1930-05-24

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. G. COOTE (Mcleod):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to draw the attention of the Minister of Mines (Mr. Stewart) to the following telegram:
The executive board of the Mine Workers Union of Canada urgently requests the federal government to give attention to the serious condition of unemployment and distress now prevailing throughout the mining industry of western Canada and would suggest as one means to that end that the government concede to the request made for subvention of rates as placed before the government by the representatives of the mining industry of western Canada.
It is signed by Frank Wheatley, president of the Mine Workers' Union of Canada. I know the government have had this matter under consideration, and I would ask the minister whether in view of the early closing of parliament he is yet prepared to make a statement in regard to it.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of Mines):: Mr. Speaker, the matter has been
under consideration for some days by the government, and I expect to have full information to place before the house in order that we may deal with it to-day or Monday.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: A few days ago, Mr. Speaker, I noticed in some of the press reports from the province of Alberta that Premier Brownlee was to report to this government the unemployment conditions there and ask for assistance. Has any information been received from him?


Charles A. Stewart: Not so far
as I know. I have not received any information, and the Prime Minister states that he has not.



PUBLIC WORKS AT BEAVERTON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka-On-tario):: I desire to ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) if it is the intention of the government to complete the public works at Beaverton. Nothing has been done this year.

Senate Amendments
*i_________________________________________________________________________


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works):: Offhand I am not in a position to say what the present situation is, but I shall be triad to make inquiries and let my hon. friend know.



RUSSIAN ANTHRACITE COAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) possibly the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) could give me an answer with regard to a question on Russian coal. I presume that Russian coal is being sent to this country to pay for Canadian goods. Can the minister give us information as to the class of Canadian goods which is being exported to Russia and the present trade balance?
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance):	I am afraid my hon. friend will
have to put that question on the order paper. I am sure the Minister of Trade and Commerce through his department will be able to give an answer to it; I cannot offhand.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Perhaps my question may be treated as notice of motion.



CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 15 to amend the Export Act.	.
Mr. GARDINER:: Could the Prime Minister give the house some indication of the nature of the amendment?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Yes, the amendment is purely clerical. In line 27 the word "exportation" appears; it should have read " importation."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will read
the section and hon. members will see how the mistake has arisen:
It shall be unlawful to make any entry for exportation of any intoxicating liquor, destined for delivery into any country into which the exportation of such liquor is prohibited by law.
The amendment is to change the second " exportation " to " importation." It depends an which side of the line you are taking your stand, I think.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.
24X9-158J

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendment made 'by the Senate to Bill No. 135, respecting national parks.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister give an explanation?


Charles A. Stewart: We found that there was some conflict in connection with subsection 3 of section 6 of the National Parks Act as it applied to railways, and in order to ascertain the real standing as between our claim of ownership of right of way and the claim of the railway company we have allowed the section to be stricken out for the time being. Subsection (3) of section 6 is as follows:
No lands within a park, other than those specified in subsection (2) hereof, shall be patented or conveyed in fee.
There was a strong feeling on the part of the railways that we were taking arbitrary powers under this bill to dispossess them of rights which they thought they might have or rights which were in dispute. We do not want to put ourselves in that position; we do not want to take advantage of the railways and by an act of parliament put ourselves in any superior position. It is a matter that will have to be settled between the government and the railways.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 19, respecting war veterans' allowances.
An hon. MEMBER:: Explain.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: This refers to an amendment to section 7. The purpose is to delete the word "or" in the fourth line thereof, which is undoubtedly a clerical error. The section deals with deductions not to be made. The draftsman, Colonel Biggar, has set them out separately under sections (a), (b) and (c). The section is clarified and it is acceptable to the department.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of
Senate Amendments
[Stage Direction]
and concurrence in amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 134, to amend the Fish Inspection Act.
An hon. MEMBER:: Explain.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The amendment is apparent on reading the section. The section reads:
The governor in council may at any time order that this act or any one or more of the provisions of this act specified in such order, shall extend and apply to any other kinds of fish, whether pickled or not, to fish oils and to the containers used for packing and marketing such fish and oils;
The words " for packing and marketing such fish " are deleted as being superfluous, and in their stead are inserted the words " or to 'be used " so that the section will apply not only to oontainers that are used but to containers which are to be used.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 9, to amend the Companies Act.
An hon. MEMBER:: Explain.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I shall give an explanation as to the nature of the amendment made by the Senate. They have added a new section, namely, section 43. Previously the bill contained 42 sections. This section is to enable the companies, through the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, to establish and support or aid in the establishment and support of associations, institutions, funds, trusts and conveniences intended or calculated to benefit employees or exemployees of the corporations, either by way of pensions, allowances, by making payments towards insurance or for any object similar to the foregoing. I believe the amendment should be accepted because it is of a benevolent nature.


Mr. HANSON:: I understand there is a further amendment; we have not seen it.


Ernest Lapointe: I shall read the whole section:
Notwithstanding anything in sections 2 and 153 of this act, every corporate body created otherwise than by letters patent for any of the purposes or objects to which the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends, is hereby declared to possess, as incidental and ancillary to the powers conferred by the special act or charter creating it, power to establish and support or aid in the establishment and support of associations, institutions, funds, 
trusts and conveniences intended or calculated to benefit employees or ex-employees of the corporation, or of its predecessors in business, or the dependents or connections of such persons, and to grant pensions and allowances, and to make payments towards insurance, or for any object like or similar to these foregoing, and to subscribe or guarantee money for charitable or benevolent objects or for any public, general or useful object.
(2) After the coming into force of this section the amount expended or to be expended for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) of this section shall be determined once for all. each financial year, by one resolution only of the board of directors or other governing or administrative body of the corporation; or if preferred and so declared in the first resolution to be passed for each year, by several resolutions of the same authority each year.
That is a mere question of procedure.


Mr. BOURASSA:: That is a very broad clause. W ould these activities or organizations be brought under the supervision of the Superintendent of Insurance?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think so.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I think the change would be very dangerous. I am entirely in favour of the principle, but it allows all sorts of companies and all sorts of enterprises to carry on insurance operations.


Ernest Lapointe: No, just for their own employees.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It allows them to assist.


Ernest Lapointe: It is merely for the purpose of aiding employees.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: They could not, under this section, organize insurance companies, so to speak, in connection with their own enterprises ?


Ernest Lapointe: They have power to establish and support associations, institutions, funds, trusts and conveniences intended to benefit their own employees.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Quite so; it is for the protection of the employees and their families. What guarantee is there that the investment of funds gathered from premiums paid by employees will be regulated according to the principles of the Insurance Act? We know of the troubles that existed before the amendment to that act. There was difficulty experienced with the old benevolent societies, including such organizations as the Independent Order of Foresters, and we know that that institution practically went bankrupt. Finally parliament decided, quite rightly I think, after the investigation in the United States, to remodel the Insurance Act and to bring practically all benevolent institutions, or at least

those governed by federal legislation, under the supervision of the Department of Insurance. Since that time, due largely to the intelligence and competence of Mr. Finlayson, these institutions have been put on a solid basis. Now, if we are to open the door to all sorts of private benevolent insurance companies connected with banks or manufacturing concerns and let them organize themselves as they wish, we run the risk of finding ourselves, five or ten years hence, in the same position as we were when these so-called mutual societies were on the verge of bankruptcy and had to be saved by special legislation of this parliament.
I am merely indicating the possible results, because I took some active interest at the time in the preparation of those amendments to the Insurance Act. I made a special inquiry in the United States; I was put in communication with the board of inquiry there which had been instituted by the government of the state of New Aork, and I would not like to see a similar condition occur again to the great detriment of the employees of the various companies contributing to these so-called benevolent associations.


