my secretary from outside the service I went to the companies branch, the naturalization branch or some other branch, of my department for a man, that man would be replaced by someone else, and when I ceased to act as a minister the man I selected from my department as secretary would have a right to return to the service. So I do not think this proposal will add to the number of public servants; it will merely provide as a qualification for permanent appointment in the service the number of months or years given by a private secretary to the work of his department. I appeal to the reason of

Civil Service-Private Secretaries
the committee and ask if an examination in geography, history and other subjects is a better qualification for employment in the service than the work put in by a private secretary who handles all the correspondence of the minister, who is in touch with the heads of all branches and who is thus put in a most excellent position to become familiar with all matters pertaining to that department.
I am in the bands of the committee if any further information is desired, but I wish to add merely as an act of courtesy that while the secretary to the leader of the opposition is included in this bill, that was done without the least suggestion from either the leader of the opposition or his secretary; it was done by the government in the view that the gentleman occupying that position is in exactly the same class as the private secretary to a minister. In that connection I might point out that in most cases when the leader of the opposition becomes the Prime Minister, which is the ambition of every leader of the opposition, his private secretary goes with hi;m, -while the private secretary of the Prime Minister usually becomes the private secretary of the leader of the opposition. So.I do not think there is any probability of a great many public servants being appointed in this way.
We feel great sympathy for the young men who work with us and who give us, the government and the country their very best services, yet we know that by a vote of this house, or an event which might affect only one minister, one or more of them may be deprived of their positions in a day. I do think that the work of a private secretary is a better qualification for appointment to a position in the service than any examination wdiich might be conducted by the Civil Service Commission, and I commend this small bill to the sincere attention of the house.


Robert Gardiner: Would this proposed
amendment be retroactive to past secretaries?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: It will be applicable to secretaries acting as such now; my hon. friend will note that they must have served for the period of one year.


Robert Gardiner: It is possible, when there is a change of ministers, that the new minister will not utilize the private secretary of the former minister. I know of such a case at the present time, and I would like to know if the former private secretary would be in a position to secure a position in the civil service.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: There is nothing in the
act to prevent any minister using the private secretary of a former minister. Where a minister retired for some personal reason it is quite likely that the incoming minister would use the services of the private secretary. However, I think my hon. friend will agree that when there was a change in government it would' not be fair to ask the minister, of another party, to use the secretary who had served under a former government.


Robert Gardiner: I recall a case where a
minister of the present government retired and the secretary was not kept on by the next minister. I want to find out if this legislation would be pertinent to that particular case. If it is merely to cover the present and future private secretaries, I am quite content.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I think it is only fair to
let the incoming minister be the judge in such matters.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: I would suggest that the
minister answer the question asked him.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Taking my own case, there was a very excellent man in the department but he could not act as my private secretary because he did not understand French. I hope my hon. friend has enough confidence in the stability of the present ministry to feel sure there will be no sequence to this bill for a great number of years.


Robert Gardiner: I am afraid the minister does not understand my question. I am quite content with this legislation if it is only to be applicable to present or future private secretaries, and I asked the minister to state whether that individual, who is not now a private secretary, would be eligible under the statute for a position in the civil service.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: It does not apply to former private secretaries, but only to secretaries acting as such at the present time.


Robert Gardiner: That is all I wish to
know about that. I would like the minister to tell the committee what salary a private secretary would receive when he would go back into the service as a chief clerk.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The average salary for a private secretary at the present time is $4,080, which includes the last flat increase which was given two years ago. The position of chief clerk, which is proposed in this bill, would pay a salary ranging from $3,120 minimum to $3,720 maximum. This follows out approxi-
Military Pernion Act


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I desire to express, on
behalf of that person who will hereafter occupy this office, my very sincere appreciation of the minister's explanation. I had not heard of this provision until I saw it in the bill, but I think it is a very fitting recognition of the duties that may be rendered by some person as private secretary to whomever may occupy this position. I say this in justice to my hon. friend's usual courtesy and fair-mindedness in this regard.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



WAR REPARATIONS PAYMENT OF $2,500,000 TO CUSTODIAN

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) moved that the house go into committee 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 he made as to the method and scale of payments.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand
it is the wish of hon. gentlemen opposite not to go on with this resolution to-day, but to take it up some time next week.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If you please.
Motion stands.



MILITARY PENSION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence) moved that the house go into com-rpittee 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 preceding 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.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Explain.


Mr. RALSTON:: The object of the bill
which will be founded upon this resolution is as set out in the resolution. The first part 
introduces a principle which will change the existing order so far as the pensions of officers are concerned. As hon. gentlemen know, the provisions of the Superannuation Act are that civil service pensions shall be based on the average of the salary for the last three years of service. This same principle applies to the pension payable to non-commissioned officers and men, but for some time the pension payable to officers has been based on the amount they receive at the time of their retirement. This permits a situation whereby pressure may be brought to bear to increase the salary just before an officer retires, in order that the pension might be increased. It is sought to bring the pension payable to officers under the same principles as apply to civil servants, noncommissioned officers and men.
I do not think the second part of the resolution is a very important matter. The members of the defence council are generally staff officers or senior officers who are appointed under the regulations for four years. These positions are generally regarded as the highest which can be attained in the service. At the end of the four-year period, or whatever extension there is, they have to go back to some position which pays a lower salary, with the result that the amount of their prospective pension is cut down. The proposal is to allow those officers who have attained sufficient seniority and efficiency in the service to take positions as members or associate members of the defence council, to have their pensions, when they retire, based on the average of the three years' salary received by them as members of the defence council.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: Do the
officers who benefit by the pensions contribute in proportion to the rank or the salary that they receive?


James Layton Ralston: They contribute a percentage of their salary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Might this not work an
injustice in some cases having regard to those who, say, yesterday may have been pensioned on the basis of six years' salary and those who the day after to-morrow may be pensioned on the basis of three years' salary? Perhaps the committee is the proper place in which to ask that question.


James Layton Ralston: I may say that the provision is that this is not to apply to officers now in the service.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.

Military Pension Act


Mr. CLARK:: One effect of this resolution will be to prevent the giving of a promotion at the end of a period of service for the purpose of giving increased pension.


James Layton Ralston: That is quite right. Such a promotion would only increase the average amount. That is to say, the extra amount received on account of such promotion would be totalled in the three years' pay and the whole divided by three and promotion therefore would not have the same effect as it has at present.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: The minister will
have to answer some questions from the service. If officers are allowed to come here and put in, say two, three or four years, how is the minister going to explain the refusal of an increased pension to certain ones who put in three or four years' service during the war? There are both non-commissioned officers and officers who, after they had retired on pension, came back and gave three or four years' service during the war. For that they have received nothing in the way of an increased pension. The minister will have to meet criticism in this regard if he is going to give an increased pension to some person who goes to headquarters and serves three or four years there.


James Layton Ralston: I am afraid I have not
made myself clear. I am talking only about those who are members of the defence council. The other method would be to allow those members to remain and to retire as members of the defence council. In many cases that may be advisable as regards the individual, but it is hardly fair to other officers in the service who are qualified and who ought to have their turn at headquarters. Therefore it is felt, even though the members of the defence council are qualified, that in the interests of the service it is perhaps well to have what one might call demotion, at least reduction in salary to go back to a district. Yet it is felt that in view of seniority and qualifications, they might well be paid a pension based on the salary they have received as members of the defence council.


Arthur Edward Ross: I am pointing out
that the minister will receive criticism in regard to those people to whom a pension has been refused.


John Arthur Clark: A distinction is made between officers of the same rank in the service. That is to say, an officer serving in command of a district with a rank perhaps senior to that of a member of the defence council, might draw a smaller pension than an officer of a junior rank.


James Layton Ralston: That is the case to-day.
Members of the defence council are not paid on the basis of rank; they are paid on the basis of salary.


Mr. POWER:: It seems to me that the
object as outlined in the first part of the resolution may be defeated if the second part carries. As I understand the matter from the explanation given by the minister, the average annual salary is to be taken into consideration in computing the pension. The minister quite properly said that one of his reasons for bringing down this legislation was that he wished to prevent pressure from being brought to bear upon the department and the minister to have rather rapid promotion given at the end of an officer's military career; but as I understand the matter, members of the defence council and associate members, whatever they may be, obtain slightly higher salaries than officers carrying on their ordinary duties. Therefore in another way pressure will be brought to bear upon the minister to make officers members of the defence council, say for a month or two or three months so that they may benefit on retirement by receiving an increased pension. I may be wrong in that assumption, but I am simply pointing out to the minister and to the committee that this might be one of the consequences of passing the second portion of the resolution.


James Layton Ralston: I endeavoured to foresee
that very situation, and when the bill is introduced my hon. friend will see the provision-and it is also in the resolution-that a man mu9t be a member of the defence council for three years before this applies. He cannot qualify for an increased pension by being a member of the defence council for three, six or nine months.


John Arthur Clark: Take the case of a district
officer commanding who has held the appointment for, say one year. Will this amendment make any difference in the pension which he will draw?


James Layton Ralston: It would in the case of
a district officer commanding who enlists after this measure is passed. My hon. friend will understand that I am one of those who believe as far as possible in preserving what ma3' not be contractual rights but at the same time what may be the understanding when a man enlists. There are times, however, when the public interest requires some change. I understood that this was a somewhat far reaching change and therefore provision is made that this legislation shall not apply to any persons now in the service; it shall apply only to those who enlist afterwards.
Military Pension Act


John Arthur Clark: That is just the point. If we are going to amend1 the Pension Act, it would be a good thing to amend it so that an officer would draw a pension based upon the average salary over a period of three years, because if we do that, it will prevent the very thing which I mentioned at the outset, namely, giving an appointment to a man after, say long service, in order that he may retire on a higher rate of pension. If the minister will make a search he will not have very far to seek to find that that has been done.


James Layton Ralston: I agree with that thoroughly, and I am endeavouring to correct it for the future. I would feel some hesitation about doing away with the principle under which these officers have been serving and are in the service at the present time. I would be glad indeed to concur in my hon. friend's suggestion except that it seems to me it perhaps interferes with at least some possible moral claim that an officer at present in the service might have to have the terms of service maintained during his period of service.


John Arthur Clark: I am afraid I do not follow the minister. I should like him to point out what is in the contractual relation which would justify a man in expecting a promotion just before retirement in order to draw a higher rate of pension.


James Layton Ralston: There is nothing to justify that except what my hon. friend has just suggested, namely, that there are instances where promotion has been made immediately prior to retirement. There are instances where promotion has been made just before retirement.


John Arthur Clark: Why not extend the amendment to make that impossible?


James Layton Ralston: Because it would be altering the situation with regard to officers now in the service. I want to assure my hon. friend .that that will be discouraged by administration, but after this provision becomes effective there will be no purpose for pressure being brought to bear.


Arthur Edward Ross: Will it be stated
in the bill that this provision will refer only to officers enlisting from now on?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Ralston thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 33, to amend the Militia Pension Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
3 Mr. Ralston.]



TECHNICAL EDUCATION ACT


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour) moved:: 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.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: I would suggest to the ministry that when these resolutions are moved, an opportunity should be given to us for discussion.


Peter Heenan: I did not think it was
necessary to deal with this matter in detail, as full information can be given when we get into committee on the bill. As hon. gentlemen will recall, the Technical Education Act was passed in the year 1919. It provided for assistance to the provinces in the matter of technical education for a period of ten years. Some of the provinces did not take advantage of the act when it was first passed, and the purpose of the amendment now is to extend the act for a further period of five years to enable the provinces which did not take advantage of the act to earn their proportion of the grant.
In the year 1910 a royal commission was appointed to inquire into industrial training and technical education. That commission reported in the year 1913, and recommended that assistance be given to the provinces to the amount of $30,000,000, the grants to be used for technical education, agricultural instruction and industrial research. The Agricultural Instruction Act expired some years ago and on its expiration it was extended for one year. The Technical Education Act expires in March of this year. The government is now going into industrial research quite extensively, involving an expenditure far greater than the amount that was originally recommended for technical education. During the Dominion-Provincial conference it was made quite clear by the representatives of the provinces that they did not desire the federal grants to *be continued or extended if there were any tags on them. Rather they felt that any federal assistance that was given should be by way of general subsidy.
As I have said, I can go into details more fully when the bill is before the house. Briefly, the purpose of the amendment is to

Technical Education Act
extend the period for five years, in order to enable those provinces which did not take advantage of the act in the first place to earn their portion of the grant.