Ernest Lapointe: I am sorry I have no
knowledge at all of this bill. It comes under the Secretary of State, but it has been accepted by his department and also by the Superintendent of Insurance, who was interested in it.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Has Mr. Finlayson expressed his approval, before the committee of the Senate?


Ernest Lapointe: I understand this was
submitted to him.


Mr. BOYS:: I should like to find out at
whose instance this is put in. It is very difficult to appreciate the full effect of this amendment without having the Companies Act here to assist one. Is this a power to be given the directors with the approval of the shareholders, or is it for the directors alone? Then there is one other feature which it seems to me is a little extraordinary. In the third line of subsection 2 occur the words "shall be determined once for all each financial year. ' How can you determine something once for all each year? Is it the intention that the board shall deal with it say at the first meeting, and that their decision shall apply for that year, and that the following year they shall deal with it again?


Ernest Lapointe: They will deal with it
each year, but once for all for that year.
CN.R.-Refunding Loan


William Alves Boys: Of course that is only a minor matter, but I would like to know at whose instance this is being done, and whether this is a power given to directors without the consent of shareholders or whether their action has to be approved by the shareholders.


Ernest Lapointe: I 'will have to ask to
have the bill stand, since I have no information.
Motion stands.



FAIR WAGES AND EIGHT HOUR DAY

[Stage Direction]
Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 49, respecting fair wages and an eight hour day for labour employed on public works of the Dominion of Canada.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. HEENAN:: Hon. members will recall
that on the motion for third reading of the bill the leader of the opposition offered an amendment to the last section. The old section stated that all regulations made under this act should have the same force and effect as if they had been included therein from the date of their publication in the Canada Gazette. The amendment made by the Senate is that they will have this force and effect fifteen days after they have been published.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS loan or 820,042,038.84 to refund obligations

[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 130, respecting the Canadian National Railways, and to provide for the refunding of certain maturing financial obligations.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-short title.
Mr. CRERAR:: Perhaps for the information of the house I may say that this bill was referred to the special committee on Canadian National railway estimates and considered and reported without amendment by that committee. For the information of hon. members who may not have been in the house when the bill was previously considered, I may say that it provides for the refunding of cer-
C.N.R.-Retiring Loan

tain maturing obligations of the old Canadian Northern Railway which, of course, were inherited by the Canadian National Railways. Most of these obligations mature on June 30 of this year, with one or two maturing on October 30, and they amount to some $20,042,000. The provisions of the bill regarding the necessary financing to retire these obligations are the ordinary provisions in bills of this kind.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does this bill refer only
to the maturing obligations of the Canadian Northern Railway?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes; they were all subsidiary companies of the Canadian Northern in Manitoba.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 131, respecting the Canadian National railways, and to provide for certain financing in connection with certain lines of railway located principally in the state of Vermont.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Richard Burpee Hanson: This bill refers to the refinancing of the Central Vermont which is a subsidiary of the Canadian National Railways. As this railway is located wholly in the United States, I think it is due to the house and to the country that the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Crerar) should state the situation with relation to it and tell us how much of the public moneys of Canada is invested in it. I think the house should be given some of the imformtaion presented to the special committee. Those of us who were members of that committee understand the matter, but full information should be upon Hansard regarding this matter.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The object of the bill was discussed by myself very fully when it was in the resolution stage, but I will be glad to give the committee the information asked for by the hon. member. The Central Ver-

mont railway was under the control, by stock ownership, of the old Grand Trunk Railway of Canada, the majority of the stock having been secured, as my memory serves me, well over thirty years ago. That relationship continued until the Grand Trunk was taken over and incorporated in the Canadian National system. In 1920 the Grand Trunk had to provide for certain maturing obligations amounting to $12,000,000, which was done by guarantee of the Grand Trunk, given by its board of directors, as to principal and interest of the bonds of the Central Vermont. In 1920 *there were disastrous floods in the state of Vermont and the Central Vermont railway, along with other railways in that state, suffered very heavy losses. Steps were taken by the Canadian National Railways, who were then operating the Central Vermont, to have it put into the hands of a receiver, and the railway remained in that condition until January of the present year when the receivership was discharged. When the road went into receivership it was necessary, under the terms of the mortgage securing the bonds which had been guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway in 1920, for the Canadian National Railways to take up those bonds, which were then outstanding tio the amount of $8,609,000. This matter was provided for through temporary financing, and the object of this bill is to guarantee the bonds of the Canadian National Railways and thus clear up the matter. In January of this year the road was purchased from the receiver by the Canadian National Railways for $22,000,000, and in addition to that there were outstanding $5,000,000 of receiver's certificates. As far as my information goes, that is the story of the adventure of the old Grand Trunk in the Central Vermont railway. Bonds of the Central Vermont railway will be issued and deposited with the Minister of Finance and will remain under his control and direction.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The explanation given by the minister is very good as far as it goes, but the point I wanted to have elucidated and placed upon record is the actual amount of money this country has in the Central Vermont railway, which amount I think runs up to about $39,000,000.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The total advances to the Central Vermont railway through the old Grand Trunk railway system amounted to about $38,800,000; that was the total outstanding when the road went into receivership in 1927, and included the guaranteed bonds of 1920 amounting to $12,000,000, to which I referred a moment ago. When the road was taken over from the receiver, it was

Special War Revenue Act
taken over at a valuation of $22,000,000 plus the $5,000,000 advanced on receiver'* certificates.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In addition to the
$39,000,000, there were $5,000,000 of receiver's certificates which were purchased, as I understand, by the Canadian National Railways, so that the total investment in the road would amount to something like $43,000,000. The $5,000,000 covered rehabilitation of the road due to the floods to which the minister has referred.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The $5,000,000 is included in the $38,800,000.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Has this road any
connection with any other road in the United
States?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am not at the moment
prepared to say what traffic arrangements it has with any other line in the New England states. As hon. members know, the old Grand Trunk had an interest in lines in the state of Michigan and in other western states, and this is a part of the system to carry goods from Chicago down to the New England states, those goods being carried over the Canadian National system through the province of Ontario.


Peter McGibbon: Are there any profits
over and above the operating expenses and bonded indebtedness?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I cannot give that information at the moment, but as I recall, Sir Henry Thornton made the statement before the special committee that based on the showing of last year the road would be able to pay the interest on its outstanding securities and show a very fair return on the common stock held by the Canadian National Railways.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The road has never paid
anything, but there are great expectations.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is quite right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Special War Revenue Act chapter one hundred and seventy-nine of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, as amended by chapter fifty of the acts of 1928 and chapter fifty-seven of the acts of 192y, and to provide:-
1. That section eighty-six of the said act, as amended by section three of chapter fifty ot the acts of 1928 and as amended by section fave ot chapter fifty-seven of the acts of 1929, be amended by providing that the rate ot consumption or sales tax be reduced to one per
Ce 2! That schedule III to this act be amended by changing the numbers of customs tariff items
as follow Tariff Tariff Tariff Tariff Tariff Tariff Tariff Tariff Tariff Tariff Tariff
[Stage Direction]
item 410 to read 406a. item 410a to read 406b. item 445 to read 409d. item 445a to read 442. item 445b to read 442a. item 446 to read 409b. item 446b to read 409c. item 446c to read 409k. item 447 to read 409n. item 447b to read 409j.
-renO 409a. 409c.
409e 409f.
431a.
409g, 409j, 409o.
Tariff item 449 to read 409i,
Tariff item 450 to read 431.
Tariff item 453b to read 411, 411a, 411b. Tariff item 453c to read 4101.
Tariff item 453d to read 464 Tariff item 453e to read 440k.
Tariff item 456a to read 391a.
;tmn dfin +r* rpnrl 410m. 410n. 410o, 410p,
Tariff item 460a to read 410q.
Tariff item 460b to read 410b, 410z.
Tariff item 460c to read 410g.
Tariff item 460d to read 410k.
Tariff item 461 to read 410f.
Tariff item 461a to read, iron or steel pipe, not butt or lap welded, and wirebound wooden pipe, not less than thirty inches in internal diameter, for use in alluvial gold mining.
Tariff item 466 to read 476.
Tariff item 466a to read 476a.
Tariff item 469 to read 410d.
Tariff item 469a to read 410e.
Tariff item 469b to read 410c.
Tariff item 506a to read 480.
Tariff item 591 to read 439c.
Tariff item 591a to read 439d, and that section eighty-eight of the said act be amended by changing the numbers of customs tariff items as foHoavs :
Tariff item 86 to read 85, 89a, 89b, 89c, 89d,
Tariff item 105 to read 105e. 106a, 106c.
Tariff item 105a to read 106b.
Tariff item 106 to read 105, 105d.
3.	That any enactment founded on paragraphs one and two of this resolution shall be deemed to have come into force on the second day of May, one thousand nine hundred and thirty, and to have applied to all goods imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on and after that day, and to have applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that date.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): These sections of the resolution concerning the Special War Revenue Act relate specifically to the sales tax. They provide, as indicated in the budget, for a reduction of the sales tax to one per cent. The changing in the resolution of the item numbers is done in order to bring the numbers into
[Stage Direction]
Special War Revenue Act
conformity with the numbering which is contained in the tariff provisions. Certain items in the Special War Revenue Act under the sales tax provisions at the present time take only one-half the regular rate of sales tax and in order to carry that forward it is necessary to change the numbers to make them apply to the same items in the new tariff. Sections 1, 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4:
4.	That section fifty-eight, as enacted by chapter fifty-seven of the statutes of 1929, sections fifty-nine, sixty, sixty-one, sixty-two and sixty-three be repealed and provision made that there shall be imposed, levied and collected upon every change of ownership consequent upon the sale, transfer or assignment of any share of^ stock of any association, company or corporation, or any bond, debenture of debenture stock other than a bond, debenture or stock of the Dominion of Canada or of any province of Canada, an excise tax as follows:-
(a)	Three cents for every one hundred dollars or fraction thereof, of the par value °t ® bond, debenture or debenture stock;
(b)	Five cents for every share of stock sold or transferred at a price over one hundred and fifty dollars per share;
(c)	Four cents for every share of stock sold or transferred at a price over seventy-five dollars per share but not more than one hundred and fifty dollars per share;
(d)	Three cents for every share of stock sold or transferred at a price over fifty dollars per share but not more than seventy-five dollars per share;
(e)	Two cents for every share of stock sold or transferred at a price over twenty-five dollars per share but not more than fifty dollars per share;
(f)	One cent for every share of stock sold or transferred at a price over five dollars per share but not more than twenty-five dollars per share;
(g)	One-quarter of one cent for every share of stock sold or transferred at a price of one dollar to five dollars per share, but not more than five dollars per share;
(h)	One-tenth of one per cent of the value of every share of stock sold or transferred at a price less than one dollar per share;
that the said tax shall be payable in excise tax stamps by the vendor, transferor or assignor;
that every person liable to collect or pay the said tax shall keep records and books of account;
and that any enactment founded on this paragraph four shall come into force on the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and thirty.
Mr. HANSON; The minister might be good enough to give the committee the reasons for the recantation in connection with this tax, just what happened as a result of the legislation of last year and the reason for the change.
Mr. DUNNING:: The tax as introduced
last year produced during its period of operation quite a substantial revenue, but it became apparent in operation that it bore more

heavily upon low value shares than upon high value shares. Representations were made during the year by those interested, and the department made a careful investigation, having in mind that what was done last year was done in an effort to arrive at a method of levying the tax which would be practicable. It will be noticed that in order to reach the point where the low value shares are equitably taxed, it has been necessary to adopt both methods in part; that is, partly the method which was in effect prior to one year ago and partly that which is in effect until the budget becomes effective. For instance, on the small value shares it will be noticed that the percentage method is applied in these proposals in order to get the tax small enough to bear any reasonable relationship to the value of the shares which are being dealt with. That was the system which was formerly objected to as applied to the whole list, and which last year was done away with, but which, on being changed, produced the situation that the low value shares were taxed proportionately more than those of high value. The grading in this manner is contended to be far more equitable.


William Alves Boys: Could we have opposite the
various paragraphs numbered from (a) to (h) the figures showing the tax which prevailed before? For instance, in paragraph (a) the tax is now three cents. If we could have opposite that the previous tax and so on down the list, we would at once see what was being done.


Mr. FRASER:: Could the minister indicate
what amount of revenue was collected under this tax to the end of the fiscal year?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am embarrassed at the moment because I have under my hand nothing more than what my friends have. I have sent for my material.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister then
let this stand and go on to the next resolution relating to the Income War Tax Act?


Charles Avery Dunning: We could do that if it
suits the convenience of the committee. I am sorry I have not under my hand the material required to answer the question.


Mr. McRAE:: Would the minister at the
same time ascertain the approximate expense involved in checking up this tax in the various brokerage houses throughout the country, the cost of superintendence?


Charles Avery Dunning: I can give that so far as
the government is concerned. I think I shall have that information available when I get my material.
Section stands.