Henry Herbert Stevens: At the opening of the
session I placed on the order paper a question asking the ministry if they had received requests for the renewal of the $10,000,000 appropriation made in 1919, and asking further if the government had given any consideration to the matteT. The Prime Minister replied that the government had received such requests, and in answer to my Last question about giving consideration to the matter, his reply was:
Yes. Notice has been given of legislation to be brought down during the present session providing for the amendement of the Technical Education Act. This legislation will set out the intention of the government.
I had hoped from the nature of that reply that the legislation might have been of the character alluded to in the first question, namely, an extension or renewal of the grants for technical education. Little need ibe said in support of the contention that these two grants-I think there have been two grants of 810.000,000 each-for technical education have proved of immense value to the Dominion of Canada. If that is the case, I believe the immediate future would warrant in even a stronger manner the continuance of the grants, because never in the history of this country was there such a broadening of opportunity for young Canadians who have been technically trained as the future seems to hold forth. We have developed in recent years huge water-powers, with the result that industrial expansion is assuming very considerable proportions, which we hope will go on increasing from year to year, and offering at least some opportunity to stay the exodus of our brighter young men to the wider opportunities offered in the United States. Therefore, to my mind, if we were warranted in 1909 in granting $10,000,000 for assistance in the matter of technical education, and again in 1919, we are doubly warranted at this time in continuing the grants. It has just been suggested to me that I am in error in saying there were two grants, and that only one grant of $10,000,000 has been made. I had thought that there were two, but I am subject to correction. But in any case my point is that at this time we are warranted more than ever before in making this further grant.
I have before me the report of the legislative program of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, dated January 8, 1929.
While it may be that we cannot at all times agree with all of the suggestions of the Trades and Labour Congress, I believe that their utterance in regard to technical education will be received with favour and approval by almost every member of the house. It reads as follows:	.
Reenactment Technical Education Act 1919. It is to be regretted that the government has not yet seen fit to reenact the Technical Education Act of 1919 which expires on March 31 this year, as we are convinced that without federal assistance technical educational activities in the various provinces will be restricted. We believe that the Premier of Ontario stated the case clearly, when in a press statement published May iast, he said:
Then they quote:
The Technical Education Act passed by the Dominion in 1919, did not encroach on the prerogative of the provinces. It did not assume to take control of any schools; it left the responsibility for the administration of technical schools strictly to the provinces to which it belongs by constitutional right.
The act was, in fact, a financial measure dealing with federal funds. It undertook to use federal money to promote and assist technical education in Canada. In other words, the Dominion sought to induce the provinces and the municipalities, on the assurance of federal assistance, to undertake a very expensive service to the country, on a larger scale than would otherwise be possible.
That is the end of the quotation of the statement by the Premier of Ontario. Then the Trades and Labour Congress proceed with their statement:
Reiterating our statement presented Iast year we would emphasize that technical education is an essential part of apprentice braining, and as such, lays the foundation for industrial efficiency, which reflects itself in Dominion revenues. For this and similar reasons we again advance the opinion that the Dominion government could properly continue grants for technical education and urge the enactment of legislation to make this possible when the act of 1919 expires.
I particularly direct the attention of the right hon. Prime Minister, whose sympathy I know is in line with this sort of legislation, and of the Minister of Labour to this point made by the Trades and Labour Congress: that technical education is an essential part of apprentice training.
In other words, the Trades and Labour Congress draw attention to the advisability of promoting in Canada what is the common practice in the older countries of Europe, development of apprentice training among the various industrial activities of this Dominion. I think we have been woefully neglectful in this regard. Certainly in some industries which are highly organized and well established apprentice training has been carried
Technical. Education Act

on, but in many branches of artisan activity apprentice training has not been practised. For instance, this winter I noted in Vancouver- whether it is followed elsewhere or not I do not know-that among the building trades they have introduced a system of apprentice training. It has been in operation for the last few years, and I was advised only a few weeks ago that the results have been eminently satisfactory, that many young men taken from the technical school established under this vote of 1919 have been introduced into the building trades and are proving to be most efficient and capable workers, and in fact are likely to become the natural successors of the contractors and builders. That is a splended work. That alone is an excellent result to achieve. But that is only one narrow branch of activity. The technical education provided for in the provinces extends 'to many branches of activity, and so I think, Mr. Speaker, we should very seriously consider extending the grant before disposing of the question.
There is another phase to which I wish briefly to refer. It is the statement by the Premier of Ontario which I have already quoted:
The Dominion sought to induce the provinces and the municipalities, on the assurance of federal assistance, to undertake a very expensive service to the country on a larger scale than would otherwise be possible.
Now, that is not a complaint, it is merely a statement of fact, that after an extensive study by the Dominion parliament, through a commission, extending over a period of four years, a very elaborate report was made. It was a report of nation-wide importance. The report was recognized by the government of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and by the succeeding government of Sir Robert Borden, as of sufficient importance to warrant this Dominion as a whole taking it into consideration. The report is in the library and is a very elaborate and a very excellent piece of work. Then parliament made this grant of ten million dollars. With what result? Unfortunately I have not under my hand the details, but suffice to say that most if not all of the provinces took advantage of the grant and established technical schools. I refer again to Vancouver merely because I am more familiar with it than with any other city. Last year the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan), the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. King), the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot), the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) and I think the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) were in Van-IMr. Stevens.]
couvev and saw the magnificent school which has been established there. It is a huge series of buildings built by the province and the city with the assistance of this grant. In those buildings is now housed the school which has been organized over the last three years. The school at first was established in a comparatively small building in the centre of the city. Now it is housed in this magnificent building, and scores of young boys of high school age are attending and receiving technical education. It was a big capital investment. This is not a poor man's plea, but I put this to parliament. Parliament having undertaken the investigation of this subject, parliament having secured a report thereon, and parliament having acted on that report, surely now parliament is justified in considering whether or not the results to date justify a continuance of the grant. That I think is a fair question, I submit to the government that practically all of the provinces have played the game in the matter; they have established these institutions and have made excellent progress. Now I suggest to the government that they should for another ten-year period continue the grants in order to ensure the further establishment of this valuable service for the young men of the Dominion.
One other thought, and I now direct my appeal more to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The minister, since his appointment to that important office, has given very excellent and intelligent attention to the question of industrial research, which is a subject we have often discussed in parliament and which has been very close to my own heart. He has done very creditable work; he has made efforts much greater than he has been permitted to see carried to fruition. This has been due to lack of funds. Nevertheless he has done, as I say, very good work, having made a splendid start in the last few years. He is going ahead with industrial research-what for? And, by the way, may I express the hope that parliament will double his grant this year. The estimates are not yet down, but I hope that such provision will be made. Now, for what purposes is the minister carrying on this reasearch? He is doing it to assist in the process of converting our vast raw resources in Canada into something like a valuable product for sale to the world at large. Briefly, that is his object. It is to discover new methods of utilizing these materials; to assist industry in expanding its business and organizing itself on a better basis; to find new uses for our raw materials, and so forth. His object is to im-

Technical Education Act
prove methods, to extend and to broaden the uses of our raw materials, to enlarge our markets, and to increase the efficiency of our plants. That, roughly speaking, is what he is doing. Now, why do we not correlate all this with the improved efficiency of the youth of the country to enable them to take advantage of the opportunities to be created by the minister in the splendid efforts he is making in the industrial research branch?
I say to the government that no money voted by this parliament could be more wisely spent than in an honest, intelligent extension of industrial research, followed, and supported or supplemented, by a grant to technical education to enable our young people to take advantage of the opportunities which we trust will be presented through the expansion of our industrial activities.
I will not speak any longer. I think that this subject is one which has absolutely no partisan aspect; it is something which is vital to the life of the normal Canadian citizen. There is no group of citizens in this country more entitled to consideration than those who will be affected by this legislation. And who are these people? Not the rich; not those who can afford an extended university training; they are the boys and girls belonging to the families of honest, intelligent citizens throughout the country, whose means are restricted and with whom the necessity of earning a livelihood is imminent at all times. It is the boys and girls of such families who will be affected by this legislation. And they are the very backbone of the nation. This question applies not only to the wage earners of the nation, in the broad general sense of the term; it applies to intelligent, enterprising and, shall I say, ambitious artisans, workers and tradesmen. If there is any social work under the sun which is more important than this I should like to know what it is. There is nothing more important than the social work of helping a man or a boy to help himself. I sincerely hope, therefore, that the government will not allow this session to proceed further without giving to the house an assurance that this question of extending the grant to technical education will be taken up in earnest and not merely given " consideration " -because that is a political term sometimes used to hide the desire to evade; all of us have used it. I hope we shall get an assurance that the matter will be given sympathetic study, based upon a desire to meet the needs and requirements of this new branch of education.


Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):: I am very glad to be able to endorse what the last speaker (Mr. Stevens) has said. I speak
feelingly on this subject because I think it was pretty well recognized a few years ago that the system of apprenticeship in industry was almost a thing of the past. Within the last two or three or five years, however, there has been a change; and probably to-day we have more apprentices working under the old apprentice system in connection with various branches of industry in the country than we have had for some considerable time. The reason for this, to some extent-at all events, in the maritime provinces-is the fact that we have had technical night schools which have given our mechanics an opportunity to obtain some technical education during their apprenticeship period which was not previously available. Only the other day I was speaking to the superintendent of one of our largest works who made this remark: "The one thing that I am more thankful for than anything else is the fact that my father had the good sense to insist upon my serving an apprenticeship as a machinist." Knowledge thus gained is invaluable ; it does not cost anything except the effort to obtain it. We have to-day in the maritime provinces, in the town from which I come and in others as well, night technical schools; and in some of our works there is an arrangement whereby apprentices can put in two or three hours a day getting technical instruction at no cost to themselves; in other words, the establishment in which they are employed' pays their wages while they are so engaged. That is a matter of very considerable importance, and I would stress what has been so eloquently expressed by the hon. member who has spoken, as to the extreme importance of technical education in this country. I know of no movement more entitled to the support of the minister than that under consideration, and I trust that such steps will be taken as will result in the continuation of and a large increase in the appropriation for technical education in connection with such workmen as I have referred to.


Mr. ALFRED SPEAKMAN (Red Deer):: May I for a moment associate myself with those who have already spoken, first, in commending the government and the minister upon bringing forward the resolution which is before us, and1 in suggesting that it might go further and be adopted as a permanent policy. As civilization advances and as we more and more, in our industry, adopt mechanical contrivances of an intricate character, the need for special training to be given to the men and women who are to operate such machinery and carry on the industries making use of it becomes increasingly important. I might
Technical Education Act

suggest, also, that there is perhaps no work which is more truly Canadian in its scope. It is true that part of the responsibility for such training rests with the provinces; but it is my opinion, and long has been, that it is more incumbent, in the very nature of things, upon the federal government than upon the provinces themselves; for the lines which separate one province from another are purely imaginary, and the boys and girls trained in one province may possibly-nay probably-find employment in other parts of the country. That is the reason, or one of the reasons, why we urge that this policy of assisting in technical education be extended and made permanent, and that it shall not take merely the form of temporary grants.
No money has been better spent and no action of the government has been more highly appreciated than in respect to this very work. As has been said, this is work which is not only non-partisan in character but is very widespread in its application. I have had the pleasure of meeting in different ranks of life and in different forms of industry some of the young men who have gone through the technical schools and have had the opportunity of obtaining technical instruction. I believe that if this opportunity were afforded more of our young people it would go some distance at least in solving the problem of unemployment, because after all unemployment is mainly found among those people who have had no training for any special work and who show no aptitude for the more intricate forms of labour.
Then there is another matter. More and more we are finding that there is not only keen competition within the boundaries of our own country, under which the efficient win out while the inefficient are trampled down, but there is competition between the different countries themselves and in the long run, in my opinion that country which will wisely train the young men and women who will do the work of the morrow and fit them for the battle of life will succeed in this international competition in which we are always engaged.
I have no intention of taking up more of the time of the house, but I would like very much to see this principle extended and this resolution offered in such a form, either now or in the near future, that we might look forward to a continual and an increasing opportunity being given to our young people all over Canada to fit themselves for a proper place in the industrial life of what we hope will be one of the strongest and finest industrial countries as well as the finest agricultural country in the world.
[Mr. Speakman.J


Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: I wish to contribute just a few sentences to discussion of this subject which I think interests all thoughful members of the house, and that means all members. On a number of occasions, both last year and this year, this question has been brought to my attention by the board of education of my city, which is one of the large labour centres among the smaller cities of western 'Ontario. The board of education is very anxious to see the Technical Education Act continued as it has been up to the present. Last year when the matter was up I put a number of questions to the Prime Minister and drew the conclusion from his answers that the government had decided positively not to renew that act. I believe that was the attitude of the government last year, but without any desire to do other than good to the people who profit by this, if the government carry this resolution to-day later in the session I would like to see them bring in a further resolution with the intention of carrying on this assistance as it has been carried on in the past.
One of the reasons why, before the war, the German nation was so successful in gaining supremacy in so many lines of endeavour was that it went deeply into research work; they trained their workmen and their trade commissioners and others to meet their needs. Largely beoause of that and, in my opinion, because of their fiscal system, they were rapidly becoming the leading industrial country of the world, and were foremost in a number of lines of endeavour. So I wish to put myself strongly on record as ready to support the government in any effort they may make to carry on this technical education assistance as it has been carried on in the past.


Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: I rise to support the very able presentation of the case by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). I do not know of any question before parliament to-day which is of more concern to the rank and file of the people of British Columbia than the possibility of losing this aid to technical education Most of us have received resolutions from different public bodies such as the Local Council of Women, parents' and teachers' associations, the Young Mens' Christian Association, Lions clubs, school boards and other organizations asking that this aid be continued, and I observed that the legislative program of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada strongly emphasized the need for the continuation of this aid to technical education.
I am not sure that I caught exactly what the Minister of Labour meant when he pre-

Technical Education Act'
sented his ease this afternoon, but I understood him to say that at the conference of premiers some sort of tentative understanding was reached whereby the different provinces would forego their request for this aid in return for some adjustment of the provincial subsidies. I would like to ask the minister if that is a correct understanding of what he said.


Peter Heenan: It was made quite clear
by the representatives of the provinces that they did not want any further grants which required federal supervision; they desired that any assistance should be given by way of a general subsidy.


Leon Johnson Ladner: This is an important question; did that apply to all the provinces?


Peter Heenan: That was the general feeling of the conference.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The feeling was that they wanted the subsidies supplemented to the extent of these grants for technical education, which would cease at the expiration of this period?


Peter Heenan: No.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Then I want to urge upon the government the fact that this grant is of such far-reaching importance to the youth of this country that the government could not take a wiser step than to ear-mark that grant for technical education, for which it has been given during the last ten years. It is not going to do technical education any good to make some arrangement or understanding with the premiers of the provinces that you are going to increase their subsidies and allow them to do what they wish with the money instead of ear-marking it for technical education, and I think if any such idea exists it should not be allowed to continue.
I want to emphasize to the Prime Minister and the government the good effect of this grant as far as the provinces are concerned; I want to urge the need for it at present, and I believe that unless some sort of parental control is exercised by this government this grant may never find its way to the support of technical education. Public interest in this matter is extensive, its importance to the country is clear, but the resolution in its present form would indicate that a certain balance of this money is to be available during the next five years. Would the minister tell us how much that balance is and what portion of it will be received by British Columbia?


Peter Heenan: I will be glad to give all that information when the bill is before the house; I would prefer to do so then.