Income War Tax Act



INCOME WAR TAX ACT

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Income War Tax Act, and to provide-[DOT]
1.	That the corporation rate of tax be paid in respect of undistributed income when such undistributed income is received by a corporation on the sale or winding up of another corporation.
2.	That the income of cooperative companies and associations be exempt from income tax.
3.	(a) That an exemption of $500 be granted in respect of dependent parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters, incapable of self-support on account of mental or physical infirmity, not otherwise presently provided for.
(b)	That donations, to the extent of ten per centum of the net income of the taxpayer to any church, university, college, school or hospital in Canada, be allowed as a deduction.
(c)	That government or other like annuities to the extent of $5,000 be exempt from income tax.
4.	That corporate rate of tax be imposed on family corporations in respect of the interest therein of non-resident shareholders.
5.	That directors, officers or employees of a Canadian company who reside abroad shall be taxable in respect of the dividend and interest income received from the company in which they are employed.
6.	That any enactment founded on the foregoing resolutions shall be deemed to have come into force at the commencement of the 1929 taxation period and to be applicable thereto and to fiscal periods ending therein and to subsequent periods, except any enactment founded on resolution number one hereof, which shall be deemed to have come into force at the commencement of the 1930 taxation period and to be applicable thereto and to fiscal periods ending therein and to all subsequent periods.
Mr. KAISER:: In regard to section 3 (a), might I ask the minister to consider extending that exemption of $500 to at least two collateral cases? An exemption of $500 to a man who takes care of his brother, sister, father, or mother is appropriate, but is it not more worthy of recognition by the state that a man should take care of his wife's sister and his wife's mother? I suggest that this $500 exemption be extended to the siSter-inlaw and her mother. It is all right for hon. gentlemen to smile. I understand the meaning of the smile. Hon. gentlemen are smiling at the idea of a man doing anything for his mother-in-law. But I say that it is a very creditable action on the part of a man earning a salary to take care of an invalid sister of his wife or the invalid mother of his wife, and I would ask that the minister very carefully consider extending t'he exemption to cover these cases.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that you read the whole resolution, and then we can take it up section 'by section.
On section I-That the corporation rate of tax be paid in respect of undistributed income when such undistributed income is received by a corporation on the sale or winding up of another corporation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I direct the attention of the minister to what after all is a technical matter, but inasmuch as we are altering the law in relation to undistributed income, I desire to call his attention to a situation that has arisen. Section 1 reads:
That the corporation rate of tax be paid in respect of undistributed income when such undistributed income is received by a corporation on the sale or winding up of another corporation.
Now if hon. gentleman will refer to section 6 they will see that it states that section 1 shall be deemed to have come into effect at the commencement of the 1930 taxation period. That is, it is dated back to the 1st day of January, 1930. As the resolution stands, the provisions of section 6 make the provision of section 1 retroactive in effect. That is my first objection. Unless care is taken in respect to the question of undistributed income in the bill, this provision will be retroactive to the beginning of time in the case of undistributed income. That is hardly fair.
I wonder if the minister, who of course is familiar with the law, knows that under the present act, section 19, it is provided that on the winding up of a company the distribution of the assets in any form shall be deemed to be the payment of a dividend to the extent that the company has on hand undistributed income. That is to say, on the winding up of a company undistributed income is taxable as such when it goes into the hands of the shareholders. Thus if a company sells its assets for cash and distributes the proceeds to the shareholders, they are taxable to the extent that the balance sheet shows them to be part of earned surplus. That is the law to-day. But the present act provides that dividends paid to an incorporated company by a company incorporated in Canada, the profits of which have been taxed under the act, are not liable to taxation. That is, where the dividends of a company the shares of which are owned by another company are paid to the shareholders of that other company. That is provided by section 4(n) of the present act. It is perfectly legal now for a company, instead of selling its physical assets, to sell its issued capital stock to another company. Accordingly, instead of buying assets, shareholders of a company which is selling out can be protected by buy-
Income War Tax Act

ing their shares. They then get the total price of their assets including surplus in the form of the price of their stock just as though they had sold their stock individually on the market. The purchasers can then have a new company incorporated to which the shares of the original company are transferred. The new company can then take the assets of the original company, by distribution in winding up, and under the provisions of section 4, paragraph (n) of the present act, the new company is protected from liability to income tax on the earned surplus. It may be said that by that method the shareholders of the selling company escape payment of income tax on undistributed and earned surplus or income; but it is a perfectly legal transaction, and to make this provision that we are now dealing with retroactive is, I submit, wholly unfair.
I can say for the minister's benefit and assistance that I have taken occasion to discuss this matter with the income tax authorities, and while they admit that it bears the construction which I have indicated, they say that it was not the intention of the department to go that far, but to go back only to the 1st day of January, 1930. But unless the bill is properly worded, to provide against the contingency I have mentioned, there will be very grave injustice done.
Even to go back to the beginning of 1930 is, in my opinion, not quite fair because that too has this retroactive feature. I would suggest to the minister that instead of making this retroactive to the beginning of the 1930 taxation period, he provide in the bill that it take effect from the beginning of the next taxation period, the beginning of the 1931 period, or the end of the 1930 taxation period. In that way the government and the department will not be open to the charge of passing retroactive legislation, which on principle is always bad, and which may bear hardly in a given case.
I am not objecting to the principle of the amendment to the act, because in principle an undistributed income has as much right to pay taxation as distributed income, but it has not been made taxable in the past and it has been perfectly legal to do what I have indicated has been done; and to make this provision retroactive now would create an injustice in existing pending cases, and there are cases existing such as I have indicated where the entire issue of capital stock of one corporation is being sold to another and title being taken in a holding company. That is the objection to this legislation. The objec-

tion is chiefly to the retroactive feature. I have no desire to see shareholders escape paying taxation if it is levied in a proper way, but I submit that the department in making this provision retroactive is not proceeding in quite a proper way.
My position is plain. I am quite sure the officers of the income tax branch understand the matter very thoroughly, perhaps much more thoroughly than I do myself. I think if the minister will consult them they will agree with me that the abjection is to the retroactive feature and not to the principle underlying the taxation in question. If the minister will make this effective from the beginning of the next taxation period I do not think anyone can have the slightest objection to it. Those who have transactions pending will not be injured. They have proceeded under the present law, and I do not think it is quite fair that the law should be changed and made to relate back so as to cover pending transactions.


Charles Avery Dunning: The intention of this section of the resolution is to overcome the scheme of avoidance of taxation, which as my hon. friend from YorknSunbury (Mr. Hanson) states, has the benefit of legality at the present time, although certainly the spirit of the law does intend that that taxation shall be paid. A legal method has been found of evading it in this case, and the amendment is designed to prevent that in the future and to ensure that taxation will be paid upon undistributed income of companies when they are absorbed by other companies. My hon. friend is afraid of the retroactive feature?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: I can assure him that the bill will not go back of this calendar year; but it is intended to embrace all transactions which take place within this calendar year, which is the year of taxation for all income tax payers. So far as putting its operation forward to the beginning of 1931 is concerned, that would be simply to invite those who have any intention at all of evading taxation under the present law to get their schemes matured in 1930, and I am sure my hon. friend would not want that to happen. I can see no harm whatever in making the amendment apply to the present taxation period.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister admits that it would not be right to go back beyond the present taxation period, but I am sure the gentlemen who are sitting with him will agree with me that as the resolution reads it is retroactive as to past years.