Mr LADNER:: That is quite agreeable.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is not often that I
have the privilege of agreeing with practically every word spoken from the other side of the house, but in this instance I think I can say that I am in entire accord with practically every expression of opinion given in the house this afternoon with regard to the importance of industrial and technical education and the great service rendered to this country by the institutions which have been established for that purpose. The government is not in disagreement with hon. gentlemen opposite as to the importance of industrial training and technical education. Our only difference is that we believe the time has come when the provinces themselves should carry on the obligation which they undertook at the time the grants of the federal government were originally made to them. While technical education is to be fostered and maintained and developed, it should from now on, we believe, be fostered and maintained and developed by the provinces themselves. The government has been liberal in the assistance given the provinces from the federal treasury to aid in the introduction o>f these schools and in obtaining the necessaiy personnel for teaching purposes, and in that particular the obligation the Dominion undertook at the outset has been completely fulfilled.
I believe I have followed the development of industrial training and technical education in Canada as carefully as any hon. member of this house. As minister of labour some years ago, it was my privilege to ask this house to appoint a royal commission to study industrial training and technical education and to gather data on the subject which could be placed at the disposal of the provinces. I remember there was a great deal of opposition at that time even to that simple request. The opposition was based on the ground that the federal parliament had nothing to do with the subject of education, that under the British North America Act education was a matter which belonged exclusively to the provinces. In reply to that contention the government of the day stated that they did not propose to have the federal government become responsible for education, technical or otherwise, but that what they desired to do was to gather through one agency the data which would be helpful to the provinces

Technical Education Act

in the subsequent development of an industrial training and technical educational system. It was felt that the federal government, through the Department of Labour, might appoint a commission which would visit not only the different provinces of Canada and ascertain the needs for technical education but visit Europe also and report upon the systems of technical education in operation there, and that the information thus gathered might then be placed at the disposal of all the provinces. It was clearly on that understanding that the commission on industrial training was appointed. There was no thought at the outset that the federal government would be called upon to go further than simply to supply the information to the provinces which would enable them to develop their educational systems along lines of industrial training and technical education.
In the report presented by this commission, attention was drawn to the fact that at that time there were no duly qualified teachers for schools of industrial training and technical education, that it would take some little time to train a corps of teachers. It was also stated that there were no buildings in which the work of technical education could be carried on, that the provinces would be put to the expense of building technical schools, equipping them, and training teachers to carry on that all-important work. An appeal was made to the federal government to assist the provinces by a grant for a limited number of years, a grant which would enable a personnel of teachers to be brought into being during the time the provinces were establishing the schools and securing the necessary equipment.
That was the basis on which the Dominion undertook to give assistance to the provinces for a series of years, and it was never contemplated that that assistance was to run on indefinitely. If it had been, this would have been made very clear at the time. I would point out that if such were the intention this parliament might as well say at once that it is going to take over education. Is it the duty of the federal parliament to enter the field of education, whether education be elementary, primary or secondary, or scientific, or is it the duty of the provinces? I do not think there is any doubt about its being perfectly clear, under our constitution, that it was intended the provinces should undertake the work of education.
Education does not mean simply teaching on the old lines of the public and high schools; it means teaching in accordance with the ever-developing range of knowledge and

the needs of communities and their interests. The work of education to-day has an emphasis on the industrial and technical side such as it has never had heretofore, and the provinces should be meeting that particular need. I believe they are meeting it very successfully, but up to the present they have been meeting it in part with the assistance of this parliament.
I wish to draw the attention of this house particularly to one fact. When it was recommended in the report of the technical education commission that grants be made, there were not the obligations on the federal treasury which have been imposed upon it since. The report was made prior to the war and since that time there has been an increase in the public debt of Canada of over $2,000,000,000. The annual interest payment amounts to $125,000,000, which is equal to what it took to carry on the whole business of the government of Canada at the time Sir Wilfrid Laurier came into office. This obligation has come during the intervening years, and it is not an obligation that is shared in any way by the provinces of Canada; it falls exclusively and entirely upon this federal government. Had that obligation been apparent at the time the commission made its report, I doubt very much if there would have been a recommendation to this parliament further to assist the provinces in the work of technical education. But in addition to that, there are other obligations which we have assumed and which the provinces have not assumed at all. We have assumed the obligation of pensions payable, first of all, to men who have returned from overseas disabled, and to the dependent relatives of those who fell. The Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establiShment was brought into being to carry out the work of re-establishment. This department has now been changed to a department of pensions and health. There is an annual war pension bill amounting to many millions of dollars, which is an obligation this parliament did not have at the time it undertook to assist the provinces in the matter of technical education. The provinces have not assumed any part of that obligation; they have not assumed an additional dollar's burden as a result of the war.
We have not only undertaken the payment of war p^isions in an ever-increasing amount, but we have undertaken to assist the provinces in another field, a field related to industry-namely old age pensions. We are making to the provinces for old age pensions large grants from the federal treasury, which grants will be increasing from year to

Technical Education Act
year. They were not even contemplated at the time the bill was passed giving to the provinces for a period of ten years, grants for industrial training and technical education.


Robert James Manion: If technical education were properly carried out it would lessen the old age pensions we would have to pay in later years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let us hope the provinces will see that it does.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend is arguing to this parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would suggest to the hon. gentlemen opposite that they would be employing their time in argument to better advantage by making to the governments in their own provinces, the speeches they have been making here.
May I continue? Within the last two or three years we have been reconsidering the position of some of the provinces of the Dominion. We have increased the federal grant to at least three of the .provinces. The maritime provinces have received increased subsidies, which were not contemplated at the time financial aid was given to the provinces for the purpose of industrial training and technical education. We are to-day contemplating assisting other provinces in a material way, a way which they believe will help them financially. If it helps them financially it will be placing the Dominion in a relatively less favourable position with respect to its finances. We are considering the transfer to the western provinces of their natural resources. We are considering the transfer to British. Columbia of lands in the railway belt and Peace River block. The federal government is giving up some of the assets, so to speak, or sources of revenue which it has at the present time, turning them over to the provinces so that they may ad' minister those resources to their own greater benefit. I mention these matters because they indicate the reason why the government does not contemplate further aid on the score of technical education to the provinces. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) has understood the position quite clearly for the last year or two, and hon. gentlemen opposite have fully understood the government's intentions. We feel that our obligations, in many particulars, have vastly increased and are increasing, and that we must now consider whether some of the grants that have been given to the provinces should not be discontinued, in view of the larger obligations which the Dominion has to meet 78594-114
and in view also of the fact that the provinces themselves have not 'had these extra obligations thrown upon them.
Let me add another point which is of importance. The subject of industrial training and technical education is bound up with the subject of scientific and industrial research. We recognize as regards the work of education that it must be carried on in each of the provinces, but as regards research work it would probably be placing the provinces at a considerable disadvantage to expect each province to undertake the obligation of establishing research laboratories with the necessary equipment therefor. The Dominion therefore is undertaking to construct and equip scientific and industrial research laboratories. That work is going to cost the Dominion very much more than the amounts which we have been paying to the provinces in aid of industrial training and technical education. It is going to mean a very considerable increase in federal expenditures, but it is an expenditure from which the provinces will benefit just as much as the Dominion. That is an additional reason why we have thought that as this grant was originally made to enable the provinces to get on their feet, so to speak, in this important work, and knowing, as we do, that not only are they on their feet but indeed that they are very well able to carry on the obligation they assumed at the outset, the time has now come when they should show their appreciation of what has been done, not by asking for more but by continuing to do what they said they would do if they were given the temporary aid.


Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVICH (Vegre-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I fyad a few remarks to make with regard to this technical education grant, but I am going to change my remarks to conform with the remarks made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). To me, notwithstanding what has been said1 about this technical education grant, it is a shame that after all the work that this commission set up in 1910 has done, this grant should be discontinued. I understand this commission held about 1,400 meetings in Canada; they visited many parts of Europe; they spent about three years investigating the question of technical education, at a -cost of about $100,000. In view of this fact it seems a shame that the technical education grant should be discontinued.
I gather from the remarks of the Minister of Labour that the reason for the discon-
Technical Education Act

tinuance of the grant was that the various provinces did not want any tag attached to it. I do not know what the Minister of Labour had in mind when he made that remark. I wonder whether he thinks that the grant to the provinces would mean an infringement upon provincial rights? The idea in the mind of the Minister of Labour seems to be one of economy; and if his plea is made on that basis, I would say to him that it is the falsest kind of economy. I do not think we can economize by taking away from the young people of Canada the education that is their due. I have always been of the opinion that there is something very fallacious about our educational system in Canada; we have two many square pegs in round holes. Technical education is the thing we need in this country which some day will become a great industrial nation. Theodore Roosevelt saw this very clearly in the United States, and he was cue of the greatest advocates of technical education.
It has been said that this grant would be an infringment upon provincial rights.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Michael Luchkovich: In the United States I understand there is an agreement between the federal government and the various state governments whereby they both donate certain sums of money for technical education. This agreement is known as the Smith-Hughes bill, which was passed in the federal house in 1917. I see no reason why we cannot have a similar agreement. Their grant is about the same as ours in Canada, with this difference; that they have not, as we have in this country, definite dates on which the assistance shall terminate. I was very much interested in the remark made by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) that the great prestige of Germany has been due to the interest taken in technical education by the German government. I heartily concur in that remark. I have in my hand a statement with regard to technical education in Germany. At the present moment I do not know who the author is, but I think hon. members present will be interested in it. It reads:
This progressive country also provides splendid technical colleges for the training of engineers, commercial universities for the preparation of men who shall direct the business and industry of the empire, navigation schools, mining schools, industrial art schools, leather schools, textile schools, etc. There is some sort of education offered for every kind of human activity and every grade of worker. The older traditional education is not slighted and generous provision is made for classical education in public schools and universities. [Mr. Luckkovich.J
There is an absolute faith among all the people in the power for good education and everywhere honour is accorded to any kind of trained man commensurate with this degree of learning. Is it any wonder that Germany has forged to the forefront of civilized nations in the last thirty or forty years? In 1876 the manufactures, the inventions and the foreign commerce of the separate states were far below those of England and France. To-day, United Germany stands in the forefront rank of the nations of the world in industrial production and she clearly leads all the nations in the application of science to the industry and to the arts. Her position is all the more remarkable because this result has been achieved in a country in which [DOT]he agricultural and mineral resources are not
eat and in the face of the burdens, due to long and costly wars, to maintenance of a great army and to the draining of a large part of its population through emigration. The Germans themselves are proud to proclaim that the greatest single instrument in accomplishing their wonderful industrial growth has been technical education.
A few years ago, a number of prominent German manufacturers, educationists and public men, made an extensive tour in the United States with the idea of finding out how serious a competition the latter nation might prove in the future struggle for world trade. Their consensus of opinion was that the United States possessed greater natural resources, a superior factory system, workmen of greater energy, industry and mechanical skill and cheaper railway transportation. Notwithstanding all these advantages, the German experts thought even the existing grip of America on international trade would tend to weaken. They commented on the absence of any adequate system of special education for commerce, banking or foreign trade in the United States. The meagreness of technical education, the trifling annual contingent of chemists, engineers, trained foremen, educated dyers, weavers, electricians and mechanics, as compared with the throng of lawyers, physicians, dentists and unspecialized graduates of colleges seemed shortsighted and improvident. The foreign investigators concluded that on the whole the "American danger" had been greatly exaggerated and that a steadfast adherence by Germany to the technical educational policy and commercial method now in practice will leave the fatherland little to fear in future competition with American manufactured goods.


Charles Avery Dunning: Would my hon. friend
tell me the authority he is quoting?


Michael Luchkovich: As I said just a
while ago, I am unable at the moment to give the naime of the author of this statement, but I can do so later. I think it will be found in Hansard of 1919. In view of this statement, Mr. Speaker; in view of the fact that Germany has become great largely through her system of technical education, and that the United States spends one billion dollars on education alone, I can heartly agree with what the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr Stevens) has said with respect to the continuance of this grant for another ten years.

Technical Education Act:
I do not know whether he mentioned a specific period, but I would certainly like to see this grant continued, not only for ten years, but indefinitely. I believe that the chief aim of any government should be the greatest happiness of the greatest numlber of its people, and I believe that technical education will bring us to that happy state in Canada, namely, the greatest happiness of the greatest number, because there is no doubt- in my mind that the greatest number of the young people of this country will take up subjects of a technical character. We spend about $20,000,000 a year on military enterprise and I therefore see no reason why we cannot spend two or three million dollars a year on technical
education.
Mr. J, C. BRADY (Skeena): I should like to say just a few words on this resolution. Alreadj' we have more or less agreement on the fact that technical education is of high value. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself agreed with what has been said on that point by those who have already spoken. I am sure that the members of this house must have been considerably enlightened by tlhe resume which the Prime Minister gave of the history of assistance towards technical education. I bow to his knowledge, because he has particular knowlege regarding that matter. I am sorry, however, that the Prime Minister has failed to emphasize the fact that the most pressing need in Canada to-day is the providing of technical education for the youth of this country. I happened a few moments ago to look at the classification of the various products which we export, and I find that while our exports of agriculture and its subsidiary industries, of lumber, wood and pulp, bring us in immense returns, iron and its products, on the other hand, non-ferrous metals and nonmetallic, instead of being an asset to Canada represent a very considerable deficit. In other words, the great primary industries upon which Canada later on will have to depend are being neglected. These are facts which are undeniable.
We cannot at this time take a retrograde step and agree with the Prime Minister that each province is now capable of looking after the technical education of its own youth. Furthermore, I do not think anyone can agree with the statement that was made that it is not the duty of the federal government to participate in any form of education, whether it be academic, scientific or any other form. That is not in accord with the history of
education in the older countries of Europe and in the younger countries of the new world.
I may have an opportunity to speak later, but I wish to say now that the technical education of the youth of this country is paramount to every other necessity facing us to-day. Is it not a fact that in our high schools and colleges we have not more than 20 per cent of the school-age population of Canada? Where is the other 80 per cent? The other 80 per cent comprises within its ranks, and has comprised in the past, those who have moulded the history of this country, the men who toil and moil, who become our miners, for instance, the people who are the backbone of all development. These young people are not receiving the technical education to which they are entitled.
We have heard a very great deal, and we shall hear more, about the prosperity of Canada. We have prosperity in varying forms, but I think I am voicing the honest opinion of every right-thinking man and woman in this country when I say that it would be a retrograde step if this appropriation were diminished by one tittle. What is happening in connection with thousands of our boys? The facts are easy to see. We find that about eighty per cent of our school children do not receive an academic training, and that consequently these should be made to fit in with our industrial life. I do not believe that any province has a greater future in mining and engineering projects than British Columbia, and undoubtedly technical education in that province has been responsible in great measure for the increased activity in mining and engineering work throughout the whole country.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I trust that no matter what arguments may be advanced to the contrary, at least this one appropriation, which is of paramount importance, will be continued for the furtherance of technical education in Canada. This is essential in the interests of our boys and girls, as well as of the development of our great basic industries.


Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: Mr. Speaker, while I recognize the force of the statements made by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), that the provinces have no legal claims upon the Dominion government, and have been treated handsomely, yet I must associate myself with the appeal which has been made for a continuance of federal support in regard to technical education. Therefore I hope the government will take into serious consideration- not treating this as a political platitude-
Technical Education Act:

a continuance of the grants in aid of technical education. I am glad that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) said that this is a non-party question, and I hope it will not be made a party question. I wish a good many other questions in this house were discussed on their merits ratiher than from a partisan standpoint.
As an instance of the necessity of continuing the technical education grant, I may cite the technical school in the city of Calgary. It is in a rather precarious financial condition. I talked to Doctor Carpenter on the subject last year about the time I took it up with the Minister of Labour. I know if the grant were extended for a number of years it would enable that school to get on its feet, and no doubt this would apply to many other technical schools. I am not going into the question of technical education; this is not the time for such a discussion, but I should like to be informed by the Minister of Labour (Mr Heenian) what is the exact meaning of the resolution. It provides that any unexpended balance of the ten million dollars shall remain available for distribution. I am subject to correction, but I understand that a number of the provinces have already received their full share of this grant. Now, is the unexpended balance to be divided among all the provinces, including those that have already had their full share; or is the distribution to be confined to those provinces which have not yet received their full share?


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, although a
number of members have spoken in favour of this resolution, I should not like to let this opportunity go by without urging that not only should this grant be extended, but that the policy of granting assistance by the Dominion government to technical education should be adopted. The labour organizations across the country are most heartily in favour of action of this kind. In fact I can hardly understand the attitude of the government in bringing to a sudden close an experiment which has proved so eminently successful. Those engaged in industry and agriculture as well as educationalists and the general public are in favour of technical education. It seems to me that if the men in control of big industry have at all considered the modern industrial situation they ought to be holding up both hands in favour of this kind of thing.
I am afraid that the British North America Act may be the death of us. It is invoked almost daily in this house as an excuse for inactivity by the federal government. It is

quite true that, technically, the provinces have jurisdiction over education, but I submit that an altogether different situation exists to-day from that which existed in this country sixty years ago. At that time education consisted very largely in teaching the three R's to the children in the little local scboohiouses. No one will say that that situation any longer exists. We have passed from being a merely agricultural community to a community in which technical training becomes absolutely necessary to success. Not only in those lines which are generally distinguished as industrial, but in agriculture itself the highest form of technical training is essential. We must recognize that the resources of the provinces have not increased as rapidly as the new responsibilities. In the earlier days the program of education did not involve any considerable outlay.
Some years ago I had the opportunity of serving on a commission on technical education appointed by the government of my own province. In that connection I could not but be impressed by two or three things that in fact have remained with me through the years. One was that our boys and girls had very little opportunity of qualifying for any of the more highly skilled and more remunerative positions in Canada. Nearly all our skilled craftsmen are imported, chiefly from England and Scotland, some from the continent of Europe. We Canadians are settling down to be hewers of wood and drawers of water, or we are going into business and professional life; certainly we are not contributing any very large number of people to the skilled trades. I do not think that is a satisfactory condition of affairs. I should like to see our workers in the very forefront of modern industry.
We should remember that the old apprentice system is a thing of the past, and so our boys have no chance, except in very occasional industries, of serving apprenticeship in the old way. As a result thousands are graduated from our schools to go into what have been termed blind alley occupations.
Our investigations brought another thing home to me-that Canada was lagging far behind in the educational developments which are taking place in Europe and in most of the American states. After touring some of the states and seeing the splendid technical institutions established there, I must confess that when we returned to Canada-I think for the first time in my life I felt ashamed of my own country; we were so many years behind the stage of advancement in many other places. Why should

Technical Education Act
Canada be behind in these things? I take it that we are in the forefront along certain lines. We boast of our progress, but why cannot our progress be uniform? Why cannot we excel in some of these matters which are so eminently important? It may seem to some that we are spending an undue time in the house discussing this question, but we spent parts of three days discussing whether or not we should have titles in Canada. There seems to be an indifference, however, when we come to discuss matters that are of vital importance to the future of 'the country.
I take it no one suggests that it is impossible for the Dominion government to assist the provinces in carrying on their educational activities. It is quite open to the Dominion to make grants along the line that has been followed in the past. Such grants have been welcomed by the provinces. The question is rather one of allocation of responsibility. The policy to be decided is, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) indicated: Should the Dominion government pay for work of this character? He suggests that the Dominion is already overloaded. I believe, however, that a careful study of the situation will show that a great many of the services in the country are being carried on to-day by the provinces. It is quite true that the federal administration carries a very heavy debt incurred through the war; but I do not think that the Prime Minister is correct when he says that the provinces have not shouldered one extra dollar of the burden due to the war. Anyone familiar with the upkeep of the hospitals, for example, will recognize that there are enormous burdens laid upon the provinces by the war.
Let us take other matters that are initiated by the Dominion government; take for instance the question of immigration. We bring in tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of immigrants. It is true that the Dominion government spend a good deal in order to get the immigrants here; but the amount they spend getting the immigrants here is nothing to the amount the provinces have to spend in educating them and their children after their arrival. Members resident in the east can hardly realize the extent of the burden that must be carried by the western provinces in educating the children of newly arrived immigrants, the burden entailed in the special types of education which must be provided for them. All that burden is thrown upon the provinces. Or again, we have a Department of Health here; but the greater part of the burden of taking care of the health of immigrants devolves upon the
provinces. I do not see any reason why it should be so. It may be true, again though this is not altogether certain that technically, under the British North America Act, the matter of health may have been left to the local communities; but the framers of our constitution did not contemplate the introduction of hundreds of thousands of new citizens into the country, and their being left to be cared for Ideally. The same is true with regard to charity and the care of the unemployed, and all that sort of thing. Technically, charity may fall within the purview of the provinces; but the vast extent to which some of our provinces have helped the unemployed in these present days is an altogether different matter from what was contemplated by those who originally drew up the provisions of the British North America Act. Our provinces are carrying a tremendously heavy load. How do they meet this responsibility? The Dominion has larger revenues at its disposal; and, more than that, the Dominion has it in its power, through indirect taxation, to levy taxes in a way which is not possible for the provinces. And it is through this indirect taxation that we derive the greater part of our revenues to-day. I would suggest, therefore, that since the Dominion government is such a large producer of revenue it is quite right that the provinces should1 be able to secure a very considerable proportion of that revenue for purposes of this kind, which are not merely local but essentially national in character.
I do not propose to inquire as to what was the original purpose when this grant was made ten years ago. I do not think we ought to go back and ask what was in the mmds of those who were willing at that time to assist technical education. I take it that during the past ten years we all ought to have learned a great deal more about the importance to the country of technical education, and whatever might have been thought originally, ten years ago, to-day it is incumbent upon this parliament to take the larger view of such matters as this. I hope the government will reconsider its whole policy in this regard, recognizing that side by side with the grants to research work there should be large grants for the training of the men who, we hope, will be able to carry on industry successfully with the information which may come to us from the research bureau.


Mr. R. K. SMITH (Cumberland):: What I have to say touching this resolution will occupy but a few minutes. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) stated that,
Technical Education Act

in the increased subsidy, there had been a measure of generosity on the part of this government towards the maritime provinces. That is quite true and it is greatly appreciated in the maritime provinces. I believe the Prime Minister was basing his statement on the assumption that, by reason of the increase in the subsidy, we might be able to continue perhaps better in the future than we had managed in the past certain services with which, under the British North America Act, the provinces are encumbered. As I understand the report of the Duncan commission with reference to this question, the increased subsidies to the maritime provinces were granted for the purpose of carrying on the ordinary administrative work of those three governments. I believe Sir Andrew Rae Duncan and the commissioners made that quite clear. It was not for any extra services but merely to meet the acute financial situation in the provinces in the matter of ordinary administration. That is why the recommendation was made with respect to increased subsidies.
Another matter which has been touched upon slightly by my hon. friend who has just spoken (Mr. Woodswonth) is this: at the time of confederation certain services were allotted to the provinces and others to the federal government. Those services which unfortunately were allocated to the local governments, such as public health, education and highways, have increased tremendously in cost since that time. Moreover, it was little thought at the time of confederation that the highways, for instance, of the provinces would involve the tremendous expense they do to-day. In Nova Scotia over half of the total revenue of the province goes towards the upkeep of highways. Who ever dreamed at the time of confederation that public health would require the colossal expenditures that are necessary to maintain that branch of the public service up to the proper modern standard called for to-day? The same applies not only to technical education but to all other forms of education. It seems that the elastic sources of revenue were placed at the disposal of the federal government-sources such as the sales tax, the income tax, customs, excise tax and many others-while the inelastic sources were left to the local governments. The federal government has the opportunity to extend the sources of its revenue, but the local governments are not in that happy position.
It has been advocated by many in the maritime provinces, particularly in Nova Scotia, that this government should continue its grants to technical education, and I am 
in hopes that after this discussion the government will see fit not only to continue these grants but to increase them. That would be a much more popular and generous way of dealing with the problem. At least the grants should be continued indefinitely, until it is discovered by this parliament that the provinces are able to look after this highly important work without crippling their already limited income.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not propose to trespass
at any great length upon the time of the house, but when I recall that a former Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, made the motion he did make with respect to technical education, in which he was supported by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) who sits with me; that the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) moved the adjournment of the debate, as perhaps he will recall, and subsequently appointed a commission in his capacity as Minister of Labour; that on the strength of the report of that commission a grant was made in 1919, immediately after the war, of the sum of
810.000.	000, payable at first to the extent of less than $1,000,000 yearly and increasing to
81.100.000,	it is rather difficult for me to understand an argument based upon the British North America Act showing why this Dominion is prevented from granting assistance to technical education.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is not correct in saying that I urged the
British North America Act as a reason why the government should not grant any sum of money they desired to the provinces. I did not question that at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend say that scientific knowledge is not of service to the masses of the people?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not say any such thing, but he did say that technical education assists the masses of the people and that industrial research belongs to the aristocrats of learning; those who have had university education and who are capable of carrying on industrial research work.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend call Doctor Banting an aristocrat?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is a medical man and the graduate of a university. I referred to aristocrats of learning, men who had university degrees, while the men who will be benefited by this grant are the young men coming from the schools, as they come in Calgary and other places I have seen in various parts of this country, where they are learning just what they used to learn in the old days as apprentices in machine shops and such places. There they become familiar with the operation of machinery; they learn about lathes; they take up other kinds of technical work which belong to the work of the ordinary young man who goes out as a machinist, a mechanic, a carpenter or what not, to make his living in that branch of human activity.
Industrial research is just as much a matter of education as technical education; industrial research means men trained in universities and schools of learning. And what are we doing in Canada with respect to industrial research? In the province of Ontario you will find millions of dollars being provided by private individuals and by the taxpayers for this work, and as far as that province is concerned we are simply duplicating that effort. No attempt is made to correlate the activities in industrial research with respect to the provincial departments of education and their universities. The Prime Minister said he was wholly in accord and deeply in sympathy with the observations made with respect to technical education, but I venture to say that if this house, with the whips removed, were to vote on the question whether
or not this grant should be continued, if we voted as ordinary Canadians representing Canadian constituencies, there would not be ten
votes cast in opposition to the continuance of this grant.
We are told that we cannot afford it. I will save it; I will save one-quarter of it in the amount spent on automobiles used by ministers in this city last year. Look at the public accounts; we spend about $2,000,000 a year in the education of Indians. Do you mean to tell me that when we can find that money we cannot find $1,100,000 for the technical education of the young men and young women of this country? Do you mean to tell me that with revenues exceeding $400,000,000 you cannot find $1,100,000 for the technical education of the young people of Canada? That is absurd.
Then you tell me you have increased the grants to the provinces. Of course you have. Last year we took $152,000,000 from the people of Canada, in customs revenues alone, and the contribution that we have made in the way of financial compensations and adjustments to the provinces by reason of that fact is not out of proportion to tire increased revenues which have been occasioned by the customs tariffs since confederation. Everyone knows that. I say this is not a question of economy; it is the worst kind of economy to cut down this grant, because you are lessening the power of the young men and women of this country to produce new wealth; moreover you are increasing the incentive for them to leave the country to obtain the technical education which is denied them here. Further, it is apparent to every thoughtful man that the provinces cannot carry this burden.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Why?