Income War Tax Act


Charles Avery Dunning: That is a matter for the lawyers to settle in the terms of the bill. I can assure my hon. friend that it is not our policy to go back beyond the calendar year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister does not say so in so many words, but he rather suggests that there is something immoral on the part of my profession or of the accountant's profession in studying this act and devising ways and means-not to enable their clients to evade payment of taxation, but to prevent their having to pay taxation. Perhaps I am going a little too far when I say he is suggesting there is something immoral about it.
I think it is quite proper. To my mind it is the duty of a lawyer to point out to his clients their rights under taxation. Undoubtedly it is quite legal to do what is being done to-day and what has been done in the past in this connection. I suggest to him that the immorality-perhaps that is a little too strong a word to use in the premises-consists in making the amendment retroactive. It may be said that there has been a loophole in the law. Well, I assume the law was designed to cover the cases the department had in mind at the time. It has not done so. Now circumstances crop up which suggest a change in the law. With the principle of that I am not finding any fault, because I like to see everybody pay his just share of taxation. But I do object to the retroactive feature, and if the minister will give further thought to the matter I think he will agree with me that it is a very bad principle. It is to be condemned in almost any class of legislation, and in taxation legislation in particular. I have always raised objection to making a tax retroactive. People have gone along, legally, honestly carrying out their business transactions on the assumption of having to pay certain existing taxes. It is a rude awakening for them to find that the legislature by an arbitrary provision- and I am not using the word "arbitrary" in any improper sense-cuts away the ground from under their feet. This amendment is perfectly all right and will receive my support if the minister omits the retroactive feature. I think the minister understands my point fully. I am pleased that the amendment will not be effective beyond this taxation period, but I think he ought to make it apply to the period beginning with 1931. I may say frankly to the minister that I have no clients interested, nor am I personally interested in the matter, but a professional friend of mine who is very much interested has drawn the matter to my attention. Hence these remarks.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will not attempt to follow my hon. friend into a discussion whether finding a hole in the law is moral or immoral. The fact of the matter is, as he himself acknowledges, there was a loophole which enabled parties to escape what I believe to have been the manifest intent and spirit of the act, while not its legal intent. Now we are proposing to plug that hole. It was never intended to make the amendment retrotractive so far as past years are concerned. I am not conceding anything to my hon. friend in that particular, because, as I say, it never was the intention. Retrotractive taxation would be decidedly unwise, and I agree with him as to the unsoundness of it. As to the application of it, however, to this taxation period from the first of January 1930, I regret I cannot follow his objection. I think it is quite proper to make the amendment with respect to taxation of undistributed income apply to the whole of this taxation period, which, as hon. members know, commences from the first of January in each calendar year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister has admitted all my major premises, but he refuses to apply them. He admits that retrotractive legislation is bad, almost immoral-I do not know that he uses that word.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yet he wants to apply that principle to this taxation period. The minister is not consistent.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am trying to be just.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would not say the minister is not trying to be just, but he is not logical, he is not consistent. Of course, I may say that the minister has been open to that charge on a good many occasions in relation to this budget, and this is just one more example of his inconsistency-in fact a very minor one in my judgment. But I do suggest that if he admits the principle for which I contend, then to be logical and to be absolutely just he should have this amended provision take effect, not at the beginning of this year, but at the end.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-That the income of cooperative companies and associations be exempt from income tax.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Does this arise out of the
litigation in relation to the wheat pool?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.
25US
Income War Tax Act


Richard Burpee Hanson: There was litigation, was
there not, between the department and the wheat pool over the question of payment of income tax?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What was the decision?


Charles Avery Dunning: It was decided against the department by the Supreme Court of Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is exactly what I
thought was the case. Is the litigation ended?


Charles Avery Dunning: The litigation is ended.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If that be so, and you have the decision of the highest court of appeal in this country, why the necessity of this legislation?


An hon. MEMBER:: There are other
cooperatives.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I know, but the principle is there established.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh no; it was a question of contract, and the interpretation of a contract. It did not bear specific relationship to the nature of the organization. The intention here is to exempt bona fide cooperative associations and companies from income tax. I can better discuss the details when the bill is presented, and hon. members will have the proposed sections before them. It is difficult to make a statement when the bill is not before the house, but I may say that a bona fide cooperative organization shall be exempt entirely from the provisions of the Income War Tax Act. I may read what is contained in the bill, although hon. members will understand that the bill cannot be introduced until the resolution has been adopted by the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We are at a great disadvantage in not having the bill before us.


Charles Avery Dunning: What I shall now read will not prevent consideration of the point at a later time. Section 4 of the said act is .mended by adding thereto the following paragraphs:
(p) The income of farmers', dairymen's, live stockmen's, fruit growers', poultrymen's, fishermen's and other like cooperative companies and associations whether with or without share capital organized and operated on a cooperative basis, which organizations-
(a)	market the products of the members or shareholders of such cooperative organizations under an obligation to pay to them the proceeds from the sales on the basis of quantity and quality less necessary expenses and reserves'
(b)	purchase supplies and equipment for the use of such members under an obligation to turn such supplies and equipment over to them at cost, plus necessary expenses and reserves.

Such companies and associations may market the produce of, or purchase supplies and equipment for non-members of the company or association provided the value thereof does not exceed 20 per centum of the value of produce supplies or equipment marketed or purchased for the members or shareholders.
That means that any cooperative organization falling within the groups there mentioned or other like groups may do business for its own shareholders provided that the arrangement of the business is to return all proceeds less the necessary reserves and expenses to those who contribute the commodities or, in the second place, in the case of the purchasing association, to those who purchase the goods.
The question arises as to how we shall decide as to the qualifications, because to a limited degree some of these organizations do business with other than their own members. We could not say that it would cease to qualify because it sold or bought from one person who was not a member, and it was decided that 20 per cent of the value would represent a fair dividing line. Any organization which does SO per cent of its business with its own members under the plan of returning to its members the whole proceeds less expenses and reserves will qualify for exemption from income tax. Any organization which does more than 20 per cent of its business with those other than its own members will not qualify.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not object to the principle of exemption as applied to the purely cooperative associations. I think it would be as fair to exempt such associations as it is to exempt provincial commissions such as the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario. There is a very strong feeling in certain sections of the country that this commission should not be exempted, especially where it operates in competition with privately owned corporations. I have no doubt that to a lesser degree there is the same feeling with respect to cooperative companies. I do not think however that the same principle is applicable where they are trading outside of their own immediate constituencies. I would be curious to know why the arbitrary figure of 20 per cent was taken; it seems to me that as these cooperative companies grow they spread out and make money; they become trading corporations and in principle they cease to be cooperative associations. Where they become purely merchandizing companies and the cooperative principle is disregarded, they ought to pay income tax.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.

Income War Tax Act


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why were the arbitrary figures of 20 per cent and 80 per cent taken; after all, they are only arbitrary figures?


Robert Gardiner: I would like to ask the minister if this clause in the bill would apply to cooperative stores operating on the same basis as the Rochdale plan in the old country.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. I think we could have a more intelligent discussion if hon. members had the bill before them.


Robert Gardiner: If the minister answers my question at a later time I shall be satisfied.


Charles Avery Dunning: The only qualification is that they must do 80 per cent of their business with their own members, and return to those members a certain amount on a commodity basis, less expenses and reasonable reserves. I must say that it was difficult to arrive at the figure of 20 per cent. I was interviewed by representatives of cooperatives from coast to coast. The cooperative movement operates in a variety of ways; there are different bases of operation. For instance, the dairy men of the Fraser valley have a very prominent cooperative organization, and it differs entirely from those of the wheat pools or cattle pools of the prairies. As a matter of fact, the cattle pools differ from the wheat pools. For this reason it was necessary to find some common ground upon which all of those essentially bona fide cooperative organizations could be dealt with without at the same time paving the way for the incorporation of what might be called bogus cooperatives created for the purpose of evading the income tax. I do not think there is any danger in the 20 per cent leeway, because no bogus organization could possibly gain anything. It would have to do 80 per cent of its business with its own members or shareholders, and it would have to return to them the whole of the commodity value less operating expenses and reserves. In that arrangement there would be no temptation to create bogus cooperatives to evade the tax. I have given considerable personal study to this matter, and I am satisfied that the provision I have stated will meet the requirements of the case. There was only one exception, and that was the difficulty which arose in connection with certain cooperative banks in the province of Quebec which undoubtedly are of a truly cooperative nature, and are causa populi. The bill will provide for the exemption of such institutions. I doubt very much whether they would have to pay an income
tax in any case under the present law, because they do not have profits. Being purely cooperative institutions they should come within the scope of the exemptions.


John Anderson Fraser: Does t'he minister anticipate any difficulty in arriving at the figure of 20 per cent with regard to each of the cooperatives? How will he determine that 20 per cent or how will he compel companies to keep books so that an intelligent abstract may be made from the records to ensure that there is 80 per cent being sold to their own members?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend knows,
of course, that every cooperative company must keep actual records of its dealings with its own members, for the purpose of distribution of its commodity payments.


John Anderson Fraser: It should, but does it?


Charles Avery Dunning: If it does not then it
cannot be a truly cooperative company; it must do so in order to qualify and the volume of that business deducted from the total volume of business done will immediately determine whether or not more than 20 per cent of the total volume was done with nonmembers. I do not anticipate any difficulty, and I may tell my hon. friend that this British Columbia institution, because of the peculiar nature of its foundation and organization, gave me more difficulty in devising this plan than any other single institution. I do not think he need have any fear about it.


John Anderson Fraser: I have not any doubt at
all about the institution to which the minister refers; I am satisfied that it will absolutely meet the requirements of the proposal. What I am thinking about are the small cooperative stores, merchandising stores calling themselves cooperative, of which I know a dozen in different places, which actually compete in these small towns with the independent or corporate stores. How are you going to get these people to determine the exact relationship of that 80 per cent and 20 per cent? I anticipate difficulty, whether or not the minister does; I can see a great deal of difficulty ahead.


Charles Avery Dunning: As a matter of fact they will have to prove that they are entitled to exemption. That is the position. Any bona fide cooperative will have no difficulty at all in proving itself to be a cooperative. It is only the person who is not bona fide who will have any difficulty, and I am not very much worried about him.
Income War Tax Act


Richard Burpee Hanson: If your legislation is framed properly you will put the full onus on these applicants.


Charles Avery Dunning: Certainly.


John Anderson Fraser: You might go a little
further in all this legislation and compel better records to be kept throughout the whole of the Dominion of Canada. If you would compel more accurate records to be kept in the accounting of 50 per cent of these outside stores you would probably collect a great deal more revenue than you get at present.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.	'
On section 3, subsection (a):
That an exemption of $500 be granted in
respect of dependent parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters, incapable of self-support on account of mental or physical infirmity, not otherwise presently provided for.
Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the minister going to do for the mother-in-law?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We may laugh about this, but it is an important principle. Since the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Kaiser) brought it up, several cases have occurred to me where this extension might be properly made. As a matter of fact I think the benefit of the exemption should be extended to all actual dependents, but I would put the onus on the taxpayer to show that they were actual dependents, and I would not limit them to particular classes of relations. The minister must know cases, as I think we all know them, of dependents where there was no blood relationship, and it does occur to me that statutory exemption should be given in the case of all bona fide dependents. I would urge that consideration on the minister now.


George Gibson Coote: Under this section I would like to direct t'he attention of the minister to a little anomaly in regard to these exemptions, and I want to do it on these resolutions because it is possible that he might decide to fix it up in the bill. On the front page of the income tax return I find the following statement:
If the statutory exemption of $3,000 is claimed by an unmarried person, widow or widower, state whether claim is made by reason of (a) being a householder as defined by paragraph (f), section 2 of the Income War Tax Act, or (b) being the support of dependent relatives as provided by subsection 1 (c), section 5 of the act.

The definition of a householder is given further down, as follows:
A householder within the meaning of section 2, of the Income War Tax Act, is an individual who at his own and sole expense maintains a self-contained domestic establishment (i.e., a dwelling house, apartment, or similar place of residence containing at least two bed rooms, in which residence amongst other things the taxpayer as a general rule sleeps and has his meals prepared and served) employing therein on full time a housekeeper or servant	
I wish to direct the attention of the minister particularly to those last words, "employing therein on full time a housekeeper or servant." I had a case last year which I took up with the inspector of taxation at Calgary, the case of a widow who was maintaining her place of residence as set out here, but who could not afford to engage a full time servant. There are other widows getting the exemption of $3,000 because they can afford to have a servant employed full time. There are many widows left with a certain type of house to keep up, and if the act is being administered as it reads here many of these widows who should have the exemption of $3,000 the same as the widow across the street who can afford to keep a full time servant, do not receive it. I think this was an oversight in drafting the act. Reference is made in this section to widowers, and perhaps the case of the widow was not fully considered. I think some slight change should be made so that the widow who cannot afford to have a full time servant but who otherwise complies with this definition of a householder should not be put in a different position from the wealthy widow who does keep that full time servant. I think if the minister would give that point consideration he might bring in the necessary amendment in the bill in order to correct that situation. Surely it is not right to discriminate in that way in favour of the wealthier widow.


Charles Avery Dunning: All points of that kind can be considered when the bill comes in, but of course I have nothing to do with the administration of the act. I am concerned only with the taxation features of it, and I hope the Minister of National Revenue will be present when we are discussing the bill, when administrative details may be gone into more fully. However, I may say to my hon. friend that there was some abuse prior to the institution of that regulation to which he has just directed my attention, due to the fact that in apartment houses a number of individuals taxable as single persons, by cooperating together and hiring one servant for the whole outfit, became householders and

Income War Tax Act
thereby acquired the benefits of married persons as far as exemptions were concerned.
I cannot promise that it can be changed. Always in changing an act of this kind to meet some individual and special case of hardship, you open the way to these ingenious people who are looking for a way to avoid taxation, and very frequently you do more harm than good.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister briefly tell us the present exemptions in order that we may see the proposed changes?


Charles Avery Dunning: The present exemptions given single persons, in addition to the statutory exemption of $1,500 which they get in any case, are as follows: For a dependent parent or grandparent, daughter or sister, son or brother under twenty-one years of age, or incapable of self-support, exemption is granted. A single person gets that now, a single person or a widower.


John Anderson Fraser: A single person gets exemption for his daughter?


Charles Avery Dunning: There may be some debate as to whether or not a widower is single;
I imagine most of them are quite sure they are single, but at the same time they may have daughters or sons. Of course in that case the qualification is that they must be under twenty-one years of age or incapable of self support. That is one of the reasons for the amendment we are now proposing in this connection, for as things are now a single person supporting his parent or any of the other relatives stated can get an additional exemption, but a married person doing the same thing, under the law as it was prior to the budget, cannot get exemption for that support.


Mr. SPENCER:: How much is allowed for
each dependent?