Richard Bedford Bennett: For the simple reason
that they are carrying such a burden with respect to highways, the development of agricultural resources, the increased cost of government, the maintenance of their universities and so on that unless they have some support of this kind they cannot carry on this work.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: Surely my hon friend does not want to tell the house that all the provinces are in such a condition that they cannot look after this work?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wonder if the hon.
gentleman has looked at the act? The provinces are required to provide proper buildings; they have done so and in many cases borrowed the necessary money. A limited part of that grant is made available for the purposes of the buildings, but having done this
Technical Education Act

for a period of ten years they are suddenly confronted with the shutting off of that grant,
which amounted to $10,000 for each before the question of population arose at all. The smallest province received $10,000 just as the largest province received $10,000; up to that amount there was equality as far as the grant was concerned, and then the balance was adjusted according to the population as shown by the last census. That enabled every province to make some provision with respect to this work. In the maritime provinces, certainly, from information I received during the period I was there last year, I gathered that if they had to carry the burden placed upon them with respect to old age pensions, which, mark you, was not of their own seeking in the first instance but was placed upon them by this federal government before they could get any grant from the federal treasury, the amount in one case will reach several million dollars. The demands for money for highway services are so great that they are unable to maintain that service adequately unless they receive increased grants. The increased subsidies that have been granted, even if they were ample to enable them to maintain the ordinary services, are not sufficient to enable them to carry on this particular service without depriving other services of necessary revenue.
I think my hon. friend from Saskatoon will realize how difficult it has been to balance the budgets of the provinces, even the richest and most powerful. Recourse has been had to the profits derived from the sale of strong drink in order to balance the budget in many instances. In fact I find that matter is plainly stated in many of the provinces I have visited during the last twelve months. Is it impossible for us, as members of parliament, to find ways and means to provide $1,100,000 for technical education?
I would suggest to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Finance that instead of arriving at the definite conclusion that this will not be provided, they take the will of parliament regardless of party, for it is not a party question. Let the will of the majority of this parliament determine whether or not we shall continue to pay that grant. If that is done I am satisfied this house will make provision for the payment for another ten years of this $1,100,000 for technical education. This work has accomplished much, and if we are able to provide the money I am sure it will be of incalculable benefit.
I could go into this matter at much greater length, but I do not think it is necessary to

do so. My only suggestion is that instead of closing the door we permit the will of this house to determine the question regardless of any other consideration but the public interest in the development of technically trained men to take their place as future citizens of this country.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division, and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Robert Gardiner: Would the minister advise what provinces will derive benefit from this extension?


Peter Heenan: The act provides that unless the Minister of Labour approves, the unexpended portion at the end of each fiscal year would lapse extcept 25 per cent of the amount. There has now lapsed $1,140,174.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Sague-nay, for Sir Eugene Fiset) moved the second reading of Bill No. 16, respecting the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada.
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwiin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish first of all to rise to a point of order in respect to this bill. There exists to-day an organization known as the Policyholders' Association which has entered legal action in accordance with the provisions of the Insurance Act against the Sun Life Assurance Company. The provision of the Insurance Act under which action is being taken reads:
Any suit, action or proceedings deemed necessary in the interest of the policyholders of any company licensed under this act, or of any class of such policyholders, may, with the consent of the superintendent, be instituted in any court of competent jurisdiction on behalf of such policyholders, by the Attorney General of Canada, against the company or the directors, trustees or other officers thereof, and any judgment recovered in any such suit, action or proceeding whether for an accounting or for any sum of money, shall enure and be applied for the benefit of such policyholders, or class thereof.
In pursuance of this provision of the act the policyholders have made a request of the

Private Bills
Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that he permit court action against the insurance company on the ground that-


Hewitt Bostock: Will the hon. gentleman allow me? I do not see the point of order in the objection raised. It might be a good objection to set up against the bill on its merits when it is in committee or on the third reading.


William Irvine: If you will permit me, sir, for one more minute, you will see at any rate what I am calling a point of order. The Minister of Justice has been asked to permit legal action to be taken on the ground that the company has used improper devices to take from the policyholders certain funds which belong to them and to transfer them to the shareholders. The bill before the house makes provision for just such a thing as that and on that ground I say that if this matter is before the court we ought to allow the bill to stand until such time as the court has taken action on the matter. If the Minister of Justice has not replied to the association then we ought to hold over the bill until he has. If he has refused court action, of course I presume we may go ahead with the bill, but if he has granted court action I contend that in the meantime we have no right to proceed.


Hewitt Bostock: I do not think the point of order can stand. First of all, there is before the house or on the order paper nothing to establish the fact that an action is pending, and therefore I am not and the house is not in a position to know this is a bona fide case. The objection can well be taken up when the question arises as to the merits of the bill before the committee to which it is referred but at the present time I do not see the point of order.


William Irvine: I presume the bill is going to the committee on banking and commerce?


Hewitt Bostock: Yes.


William Irvine: And we shall have an opportunity of discussing it there.


Hewitt Bostock: That will be the proper place to raise the objection, which might be a serious one.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the second time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PAUL MERCIER (St. Henri) moved the second reading of Bill No. 18, to incorporate Canadian Re-Insurance Corporation.
George Gibson Coote: Would the mover of the bill give the house some explanation of it?


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: The purport of the bill is to incorporate the Canadian Re-Insurance Corporation to do business and make contracts of re-insurance, counter-insurance and insurance of all classes other than life insurance. This bill simply provides for incorporation in accordance with the laws of the Insurance Act of Canada. There are no additional provisions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the second time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PAUL MERCIER (St. Henri) moved the second reading of Bill No. 19, to incorporate the Railway Brotherhood Casualty Insurance Company.
James Alexander Robb: Explain.


Paul Mercier: This organization is seeking authority to do an insurance business in connection with automobiles only. There is no special authority asked for in the bill, to which the Insurance Act will apply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the second time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Sague-nay, for Mr. Guerin) moved the second reading of Bill No. 21, to incorporate the National-Liverpool Insurance Company.
James Alexander Robb: Explain.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I am not in a position to give the details of the bill, but I presume it is along the lines of the other bills which have just received their second readings. When the bill is before the committee the member in charge will be in a position to give all the information that is sought by hon. members.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the second time.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 17, respecting the Quebec Railway Light and Power Company.-Mr. Mercier (St. Henri).
Bill No. 20, respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Bill No. 22, to incorporate Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge Company.!-Mr. Stevens (for Mr. Pettit).
International Peace

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved the third reading of Bill No. 9, to amend the Post Office Act (newspaper ownership) .
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.


Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the senate acquainting this house that the senate have adopted the following resolution:
That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the general treaty of the renunciation of war, which was signed at Paris on the 27th day of August, 1928, on behalf of His Majesty for the Dominion of Canada by the plenipotentiary named therein, and that this house do approve of the same, and requesting the Commons to unite with this house in the approval of the above mentioned treaty.



SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. H. KING (East Kootenay, for the Prime Minister) presented the report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the select standing committees of the house, as follows:
[Stage Direction]
ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS Messieurs:
Beaubien,
Bell (Hamilton),
Bell (St. Antoine), Bennett,
Bird,
Blatchford,
Cannon,
Casgrain,
Clark,
Cotnam,
[Stage Direction]
Edwards (Frontenac-Addington,
Elliott,
Gott,
Gray,
(Quor
Hanson,
Jacobs,
Johnston (Long Lake), Kellner,
Kennedy,
King (KootenayEast), Lapointe,
McPhee,
McQuarrie,
MacDonald (Cape Breton South), Marcil,
Mercier (St. Henri), Ralston,
Rheaume.-29.
urn 10.)
[Stage Direction]
No. 2 ON RAILWAYS. CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES
Messieurs:
Anderson (Toronto-
High Park),
Bell St. Antoine), Bell (St.John),
Bell (Hamilton), Bettez,
Bissett,
Blatchford,

Bothwell,
Bowman,
Cahill,
Cantley,
Casgrain,
Casselman,
Chevrier,
Dubuc,
Dunning,	Macdonald (Kings),
Edwards (Ottawa),	MacLaren,
Edwards (Waterloo	Manion,
South),	Mercier (Laurier-
Esling,	Outremont),
Evans,	Milne,
Fafard,	Morin (St. Hyacinthe),
Fansher (East	Parent,
Lambton),	Pouliot,
Fraser,	Price,
Gardiner,	Ross (Kingston),
Geary,	Ryerson,
Gershaw,	St. Pere,
Heaps,	Sanderson,
Howden,	Seguin,
J ones, Kellner,	Simpson,
	Stewart (Leeds),
Kennedy,	Telford,
Lacroix,	Tobin,
Laflamme,	Totzke,
Lapierre, McIntosh,	Vallanee,
	White (London),
McLean (Melfort),	Young
McNutt, McQuarrie,	(Saskatoon).-60.
(Quorum 20.)
No. 3 MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS	
Messieurs:	
Adshead,	Letellier,
Anderson (Halton)	, Luchkovitch,
Baldwin,	McGregor,
Barber,	McMillan,
Blanchard,	McPherson,
Bock,	Macdonald
Boucher,	(Glengarry),
Bowen,	MacLaren,
Boys,	Maloney,
Brown,	Mercier (Laurier-
Cahan,	Outremont),
Cannon,	Parent,
Chaplin,	Pettit,
Church,	Robitaille,
Denis (St. Denis),	Rutherford,
Deseoteaux,	Sanderson,
Deslauriers,	Seguin, Sinclair (Wellington
Duff,	
Embury,	North),
Fansher (East	Spence,
Lambton),	Stinson,
Fontaine,	Telford,
Glen,	Thompson,
Hall,	Tummon,
Howden,	Verville,
Irvine,	Wilson (Wentworth),
Kay,	Young
Langlois,	(Saskatoon).-51.
(Quorum 15.)

[Stage Direction]
Bell (Hamilton),
Blanchard,
Blatchford,
Brady,
Desaulniers,
Deslauriers,
Ernst,
Evans,
Gershaw,
Gervais,
Grimmer,
Messieurs:
Ladner,
Lavigueur,
McGregor,
McKenzie,
Lawson,
Mercier (St. Henri). Morin (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville), Speakman,
Young
(Weyburn).-20. (Quorum 8.)

Select Standing Committees

[Stage Direction]
(Members to act on the part of the Commons)
Messieurs:
Baldwin,
Bettez,
Bock,
Boulanger,
Bradette,
Charters.
Edwards (Waterloo South),
Embury,
Esling,
Evans,
Foster,
Fraser,
Garland (Bow River),
Girouard,
Gott,
Goulet,
Gray,
Guerin,
Hocken,
Howden,
Hubbs,
Kaiser,
Lacombe,
Lacroix,
Lang,
Lapierre,
Lucas,
McKenzie,
MacLean (Prince), Macdonald (Glengarry), Marcil,
Maloney,
Matthews,
Maybee,
Morrissy,
Peck,
Perras,
Prevost,
Price,
Quinn,
Rennie,
Rinfret,
Roberge,
Rowe,
Ryerson,
St. Pere,
Speakman,
Spencer,
Spotton,
Steedsman,
Sylvestre,
Taylor.
Verville,
White (Mount Royal).-54.
. 6

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs:	
Adshead,	Laflamme,
Arthurs,	Lapierre,
Beaubien,	Lawson,
Bettez,	Lennox,
Black (Yukon),	Lovie,
Bothwell,	McDiarmid.
Campbell,	Malcolm,
Cahan,	Manion,
Cannou,	Odette,
Casselman,	Parent,
Clark,	Peck,
Coote,	Perras,
Donnelly,	Pouliot,
Dubuc,	Power,
Duff,	Ross (Kingston
Edwards (Frontenac-	City),
Addington),	Rutherford.
Ferland,	Ryckman.
Gardiner,	Smith (Stormont),
Girouard,	Smith (Cumberland),
Guerin,	Smoke,
Guthrie,	Taylor.
Hanson,	Telford,
Ilsley,	Thorson,
J acobs,	Tobin,
Kaiser,	White (London).-50,
(Quorum 15.)
[Stage Direction]
ON BANKING AND COMMERCE Messieurs:
Allan,	Bock,
Bennett,	Bothwell,
Benoit,	Brown.
Bird,	Casgrain,
Black (Halifax),	Casselman,
Cayley,	Mercier (St. Henri),
Chaplin,	Odette,
Clark,	Perley (Sir George),
Donnelly,	Raymond,
Ernst,	Robb,
Fafard,	Robinson,
Geary,	Robitaille,
Hanson,	Ross (Moose Jaw),
Harris,	Rutherford,
Hay,	Ryckman,
Hepburn,	Sanderson,
Irvine,	Smith (Stormont),
Jacobs,	Smoke,
Ladner,	Spencer,
Lang,	St* odsman,
McLean (Melfort),	S covens.
McPhee,	Vallance,
McRae,	Ward,
Manion,	Woodsworth,
Matthews,	Young (Weyburn).-50.
(Quorum 15.)	
No. 8	
ON AGRICULTURE	AND COLONIZATION
Messieurs:	
Anderson (Halton),	Howden,
Arthurs,	J acobs,
Auger,	Jones,
Bancroft,	Kay,
Barber,	Lucas,
Benoit,	McGibbon,
Bouchard,	McIntosh,
Boucher,	McKenzie,
Boulanger,	McMillan,
Bowen,	MePhee,
iPown,	McRae,
Campbell,	Maybee,
Carmichael,	Millar,
Cayley,	Morin (Bagot),
Charters,	Motherwell,
Coote,	Plunkett,
Denis (St. Denis),	Ross (Moose Jaw).
Descoteaux,	Rowe,
Desaulniers,	Seguin,
Donnelly,	Senn,
Dubuc,	Sinclair (Queens),
Edwards (Frontenac-	Sinclair (Wellington
Addington),	North),
Fansher (Last-	Spence,
Mountain),	Spotton,
Forke,	Steedsman,
Garland (Carleton),	Stirling,
Garland (Bow River),	, Tummon,
Gervais,	Totzke,
Gott.	Vallance,
Hocken,	Young
Hodgins,	(Saskatoon).-60.
(Quorum 20.)