Charles Avery Dunning: Five hundred dollars.
A widower with a son or daughter is allowed $500 for each child under twenty-one years of age, or if over twenty-one years of age, when incapable of self support on account of physical or mental infirmity. If a single person, including a widow or widower, he or she is allowed a further $500 for each child actually supported whether of his or her parentage, when under twenty-one years of age, or if over twenty-one years of age when physically incapable of self support, then the allowance is made to the parent only. Under the old law, a child under twenty-one years of age was considered as an infant, while a child over twenty-one years of age was not considered in that sense.
By this bill, a single person, not a widow or widower, who is supporting two or more dependents of the following classes, parent, grandparent, brother or sister, would be exempted an additional $500 for each such person, with one exception the one in respect of whom he is already receiving an exemption of $1,500. Those are the present exemptions.
The present marital exemption-I do not like that phrase, but that is the one used-is $3,000 or $1,500 if the husband and wife are in receipt of an inome of $1,500. The present allowance of $500 is given in respect of the following dependent persons; each child actually supported, whether or not of his or her parentage, under twenty-one years of age, and each son or daughter over twenty-one years of age dependent on the taxpayer because of physical or mental infirmity. By this bill a married person will receive an additional allowance of $500 for each parent, grandparent, brother or sister dependent upon the taxpayer because of physical or mental infirmity.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The extension is as to the collateral brother or sister?


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Would it be
possible for the minister to make a statement regarding income tax returns to be made by farmers? I have received letters from farmers all over the country, many of whom are not in receipt of a taxable income but who are required to make a return. They want to comply with the law but many of them are afraid to make out the return themselves and they find it necessary to employ a lawyer or notary. This additional expense is put on the farmer in order to make a return which is absolutely unnecessary and which must only clutter up the files of the department. Would it not be possible for the minister to make a statement of some kind in order to clear up this matter in the minds of the people?


Charles Avery Dunning: As I stated a moment
ago, I am not in charge of the administration of the act, but I feel reasonably sure that it would be possible to secure from the department a statement setting out clearly the conditions in this regard. Every effort is made to avoid the harassing of people who have no taxable income, and improvements in administration along that line have taken place during the past year. I would suggest an interview with the departmental officials as being the best way of clearing up this difficulty.


John Gordon Ross: Would it not be possible to get the minister in charge of this act to make such a statement in the house so that it would go out to the country?
Income War Tax Act


Charles Avery Dunning: I can suggest that to
him.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Would it not be possible to make an affidavit that the individual has no taxable income?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That would be making the taxpayer the judge.


John Anderson Fraser: He is the judge now.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am afraid an affidavit would hardly meet the case.


John Vallance: Is there any form in
existence to-day which would meet the situation?


Charles Avery Dunning: The officers of the
National Revenue department advise me that there are forms at present in existence which would meet the situation, but I think careful inquiry should be made of the department itself.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Will the minister consider
the extension of these exemptions to cover a man's wife's relations as well as his own?


Charles Avery Dunning: Before answering that,
I would like to have had experience in operating this act. Every time any concession is made the question always arises of granting further concessions, but I would prefer not to go any farther at this time.


George Gibson Coote: Because of the answer which the minister gave me, I do not believe he quite got my point. There is a principle in the act which I think should be removed, entailed in the definition of householder. A widow who is able to afford a full-time housekeeper receives an exemption of $3,000, but the widow who cannot afford to employ a fulltime housekeeper receives an exemption of only $1,500. I do not think that the answer which the minister gave me is entirely applicable to this case, and I would suggest that this matter should be given consideration before the bill is introduced. I think the point could be covered easily by a small amendment.


Charles Avery Dunning: Can my hon. friend suggest an amendment which would have the effect of meeting his point in connection with a wiodw so situated and which would not at the same time lead to wide abuse? I am quite frank in saying that I do not think it can be done.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is another matter
to which I think consideration should be given, that of a child over the statutory age who is still being educated by his parents. We know of the sacrifices which are often made in 
order to send children to colleges or institutions of higher education, and I think this is a case which deserves special consideration in the matter of exemptions. I would like to have the department consider this matter in addition to the others which have been mentioned.
Reverting to the question raised by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Kaiser), I think there is more to this matter than the minister is willing to admit at the moment.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not say that there is not a lot in it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There are many cases
where the relations of the wife are an absolute burden on the taxpayer, and he should be entitled to exemption in .those cases as he is to exemption for his own parents or grandparents.


George Gibson Coote: In reply to the minister,
I am sure that with the legal talent which they have in the department, they could easily find the proper words and definition to cover my point.


Charles Avery Dunning: The solicitor of the income tax branch of the Department of National Revenue will be very pleased to discuss that point with my hon. friend in order to see if a solution cannot be found.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3 (b):
(b) That donations, to the extent of ten per centum of the net income of the taxpayer to any church, university, college, school or hospital in Canada, be allowed as a deduction.
James Shaver Woodsworth: I have representations from leading citizens of Winnipeg with regard to this paragraph and they would like to have the exemption extended to cover a type of organization which has developed in my city and which, I think, exists in some other cities throughout the country. I refer to the community fund which is a trust administered in the interests of various charities in the city and which is entirely for the benefit of the necessitous people of the community. In many ways it is, in my judgment, a much better type of organization than a church or any sectional charity; in fact, it covers the whole community. Apparently, however, no provision is made for a community fund of this character. A little while ago the minister asked for some sort of amendment that would cover the case. I am not quite sure whether this would cover it, but it has been suggested in this instance. In

Income War Tax Act
chapter 57, 1927 Manitoba statutes, dealing with exemption of donations to charity from succession duties, there is this definition:
Charitable institutions or organizations having for their object, the care, protection or relief of necessitous men, women or children.
If the law officers at the disposal of the minister cannot devise a suitable amendment, we might follow this phrase from the Manitoba statute.


Charles Avery Dunning: That would be wide
enough for my hon. friend's purposes, but it would not be wide enough in any sense to meet the representations that have come to me.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It might cover this particular community fund and I would urge that such a fund as I have mentioned is just as deserving of consideration as any church or school fund.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the hon. member is absolutely right. If the minister is going to open the door, this list is altogether too narrow. I have in mind other institutions such as the Victorian Order of Nurses, the King's Daughters, which in my city maintains a home for the indigent aged people who are taken care of in most oases by gifts from wealthy friends and relatives which make it possible for these people to enter such homes. If the minister is going to grant this exemption, he should cover 'the whole field. I am not opposed to the exemption; indeed, it was urged upon the government by this party many years ago in the house, and I suggest to the minister that if he is adopting the principle, the exemption list is not wide enough because the church is not the only avenue through which charitably disposed citizens use their funds. There are nowadays so many of these bodies that they are almost numberless and if the minister is going to depart from the principle that has heretofore obtained, the list should be extended. The whole question should be reviewed by the minister having regard to what representations have been made to him, because I have no doubt representations have been made to the department by almost every institution in Canada.


William Alves Boys: What does the term "donation" mean? Does it mean a contribution as well as a distinct gift?


Charles Avery Dunning: Any free offering which is receipted for.


William Alves Boys: To make my question quite clear, I imagine it means what I think it does, and probably when we have the legis-2419-159
lation before us we shall know better. One can understand a donation generally might mean a gift of $100 or $500, apart and distinct from an ordinary contribution from Sunday to Sunday. Is it intended to cover such contributions or only straight gifts?


Charles Avery Dunning: Anything which is receipted for. In many churches the organized method of giving is by the envelope system which involves machinery whereby the necessary proof of the gift can be adduced, but I am afraid it would not cover the quarter or whatever it is that is placed on the collection plate, because there would be no means of demonstrating that such an amount was given.