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs:
Bancroft,	Ernst,
Beaubien,	Fansher (Last
Bissett,	Mountain),
Blanchard,	Grimmer,
Bourgeois,	J enkins.
Brady,	King (Kootenay East),
Cantley,	Luchkovitch,
Cardin,	MacDonald (Cape
Delisle,	Breton South),
Dickie,	Macdonald (Kings),
Dionne,	Macdonald (Richmond-
Duff.	West Cape Breton),
Dussault,	MacLaren,
[Stage Direction]
Select Standing Committees
MacLean (Prince),
McPherson,
McQuarrie,
McRae,
Morrissy,
Neill,
Pouliot,
Quinn,
Short,
Sinclair (Queens), Smith (Stormont), Ward.-35.
(Quorum 10.)
[Stage Direction]
ON MINES, FORESTS AND WATERS Messieurs:
Baldwin,	Jelliff,
Beaubien,	Johnstone (Cape
Bell (St. John-	Breton North-
Albert),	Victoria),
Bissett,	Lapierre,
Black (Yukon),	Letellier,
Blatchford,	McDiarmid,
Boucher,	McLean (Melfort),
Bowman,	Macdonald (Richmond-
Bradette,	West Cape Breton),
Brady,	Macdougall,
Cahill,	Macphail (Miss),
Cowan,	Millar,
Dickie,	Plunkett,
Duff,	Roberge,
Esling,	Robinson,
Gershaw,	Simpson,
Heaps,	Smith (Cumberland),
Howden,	Stewart (Edmonton
Ilsley,	West).-35. (Quorum 10.) No. 11
ON INDUSTRIAL AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Messieurs:	
Bell (St.John-	Macphail (Miss),
Albert),	McGibbon,
Bissett,	McIntosh,
Black (Halifax),	McMillan,
Bourassa,	Malcolm,
Chevrier,	Neill,
Church,	Perley (Sir George),
Cowan,	Plunkett,
Deslauriers,	Prevost,
Ferland,	Rennie,
Gervais,	Ross (Kingston City),
Grimmer,	St. Pere,
Hall,	Stinson,
Heenan,	Thorson,
Howard,	Veniot,
Jenkins,	White (Mount
Johnstone (Cape	Royal),
Breton North-	Woodsworth,
Victoria),	Young (Toronto
Lacroix, Letellier,	Northeast).-36. (Quorum 10.) No. 12
OFFICIAL	REPORT OF DEBATES Messieurs:
Bouchard,	Marcil,
Church,	Millar,
Elliott,	Prevost.
Esling,	Rinfret,
Hocken,	Young
Lacombe, Macdougall,	(Weyburn).-12. (Quorum 7.)

[Stage Direction]
(Members to act on the part of the Commons)
Mr. Speaker and Messieurs:
Auger,	Lacroix,
Bettez,	Langlois,
Bourassa,	Lavigueur,
Bowman,	Lennox,
Carmichael,	McIntosh,
Chevrier,	Marcil,
Cotnam,	Neill,
Descoteaux,	Pouliot,
Dionne,	Prevost,
Edwards (Ottawa),	Quinn,
Fontaine,	Rinfret,
F oster,	Senn,
Fraser,	Short,
Garland (Carleton),	Smoke,
Geary,	Spencer,
Girouard,	St. Pere,
Glen,	Stirling,
Guthrie,	Thompson,
Hepburn,	White (London),
Hodgins,	Young (Toronto
J ones, Kennedy,	Northeast).-43. No. 14
ON THE	RESTAURANT
(Members to act on	the part of the Commons)
Mr. Speaker and Messieurs	
Bancroft,	Howden,
Black (Yukon),	Kay,
Boivin,	Kellner,
Carmichael,	Lang,
Cayley,	Macdougall,
Chevrier,	Ryckman,
Clark,	Senn,
Edwards (Ottawa),	Wilson
Fiset (Sir Eugene), Howard,	(Wentworth).-19.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the lists of members composing the select standing committees of the house under standing order 63 be printed in Hansard.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the select standing committees of the house shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records, with the exception of the committee on debates and that on the library of parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Technical Education Act

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a message be sent to the senate to acquaint their honours that this house will unite with them in the formation of a joint committee of both houses on the subject of the printing of parliament, and that the members of the select standing committee on printing, namely, Messrs. Baldwin, Bettez, Bock, Belanger, Bradette, Charters, Edwards (Waterloo South), Embury, Esling, Evans, Foster, Fraser, Garland (Bow River), Girouard, Gott, Goulet, Gray, Guerin, Hocken, Howden, Hubbs, Kaiser, Lacombe, Lacroix, Lang, Lapierre, Lucas, McKenzie, MacLean (Prince), Macdonald (Glengarry), Marcil, Maloney, Matthews, Maybee, Morrissy, Peck, Perras, Prevost, Price, Quinn, Rennie, Rinfret, Roberge, Rowe, Ryerson, St-Pere, Speakman, Spencer. Spotton. Steedsman, Sylvestre, Taylor, Verville, and White (Mount Royal), will act as members on the part of this house, on the said joint committee on the printing of parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a message be sent to the senate to acquaint their honours that this house has appointed Messrs. Auger, Bettez, Bourassa, Bowman, Carmichael, Chevrier, Cotnam, Descoteaux, Dionne, Edwards (Ottawa), Fontaine, Foster, Fraser, Garland (Carleton), Geary, Girouard. Glen, Guthrie, Hepburn, Hodgins, Jones, Kennedy, Lacroix, Langlois, Lavigueur, Lennox, McIntosh, Marcil, Neill, Pouliot, Prevost, Quinn, Rinfret, Senn, Short, Smoke, Spencer, St-Pere, Stirling, Thompson, White (London), and Young (Toronto Northeast), a committee to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the library of parliament, so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of a joint committee of both houses on the library.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a message be sent to the senate to acquaint their honours that this house has appointed Messieurs Bancroft, Black (Yukon) Boivin, Carmichael, Cayley, Chevrier, Clark, Edwards (Ottawa), Fiset, Sir Eugene, Howard, Howden, Kay, Kellner, Lang, Macdougall, Ryckman, Senn, Wilson (Wentworth), a committee to assist his honour the Speaker in the direction of the restaurant, as far as the interests of the Commons are concerned, and to act as members of a joint committee of both houses of parliament.
Motion agreed -to.



OPIUM AND NARCOTIC DRUG ACT


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the house decided to appoint a special committee to consider Bill No. 4, an act to amend and consolidate the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act. Therefore I beg to move:
That the special committee on Bill No. 4, to amend and consolidate the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, consist of Messrs. Adshead, Gervais, Guerin. Howden, Maloney, Macdonald (Richmond-West Cape Breton), McGibbon, Totzke, Young (Saskatoon) and King (Kootenay).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following proposed resolution -Mr. Heenan-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Resolved, 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 of March, 1934.
Peter Heenan: Before we adjourned at six o'clock, Mr. Chairman, an hon. member asked how much of the original grant had lapsed. The answer is, $1,140,174.90, leaving unexpended $1,462,111.64. These two amounts total over two and a half million dollars, which it is now proposed to give the provinces an opportunity of earning.


Leon Johnson Ladner: May I ask how that total is available amongst all the provinces?


Peter Heenan: I will give the various amounts -in round figures. Prince Edward Island has received $64,000, leaving $133,000 yet available, provided this amending act is passed. The corresponding figures for the other provinces are: Nova Scotia, $280,000 and $381,000; New Brunswick, $392,000 and $119,000; Quebec, $2,071,000 and $498,000; Ontario, $3,178,000-its total amount; Manitoba, $182,000 and $537,000; Saskatchewan, $142,000 and $705,000; Alberta, $604,000 and $73,000; British Columbia, $479,000 and $153,000.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Heenan thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 34, to amend the Technical Education Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Canadian Nationality

UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS his majesty's mail Mr. CHURCH:
For a copy of all letters, instructions, regulations, orders in council, telegrams, and other documents issued by the government of Canada or any member thereof, and any other person or persons, regarding the substitution of Canadas' Mail for His Majesty's Mail on postal offices, postal wagons, motors, or other postal equipment, and in relation to the removal of His Majesty's initials "G.R." from said post office equipment.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-CAUSAPSCAL-GASPE

Mr. MARCIL:: For a copy of all petitions, letters, telegrams and correspondence generally, exchanged between the Department of Railways and Canals and the opponents of a projected railway between Causapscal and Gaspe;
Also for copy of all letters and telegrams and correspondence generally exchanged between the Minister of Railways and Canals and the promoters of the above railway.



SIPTON, MAN., POSTMASTERSHIP

Mr. COWAN:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, papers and other documents, with reference to the dismissal of William S. Assifat, postmaster at Sifton, Manitoba, and the appointment of a successor to the said position.


Hewitt Bostock: Notices of motions. Mr. Bissett.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A number of these motions, including the one just called, have already bee-n called and I happen to know, with respect te several of the notices that stand in the names of members on this side, that they certainly could not be proceeded with until Monday. If they are called now they will be dropped. I suggest that we make some arrangement whereby they remain on the order paper. The members in whose names they stand are not ready to go on.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand that the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Bissett) is ready to proceed.



CANADIAN NATIONALITY


Mr. E. D. R. BISSETT (Springfield) moved:: Whereas Canada has by mutual consent of those concerned, now attained a position of equality in the commonwealth of nations which makes up the British Empire;
And whereas Canada is a member of the League of Nations having representation on the council thereof;
[Mr. Heenan.l
And whereas by an enactment of the parliament of Canada 11-12 George V, chapter 4, which said legislation now appears as "Canadian Nationals Act," chapter 21 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, the terms "Canadian nationality" and "Canadian nationals" are defined.
Therefore be it resolved: (1) That persons born in Canada (or otherwise, defined as Canadian nationals) shall be described as being of Canadian nationality in all legislation and official and other documents.
(2) That persons of the white race, born of parents whose family residence in Canada is of three or more generations, shall be described as being of the "Canadian race" in all legislation and official and other documents.
He said: The question of Canadian nationality and race is one which has been the cause of much controversy in our country for a number of years past, both in respect to the interpretation of these terms in the administration of the Immigration Act, and also as they have been applied to the classification of our population during the taking of the census. Part 1 of the resolution reads:
Whereas Canada has by mutual consent of those concerned now attained a position of equality in the commonwealth of nations which makes up the British Empire; and whereas Canada is a member of the League of Nations having representation on the council thereof; and whereas by an enactment of the parliament of Canada 11-12 George V, chapter 4, which said legislation now appears as "Canadian Nationals Act", chapter 21 of the revised statutes of Canada 1927, the terms "Canadian nationality" and "Canadian nationals' are defined.
Therefore be it resolved: (1) That persons born in Canada shall be described as being of Canadian nationality in all legislation and official and other documents.
As a result of the participation of Canada in the Peace treaty and in the League of Nations, it was necessary for an official definition of Canadian nationals and Canadian nationality to be made for the first time in Canadian history, since among different measures adopted in connection with the operation of the league were provisions defining certain rights and privileges to be enjoyed by the nationals of members of the league. A Canadian national was accordingly defined by 11-12 Geo. V, chap. 4, as:
(a)	any British subject who is a Canadian citizen within the meaning of the Immigration Act, chapter 27 of the statutes of 1910, as heretofore amended;
(b)	the wife of any such person;
(e) any person born out of Canada, whose father was a Canadian national at the time *f that person's birth, or with regard to persons born before the passing of this act, any person whose father at the_ time of such birth possessed all the qualifications of a Canadian national as defined in this act.
According to the Immigration Act, 1910, a Canadian, citizen is:

(1)	a person, bom in Canada who has not become an alien;
(2)	a British subject who has Canadian domicile;
(3)	a person naturalized under the laws of Canada who has not subsequently become an alien or lost Canadian domicile.
It is thus quite clear that as the result of this legislation everyone born in Canada is entitled, under the laws of our country, to call himself a Canadian, when asked as to his nationality. This applies to all persons of all races, even to Chinese, negroes and Indians bom in this country.	_
Since the existence of the Canadian national is now recognized, the people of this nation will sooner or later have to be regarded in official documents as Canadians.
In spite of the fact that we have legislation defining Canadian nationals, in our official documents there is no provision for such a race; apparently this legislation is for use abroad only. According to our official documents no one is born or dies a Canadian; we are listed as English, Irish, Scotch, Ruthenian and so on. In connection with this statement I would ask permission of the house to place on Hansard' copies of the official notices of births and deaths as supplied by the divisional registrar for vital statistics. Among the questions contained in the official notice of births there is no place where a father can list his child as a Canadian; item 10 asks for the racial origin of the father and item 16 for the racial origin of the mother. In a note on the side of the notice appears the following words:
The words "Canadian" or "American" should not be used, as they express nationality or citizenship but not a race or people.
The official notice of birth is as follows: Official Notice of Birth (By Parent or Guardian) Registration Division of... .Municipality of.... Questions to be answered by the informant of birth
1.	Where was the child born? (Street and
house number or lot and block number or parish or river lot number, or fractional section, twp. and range; if in a hospital, give its name)	 [DOT]
2.	What is the child's full name? (If child
died without being given a name, enter the words "Died unnamed"	
3.	Male or female? (Write the word in full)
A Was this a singie, double or other plural birth?	
5.	Was the child born alive?	
6.	Are the parents married?	
7.	When was the child born?	
8.	Full name of father?	[DOT] * [DOT][DOT]
9.	Residence of father (usual place of abode.
If non-resident give place and province)	
10.	Racial origin of father?	
Canadian Nationality
11.	Age of father (at last birthday)	
12.	Birthplace of father (if in Manitoba, give
exact location: if in Canada, province, and city, town, village, or nearest post office; if foreign, state country and post office address)	
13.	Occupation of father	
14.	Full maiden name of mother (if she has
been more than once married give names of former husband or husbands)	 [DOT] * [DOT] [DOT]
15.	Residence of mother (usual place of abode.
If non-resident give place and province)	
16.	Racial origin of mother	
17.	Age of mother (at last birthday, in
years)	 [DOT][DOT]_[DOT][DOT][DOT][DOT]
18.	Birthplace of mother (same description
as Item No. 12)	[DOT] [DOT]	[DOT] [DOT] V
19.	Children of this mother (including this
birth)	 [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] [DOT]
20.	Occupation of mother (unless working at
some gainful employment) mark none	
21.	Was this birth premature or not?	
22.	Where were the parents married? (same description required as in Item No. 12) .. [DOT] * [DOT] [DOT]
23.	When were they married? (Give day,
month and year)	[DOT] [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] * [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] ; \	[DOT]
>4. Name and address of attending physician, mid-wife or other person assisting at the birth (it is important that this item be not lelt blank)	
25.	Relationship of informant to the child.
26.	Were you in the house at the time of
birth?	 [DOT] [DOT] : [DOT] ' * [DOT]' ' '
27.	Your signature and exact location ot your
residence; your post office address	
28.	The date	
Remarks:
The above-stated particulars are true, to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Signature of informant	
Address	 y
29. Registered number	filed in this
office on the	day of	19.. ..
30	 [DOT][DOT] [DOT]' '[DOT]
Signature of Division Registrar.
After being filled up, this form is to be sent to the Clerk of the Municipality in which the birth occurred. It will be transmitted postage free if placed in an envelope which has marked on the upper right-hand corner, above the address, the words "Dominion Statistics-Free. Penalty for improper use $300."
N.B.-In case of more than one child at a birth, a separate return must be made for each, and the number of each, in order of birth, stated.
Racial origin will be described by stating to what people or tongue each of the parents belong, whether English, Irish, Scotch, French, German. Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, Galician, etc. The words "Canadian" or "American should not be used, as they express nationality or citizenship but not a race or people.
The same questions are asked on the official notice of death, which is as follows:
This form if placed in an envelope, marked "Dominion Statistics-Free, penalty for improper use $300," and properly addressed will pass through the Mail "Free."

Canadian Nationality

This is not a country of French-Canadians, English-Canadians or any hyphenated form of Canadianism. If the people of the Dominion are to be worth their salt, they must be Canadians, not classifications.
I contend that there are thousands who will subscribe to this statement, and the purpose of this resolution is to give it effect.


Mr. D. F. KELLNER (Athabaska):: I would like to say a word in favour of this resolution. I think it is high time the people of Canada recognized the Canadian race. We Canadians are about the only people that do not recognize it. When a Canadian goes to the American border he takes a passport which permits him to cross the line, and I think he is the only individual of any racial origin who can do that. Not only that,'but he has with him a recommendation of character and ability. I believe a Canadian will find himself more favouraibly considered when he makes application for employment in the United States than a member of any other race. We are frequently reminded in the course of discussions in this house that the status of Canadians has been very high in Europe for the last few years. There is hardly a debate comes up but favourable mention .is made of the conduct of our soldiers 'and those who assisted in the Great war. In practically every country in the world the Canadian race is recognized, honoured and admired, but we here in Canada seem to have overlooked the fact that we have such a race.
In 1927 the United States Statistics showed that forty-two per cent of their immigration came from Canada. The opinion of the United States authorities was that that forty-two per cent was of the Canadian race, but the fifty-eight per cent that stayed at home m Canada are not of that race. They are divided, as the resolution suggests, into the various races Which originated in Europe.
When an immigrant comes to this country we do not neglect to tell him that he must become a Canadian when he arrives at our shore, but in doing this we ask him to become something which we as a country do not recognize as existing. I am sure it is not a healthy condition for a large country like Canada, with a great number of different nationalities within its borders, not to recognize native-born Canadians as such.
It is quite apparent that the people of Canada 'are not satisfied with our present method of obtaining statistics. During the taking of the last census many reports came in that people had refused to give their racial origin. Wuhin the last few months there have been 
numerous criticisms of this method. I wish, therefore, to add my word in support of this resolution, and I hope the house will deal favourably with the request embodied therein, and that the resolution will 'be carried.


Hon. ROBERT FORKE (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: I rise with some degree of hesitation to enter into this debate as I cannot see any likelihood of my ever being classed as a Canadian, according to the arguments that- have been advanced by the various speakers up to the present. The mother olf my children happens to be a Canadian of the third generation, but I do not know exactly where my children will stand in this regard. From the female side they would be entitled to be called Canadians but from the male side there will have to be another generation or two before they can become members of the Canadian race.
I think some misapprehension exists here. I thoroughly agree with the idea of the recognition of Canadian nationality. The hon. member who moved this resolution (Mr. Bissett) has taken it for granted that because there is no Canadian race there can be no Canadian citizenship or Canadian nationality. The two are entirely separate and distinct. There is only one Canadian race in Canada today, and that is the Indian. The only pure Canadian race living in Canada is the Indian race. The basic stock of Canadians is composed of two distinct races at the present time, the French and the English races. They have not intermingled into one race and there is no Canadian race although they are citizens of the Dominion of Canada in every sense of the word.
If you look into this matter further you will find that there are only a few pure and distinct races in the world to-day. We speak about the Scottish race, but there is no real Scottish race; there is a Scottish nationality. The hon. member who moved this resolution spoke about the different races that go to make up the Scottish nation, but although they have lived together for centuries they have not intermingled to such a degree that you oan call them a pure and distinct race. When you come down to the borders of Scotland, where I was born, there is a distinct difference between the people of the Scottish border and the people of the Highlands. They are all Scottish, but they are not a Scottish race; they are a nation. To describe the people of the third generation as being of the "Canadian *race" I think would have a dividing influence. What about the second gener-

Canadian Nationality
ation? Are they to have some inferior status that they cannot be called Canadian in every sense of the word? Under this resolution they are to have a different classification from those who came of a race a generation lqnger in the country. I really cannot see the necessity for having the second clause in the resolution, but with the first clause and the first part of it I am thoroughly in accord; I would stress Canadian nationality everywhere. Where in the world do Canadians go to-day that they are not known as Canadians? It is not necessary to say that they are of the Canadian race. We have in Canada at present some fifty different nationalities, and dnring the course of centuries those nationalities will be intermingled in such a way that they can be classified as a race peculiar to the Dominion of Canada. But who can say to-day that there is any distinct type of Canadian that you can say is a race of people? They are Canadian nationals. That is about as far as I can go in regard to this question of defining a Canadian race.
The use of that column in the census papers to which reference has been made is rather annoying to many people whose forefathers have been in Canada for a generation or two, because there is no distinct column setting them down as Canadians. That ought to be rectified. On the other hand, I suppose those who compile this form desire to have some idea as to the mixture that is coming into Canada and the derivations of the people who are now making their home here. The classification may seem absurd on the face of it. The editor of the Manitoba Free Press told me at one time he was classed as a Dutchman, although he has but a very small amount of Dutch blood in his veins. Originally some Dutchman named Dafoe came to Canada and, of course, down through the ages his descendants will be classed as Dutch. The matter works out on the whole not so badly, because someone may have come to Canada originally classified under some other nationality, the two strains may become intermingled, and through these classifications and by keeping track of the racial derivations through the male line one can gain some idea of what the strains are that go to make up the Canadian people. That is the idea of using that column in the census returns, although later on it may be wiped out as being of no value.
I will close by saying again that the terms "Canadian", "Canadian citizen" seem to be broad enough to cover the whole matter without attempting to make a Canadian race out of a people composed of almost every nationality under the sun who are living in the
Dominion of Canada and who call themselves good Canadians without being named as a distinct race of people.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: If I had not intended to speak on this question,
I should have been impelled to do so by the speech of the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke). He seems to confuse political citizenship with racial or physiological citizenship. It is quite true that, according to my hon. friend's definition, the Indians are the only true Canadian. There are the Crees, the Sioux, all the different races of Indians, and yet he is pleased to call them all Canadian. I am an Englishman; my ancestry, if traced back, would be Anglo-Saxon. There is no ancestry more complicated than that of the British people, who from a political standpoint are English, and those people who are bom in Canada or who come to Canada and are naturalized are Canadian citizens and should appear as such in the census papers. My children are Canadians; their mother is a. Canadian; they are of Canadian nationality and should be classified as such in the census returns. When the census man came aTound he would not at first accept the name "Canadian" from us; he wanted to know whether the nationality was English or Scotch or whatever it was. We refused to say, as regards our children, that they were anything but Canadian. I think the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has many a time insisted upon cultivating a true Canadian spirit, but we cannot have that to its fullest extent unless we recognize that Canadians who are either naturalized or bom here, no matter what their ancestry may be, should be classified in the census papers as Canadians.
There is another good reason that I might bring forward-I do not know whether the mover of the resolution (Mr. Bissett) stated it or not. Supposing an immigrant is invited to our shores from Norway or Sweden and he comes to Canada. Much as we who are English or of British descent are attached to England, foreigners who come to Canada cannot have the same regard and respect for British institutions as they would for a Canadian citizenship. Therefore we should build up a Canadian nationality attached to our institutions in a way in which people could not be attached to the institutions of a country of which they have no particular knowledge. For that reason I am strongly in favour of the resolution of the hon. member for Springfield.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: The difficulties of settling this question have been made quite manifest by those who have
Canadian Nationality

spoken and by the resolution itself. Nobody will dispute the fact that there are anomalies in our system. It is certainly an anomaly to call a man a Dutchman whose ancestors on the Dutch side would date back perhaps half a dozen generations. I can call to mind neighbours of mine who are descendants of Pennsylvania Dutch who came over with the United Empire -Loyalists in the early part of the nineteenth century, and yet they are classed as Dutch. On the other hand, as the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) points out, there are other families who are so-called Dutch, but who, on the female side, are intermarried with English-speaking people, and the ancestors of their children are described as English, Irish or Scotch, as the case may be.
If the purpose of this column in the census is to give the exact racial origin of every person in Canada, it is most decidedly a failure. It cannot do that, because it leads us into many absurdities. But is that the purpose? Is the purpose not to endeavour to arrive approximately at the racial origin of the people who compose the citizenship of Canada to-day? If that is the purpose, then it can be secured only by the method that we have adopted. The method does not do it accurately, but does it do it approximately? Is it worth our while to endeavour to know something of the racial origin of the people who constitute the citizenship of the Dominion of Canada? It it is not worth while, then we can abolish that column altogether. If it is worth while, I do not know how we can accomplish it by any other means that those we are following now.
The question that has always been in my mind when the matter is brought up by those who have persistently advocated this idea is this:	What would be the definition of a
Canadian? Some will say: a person born in Canada. That immediately causes a difficulty. Let me instance an anomaly: I have a neighbouring family that came from Scotland thirty years ago. Some of the older children were born in Scotland, and if you take "born in Canada" as a sufficient definition of a Canadian, they would be classed as Scotch, whereas the younger children, who were born in Canada, would be classed as Canadians. But the definition as given in the resolution does not help us at all. It reads:
Persons of the white race, born of parents whose family residence in Canada is of three or more generations, shall be described as being of the "Canadian race" in all legislation and official and other documents.
Think of the trouble such a definition would cause in the matter of hunting up the marriage records of the different persons involved.

The hon. minister has told us something of his own family. My own case is very much the same. My mother was born in England; I was bom in Canada, and so on my mother's side I would not be eligible under this definition. On my father's side, it is true, he was bom in Canada, and I was bom in Canada, but even that would not make me a Canadian.


Mr. SPENCE:: You	must wait	for	two
hundred years yet.


John Livingstone Brown: My	children	would	beCanadians-no, my grandchildren, because they would be of the third generation. Think of the innumerable difficulties involved if we adopt this definition. It would land us in greater difficulties	than	we are	in	at	thepresent time. After all,	the point	is	this: Is
it worth while attempting to find out what the racial origin of the people of Canada is? If it is worth while, let us adopt the proper means of securing this information. If the intention is to get the exact racial origin of every individual, that will lead to many absurdities, and I have not been able to find any way out of the difficulty; but the resolution, I contend, would involve us in greater difficulties than those with which we are faced at the present time.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Somewhat along the line
taken by the last speaker (Mr. Brown), I would venture to suggest that the resolution be amended by striking out clause 2. It seems to me that we owe a great deal to the mover of this resolution for having brought before the house a matter that is of very great importance to the people of Canada. It is absolutely absurd that in the past most of us have had to characterize ourselves as English even although our ancestors may have been in this country for several generations. I can remember as a child feeling almost ashamed of myself because while my schoolmates, when asked what nationality they were, could say English, or Scotch or German, poor I could only say that I did not belong to any nationality, that I was only born in this country. I should be very glad to get away from that situation, and I think we ought to carry out the idea behind this motion. I thought of this the other day when we had to have Canadians defined as British subjects domiciled in Canada. I hope that such phrases will soon cease to be used in this country, and that we shall be quite content to call ourselves Canadian citizens.
But when we come to the question of race, it seems to me that we are in an altogether

Canadian Nationality
different position. I know that historians and ethnologists are very much divided as to what really constitutes a race. I suppose in a general way that, language is one of the outstanding marks of a race to-day, but that is not a conclusive distinguishing mark. Throughout the years certain groups have gradually come to have certain distinguishing marks in common. We have these great broad distinctions, one of which is recognized in the resolution, that of colour; we have the white race, the black race, the yellow race, and undoubtedly we subdivide those into a great many other groups. There are a good many differences among the French people, but I presume that the French people to-day have pretty well developed into a distinct race. There are a great many divisions, as has been pointed out, among the English, but I think we may recognize the English as a race. I Jo not think the Americans can yet say that there is an American race. Undoubtedly there is an American nationality, a nationality of which they are very proud, but they have not yet developed a distinctly American type. There are perhaps three or four types that are emerging, and at some time they may coalesce and become one, but that time has not yet arrived.
In Canada there are two main strains historically, the English, or the Anglo-Saxon, if you will, and I suppose undter the latter we must include the Irish, and other Celts, although they are not Anglo-Saxon; and then there is that other great strain, the French-Canadian. We have had a great many strains coming in since then-the Germans, and out in the west, the Slavs, and so on.
I do not know that a very great deal is to be gained by constantly referring to a man's remote ancestors. From a scientific standpoint it may (be desirable that we should know the racial origin as well as perhaps the political origin of the people who are coming to this country; hence I can see the reason for retaining in the schedules some term such as "race", which would designate the strain to which a man originally belonged. But I would not like this resolution to go through in the form in which it is here. I do not like the idea of distinguishing between the white and other races. I have friends, Indians, native-born Canadians, and I think they are as much Canadians as anybody thait I know of. I would go further and say that I have Canadian acquaintances who are of tlhe second generation of orientals, their fathers and grandfathers having been born in Victoria, British Columbia. As far as I am concerned, I think
these people ought to be classified as Canadians if you are going to make Canadians in this fashion. But unfortunately you cannot determine races by a resolution any more than you can make a Clydesdale into a Shetland pony by a resolution. You cannot do it that way. We can create a change of sentiment in political matters, and I suggest that racial sentiments even of the member for Southeast Grey (jMiss Macphail) will have to be changed a great deal before we can have a Canadian race for I heard her sympathetically applaud someone who said that he belonged to the Scotch race. If we were really a Canadian race, we would not have such applause as that from a nativeTiorn Canadian because we would not conceive ourselves as belonging to any other race than the Canadian race!
That brings up a difficulty which I think was referred to by the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) and which in my opinion is a real one. If you insist that everybody whose people have been resident here for three generations belongs to the Canadian race and is quite different from everybody else, you will be apt to create class distinctions, I am not sure that that would not be a fairly healthy class distinction. I suppose that is because I would qualify for that group, but still I cannot help acknowledging that some of the people who of their own volition migrated ito Canada are just as much deserving of being Canadians in the very fullest sense of the term as those of us who have done nothing to account for our being here-who are here simply because our grandfathers had courage enough to cross the seas. I do not know that we gain very much by creating distinctions of that kind in this country. We would be on a sounder basis iif we recognized as being Canadian citizens, whether by birth or naturalization, all the people of this country who are determined to upbuild the Canadian nation. In order that this resolution should not be dropped, and on the other hand that we should not place ourselves in the rather awkward position of attempting by resolution to define ethnological divisions, I venture to move that the resolution be amended by striking out dlause 2.


Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, although I am entirely in favour of developing Canadian sentiment and Canadian individuality, I cannot see that this resolution either confined to the first clause or including the second, will do anything other than make confusion worse confounded so far as establishing a Canadian nationality is concerned. If paragraph one of the resolution should
Canadian Nationality

carry, then even orientals born in Canada would be of Canadian nationality. I do not think that is desirable at all. And as to the second paragraph, which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has moved to strike out, it is entirely impossible from my own standpoint, because under it I would not be a Canadian! My parents were born and resided in New Brunswick before New Brunswick came into Canada at all. My grandparents did not live to see the maritimes become part of Canada. This paragraph would exclude the people of British Columbia, the middle west provinces and maritimes, and would only make Canadians of the bulk of the people of what was formerly Upper Canada and Lower Canada. I think we would do well to drop the resolution altogether.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to offer any extended remarks on this resolution, for it has already been pretty well discussed. The debate has brought home to us two things: the lofty sentiment and principle involved in the resolution itself, and the confusion that would inevitably ensue if the resolution were adopted in its present form.
The preamble in my opinion points with pardonable pride to the position that Canada has attained as a member of the commonwealth of nations and also as a member of the League of Nations. I join with other members in the view that some day we should be able to describe the citizens of this country in all public documents in a manner consonant with the equality of status which Canada now enjoys. At the same time it has been made very clear that serious difficulties might follow the adoption of the resolution in its present form.
I am afraid the mover of the resolution has been confused on one point. He seems to be under the impression that every person bom in Canada is a Canadian national. This is not so according to the provisions of the act to define Canadian nationals, chapter 21 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927. Clause 2 clearly defines the following persons as Canadian nationals:
(a)	Any British subject who is a Canadian citizen within the meaning of the Immigration Act;
(b)	the wife of any such citizen;
(c)	any person born out of Canada whose father was a Canadian national at the time of that person's birth, or with regard to persons born before the third day of May, oue thousand nine hundred and twenty-one, any person whose father at the time of such birth possessed all the qualifications of a Canadian national as defined in this act.

It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that to be a Canadian national it is essential that a person be a British subject.
I happened to be in the house when this legislation was being dealt with, and I remember the object of the then minister of justice, Mr. Doherty, was to distinguish between British subjects in Canada, in Australia, and in other parts of the empire. The house was in a humorous mood at -the time and I recall that an hon. .member during the course of the debate asked whether this was a railway bill or some other kind of bill. It illustrates tlhe practical difficulty at times of giving -a.nj'' reality to the most lofty sentiments. I am in agreement with those hon. members who have stated that we cannot create a race by statute.
I agree with the amendment that has been moved by the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mir. Woodsworth), but I think there should be a change also in the first part of the resolution, and t-hat instead of reading:
That persons born in Canada (or otherwise defined as Canadian nationals) -
-we should use the term, British subjects.. The paragraph would then read:
That British subjects born in Canada (or otherwise defined as Canadian nationals) shall be described as being of Canadian nationality-
-and so on. This would clarify the clause. Undoubtedly, Mr. Speaker, the principle of' this resolution has much merit, but the apt expression of that principle presents considerable difficulty. Therefore inasmuch as the-member -for Springfield (Mr. Bissett) lhas achieved his purpose by bringing the question before the house, which has resulted in a very interesting discussion, perhaps he will now consent to withdraw the resolution. It, certainly cannot be accepted in its present form, and even if amended as proposed by~ the member for Winnipeg North Centre I would have to vote against it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) has stated the case with great clearness. I ventured to rema-rk to tlhe Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) a moment ago that this is one of the most difficult of all matters that we could undertake to deal with, and tlhe Secretary of State has clearly explained the reason. So far as the second section of the resolution is concerned, I think upon reflection its sponsor will see that to adopt it would make us more or less ridiculous. T-he hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), as well as the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) has made that abundantly clear.

Canadian Nationality
I think the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Bissett) when he drafted his resolution overlooked two words in the definition of Canadian nationals-the words, " British subjects". That is the only difficulty as I see it at the moment, and as the Secretary of State has pointed out. There can be no such word as " national " applied to a Canadian citizen in the sense in which it is used in this resolution; it would be applicable only if Canada were an independent state. That is the reason why in the statute defining Canadian nationals the word " British " precedes the word " subject ", as brought to our attention by the minister. We are British subjects; we are Canadian citizens. And bo long as Canada continues within the empire we are British subjects, although we may be and are at the moment Canadian citizens. The problem of defining a Canadian national was one which the former minister of justice endeavoured to deal with in the statutes of 1921, and the reasons need not now be adverted to that compelled him, in the very nature of things, to define it, just as the minister has indicated, in section 2:
The following persons are Canadian nationals, viz;-	.
(a)	Any British subject who is a Canadian citizen-
Mark the word " citizen."
-within the meaning of the Immigration Act, chapter 27 of the Statutes of 1910, as heretofore amended.
(b)	The wife of any such person.
That is merely an expression of the common law of England that the domicile of the wife is that of the husband, as decided by the Privy Council.
(c)	Any person born out of Canada whose father was a Canadian national at the time of that person's birth-
A Canadian national being, of course, a British subject, defining that term as in the preceding portion of the section.
-or. with regard to persons born before the passing of this act. any person whose father at the time of such birth possessed all the qualifications of a Canadian national as defined in this act.
The essential word in all that definition is the word " British," which precedes the word "subject;" and so long as we remain a dominion within an empire-that is to say, the British Empire-our position is that of British subjects and Canadian citizens. I do not think there is any method by which that question can be dealt with by this parliament except that to which the minister has just referred and which, as he has pointed out, was so fully explained by the Right Hon. C. J.
Doherty when as Minister of Justice he introduced this measure shortly after the war. There is, however, this to be said. At the imperial conference of 1926 a committee of legal experts was to be set up, and among the many matters with which they would necessarily have to deal would be the question as to the position, for purposes of definition if no other, of citizens of Australia, of South Africa, of Canada, of New Zealand; and the question of citizenship relates, of course, to the territorial area in which one makes one's home, the question of one's allegiance being determined by the crown, or the head, or the authority to which allegiance is owed. In this instance, as I have said, we are British subjects because of our allegiance to the British crown.
I think that my hon. friend who has moved the motion has very properly directed attention to this matter, because it is one of great difficulty, and I do not think this parliament could adopt the resolution without doing violence to the legal principles that govern and surround us at the present moment, having regard to our position as the minister has indicated it.
I agree with the suggestion made by the minister, which is one, I think, that might well be acted upon by the hon. member; and inasmuch as he has directed the attention of the house to the difficulty-a difficulty well known to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and to those who attended the imperial conference of 1926-the whole question will then be later dealt with.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) drew attention to the reasons that have governed heretofore in the various census columns in dealing with a matter of this kind. The desire for scientific knowledge as to the effect of the fusion of races and the characteristics that have marked people, by reason of their origin and the intermingling of races, is something which to the historian is of tremendous importance in the light of the scientific information which we are now gathering. The knowledge that has been stored away in the census reports of bygone years is now coming to be regarded as more and more valuable as the history of various races is being prepared and written.
I have been recently reading a book called The Stream of History, which perhaps some hon. gentlemen have seen, and one begins to realize how valuable indeed it is to us to have a record of the past and to have a clear understanding of the causes that have brought
1S6
Canadian Nationality

about the results which are now apparent. In the tracing of facts back to primal causes scientific knowledge is, of course, attaining to great accuracy; because, after all, science does not create new facta but merely discovers what facts are, and in the light of the knowledge we possess in our census returns we are able to make more accurate generalizations, if I might use that term-although, possibly, "generalizations" is too wide a term to employ with respect to scientific knowledge touching these matters. I suggested to the Prime Minister that in our census returns we might- and I fancy we shall-make provision whereby it will be abundantly clear that the persons who are .being enumerated are Canadians or were born in Canada, and that their ancestors have resided here for a considerable number of years. The racial origin of Canadians is still important, and that, I understand, is why the census returns are given as they appear.
So far as the second branch of the resolution is concerned, I am sure that upon reflection the hon. member will realize the impossibility, by act of parliament, of accomplishing what he has in mind. There is no doubt that there is a growing sentiment in the country, a sentiment which manifested itself, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, when he was a 'boy-and I may remark that it was equally manifest in my youth-for one born in this country to describe oneself with pride as a Canadian. I had no hesitation when .recently in Central Europe in describing myself as a Canadian. I did so with much pride, and I am bound to say that I received from those with whom I came in contact a courtesy and consideration which would not have been accorded me had I described myself as a resident of another part of the American continent. I leave it at that, remembering, as I. trust we shall all of us remember, that the passports we carry, while Canadian in their origin, are in the ultimate analysis valuable because we are British subjects and Canadian citizens. That fact should never be overlooked.
The acceptance of the second part of the resolution would leave the children of some Canadians rather nondescript, inasmuch as they could not properly be described as Irish, or Scotch, or English, and not being of the third generation they could not be described as Canadians. In other words, they would be in no man's land, impossible of designation within the census. For these reasons, without elaborating them, and without at greater length discussing the legal difficulties, I heartily agree with the suggestion made by 
the Secretary of State, that the purpose which the hon. member has in mind has been served and that the resolution be for the moment dropped. This might well' be done, having regard to the .character of the resolution and the legal difficulties that surround the enactment of the measures contemplated, and in view of the fact that the minister charged with responsibility with respect to the census will, as was stated in a public journal not long since, take steps to see that in some column will be made adequate provision to record the information so much desired by the hon. member.


Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I have no desire to
detain the house at any length with regard to the resolution, but I think it might be of interest to note the methods that are now in use in the Dominion Bureau of Statistics in recording census figures. The Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) have reviewed the definition df a "Canadian national" as given in the statutes. First, any British subject ia a Canadian citizen within the meaning of the Immigration Act but the hon. gentleman failed to quote the Immigration Act of 1910 defining Canadian citizenship. It is, first, any person born in Canada who has not become an alien; second, a British subject who has Canadian domicile; third, a person naturalized under the laws of Canada who has not subsequently become an alien or lost Canadian domicile. Under the present method of reporting statistics the country of birth of each person is recorded; in the case of Canadian-born, the province of birth is recorded. This differentiates the Canadian-born and the British-born from the foreign-born, and in the case of the Canadian-born it enables the movement of our native Canadian stock, within the limits of Canada, to be traced from time to time. The birthplaces of the father and mother of each person are also recorded for the purpose of distinguishing Canadian families resident in Canada for three or more generations thus instituting a further and special standard of Canadianism.
It is to be noted from these headings that the census describes everyone of Canadian nationality as Canadian, everyone bom in Canada as of Canadian birth and everyone whose family has been resident in Canada three generations or more as Canadians in a special sense. The last census gave figures which the leader of the opposition described as rather essential. The last census showed

St. Lawrence Waterway
that of a total population of 8,788,483 those of Canadian nationality numbered 8,412,383, of which number 514,182 were Canadians by naturalization. The number of Canadians by birt'h was 6,832,747, while the number of Canadians whose family residence in the country is of three or more generations was only 4,857,523. Therefore if the second part of this resolution were to carry it would be shown that the Canadian race numbered just about half the population of the Dominion, which would be a very unfair condition. Of the derivations of the Canadian people as recorded in the census the more important were English, 2,545,496, French 2,452.751, Scotch 1.173,637 and Irish 1,107,817. These figures are analysed and amplified in the census reports from literally hundreds of points of view, the object being to lay bare all the essential and crucial facts concerning the population.
In discussing with the Dominion statistician the last census and the methods followed the government have expressed the desire that as far as possible all Canadians should be treated as Canadian citizens within the meaning of the Immigration Act and the act with regard to Canadian nationality. Furthermore, I think there will be a slight simplification in the number of questions asked; I think perhaps the thirty-five questions asked during the last census caused a certain amount of annoyance. I can assure the house and my hon. friend who moved this resolution that if it were possible to carry out his wishes the government would have no objection, but for the very obvious reasons advanced by the leader of the opposition and the Secretary of State I feel that he would be well advised to withdraw his resolution.	.


Edgar Douglas Richmond Bissett: In my remarks I raised no objection to tracing the racial origin of the Canadian people; I said I thought that was of scientific importance, but I also said that on this form we should have a column under which those born in Canada whose family has been in this country for three or more generations could designate themselves as of the Canadian race, and certainly there should be a column for Canadian nationals. Those were the points I wished to bring out.
With regard to the division of Canadians into different races, I appreciate the legal aspect of the question as brought out by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), but while it is quite true that there are only a few main races, the reds, whites, blacks and yellows, nevertheless in taking the Canadian census and in the compilation of the population by the department at Ottawa we find on page 40 of the Manitoba census for 1926 that the British races are classed as English, Irish, Scotch, and Welsh. Then the list goes on to include French, Austrians, Belgians, Chinese, Finns, Germans, Dutch, Hebrews and so on. In other words, for the purposes of statistical information the division of the races by colour is disregarded, and the object of my resolution was to bring in under these subclasses of English, Irish, Scotch and so on a Canadian classification which would apply to Canadians of the third generation resident in this country.
I see there is some difficulty in the way through legal reasons, although since this is only a resolution I do not see how it would bind parliament so far as the legal aspect of the question is concerned. However, if I could have the assurance of the government thfit an effort will be made to have included in the birth and death certificates a column for Canadian nationals, I would agree to withdraw the resolution.
Motion withdrawn.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 9.50 p.m.
Monday, February 18, 1929