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: I agree entirely with what the 'hon. member has just said regarding donations of this character. This is a new paragraph covering donations to churches, universities, colleges, schools or hospitals. We might as well take into account the fact that the institutions that are mentioned are going to exist no matter whether donations are made to them or not. If this paragraph is being introduced for the purpose of exempting donations, there is every reason why charitable and social agencies should be included, especially such institutions as exist in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, London and other large cities in Canada. I am going to ask the minister to consider thi3 matter very seriously, because he has only one answer to make to the fact that such exemptions are not granted of donations to these social agencies, and that is that under the act it is impracticable to check up such donations. The reply to that is that in the United States Income Tax Act provision is made for such exemptions as we are trying to urge upon the minister. I would point out that in Montreal lay organizations look after much of our Protestant charity work. I would ask therefore to add them to the list. It has been stated to me that in Montreal the Roman Catholic Church itself looks after about 95 per cent of its charitable work. Everybody knows and realizes that donations to churches whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, are always necessary and important and undoubtedly strong recommendations have been made to the minister that these charitable and social agencies should also be included in the list of exemptions foT donations. If he wants to go into the matter I 'have a memorandum prepared, but I should like to hear from him just why he cannot see his way clear to include these social agencies. As the hon. member for York-Sunbury has explained, if the paragraph is left as it is, the tendency

Income War Tax Act

will be for donations to be made to churches and other institutions such as the Victorian Order of Nurses, Boys' Welfare, Montreal Hygiene Committee, which does social settlement work for boys and girls, the Social Hygiene Council and the Anti-Tuberculosis Association are all going to suffer. It is going to be harder to secure donations for those institutions which are banded together for the purpose of economy and which comprise in Montreal some thirty agencies or more. Some reasonable exemption should be given to those very necessary institutions. Last year in Montreal three-quarters of a million dollars were raised by the most prominent citizens of that city who gave their time for a couple of weeks, going out on a drive simply for the purpose of relieving their fellow men and carrying on the necessary charitable work throughout the year. Surely, instead of discriminating against these institutions, they should be encouraged and donations to them should be exempt.


Peter McGibbon: The hon. member for
St. Antoine has said just what I was about to say. I do not think that the minister has gone far enough, although I quite agree with him in the proposals he has made. After all, it is the rich people who benefit mostly from the universities, and it is these institutions which receive the greatest amount of government support. Those of us who come from the rural parts know how great the demands for charity are in the more or less poor districts, and if we have to go out and solicit funds for any charitable object whatsoever under the handicap which this bill places upon us, the cause is going to suffer. If the minister cannot go the whole way, I think he should reverse his process and allow the universities, colleges and these other institutions, which after all are largely endowed or are receiving government support, and which find it easier to collect money from the public, to stay as they were, and exempt these other institutions which are more for the poor and are more or less dependent upon the public, because those behind these institutions have the greatest difficulty in getting support. I think the minister should be commended for going as far as he has, but I do feel that he has left out the most deserving class in the community; and if he cannot include them, I would suggest that he subsitute them for the institutions he has on his list.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is much merit in the suggestions that have been put forward. The difficulty, of course, is that we have no experience as to how a thing of this kind will fMr. L. G. Belt]
work out. I must say that I have been astonished at the extremely wide range of activities which have been presented to me for consideration. In fact, any ideas that I had upon the desirability and practicability of immediately extending this provision have been dissipated by the very wide range of activities which have been brought to my attention as being properly qualified to be included. One of the pleasant features has been some communications that I have received indicating that as a result of this, scholarships for poor boys will be established in certain of our universities. People already are thinking in those terms.


Peter McGibbon: How could it be done?


Charles Avery Dunning: The donation may be
for the specific purpose of establishing a scholarship for poor boys. Nevertheless it would be entitled to exemption under this clause.


Peter McGibbon: How would you define a poor boy in the law?


Charles Avery Dunning: It would be anybody. I was simply stating that I have been advised of that development.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is that consistent? If we can establish a scholarship for anybody and the money devoted to that purpose is to be exempted, should you not exempt the amount that may go directly to feed the starving?


Charles Avery Dunning: So far as hospital activities are concerned, representations have been made regarding the Red Cross. Many of us are familiar with the work that the Red Cross is doing in connection with their hospitals. Donations made to the Red Cross for their hospital work will be entitled to exemption. Take the institutions which exist in many places for crippled children and for those who are unfortunate in one way or another. They may be either schools or hospitals, treating either the body physically or ministering to the mind in some sort of school.


William Alves Boys: What about children's shelters? Would they come within the categories mentioned by the minister?


Charles Avery Dunning: Undoubtedly, for this
purpose.


William Alves Boys: Would they be schools or
hospitals?

Income War Tax Act


Charles Avery Dunning: Hospitals. I have all
sympathy with the ideas that have been expressed by my hon. friend, but I wish they would allow us to get a little experience in operating this first with a view to widening it in the future in a manner which will be safe and proper.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


The CHAIRMAN:: When the committee
rose at one o'clock we were considering subsection (b) of section 3 of the Income War Tax Act.


Leslie Gordon Bell: The minister
was kind enough to say that he would leave the door open in considering suggestions made with reference to this subsection. May I put on record a somewhat similar provision in the United States income tax legislation dealing with this subject. It exempts contributions or gifts made within the taxable year to or for the use of:
any corporation or trust, or community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.
It will be seen that that exemption from income tax of contributions or gifts is much wider in its scope than in this subsection. I think I have made it perfectly clear that I have no objection to the exemption from income tax of donations to churches and other religious institutions. All I am asking the minister to do is to extend the provision to cover donations to charities and social agencies, which apparently have been excluded, for administrative reasons. The Federated Charities of Montreal is an outstanding example of an organization such as I have in mind. It collects about three quarters of a million dollars annually for some thirty charitable institutions in the city. It is very efficiently managed and is doing very valuable work. I should think it would be no more difficult for the income tax authorities to administer the act with regard to donations to this and similar institutions than it would be with respect to donations to churches, colleges, universities, hospitals and the other institutions covered by the subsection under discussion. Unless the scope of this amendment is extended as suggested I fear it will discourage contributions to charitable and 2419-15*i
social organizations, to the detriment of the very necessary work that they carry on in our large cities. This would very adversely affect such splendid institutions as the Victorian Order of Nurses, the Child Welfare Association, the Mental Hygiene Committee, the Children's Aid Society, the Family Welfare Association, the social settlement of boys' and girls' clubs, the Social Hygiene and AntiTuberculosis Association, the Red Cross Society, and so on. As most of these organizations are operating under a federal or a provincial charter, I do not think there would be any difficulty of administration involved if they were brought within the scope of this subsection. I would point out to the minister that the province of Quebec has recently amended its inheritance tax legislation to exempt from taxation legacies to certain associations, amongst which are the charitable institutions I have enumerated.


Mr. MacLAREN:: Mr. Chairman, I recognize that this subsection includes universities, but could it be interpreted as embracing such institutions as are essentially educational in their nature-for example a museum? It is conceivable that by a narrow interpretation of the words " university, college, school," such museums might be excluded from the benefits of the provision. I have a specific oase in point-a provincial museum. I think the purpose of the subsection is admirable, but I should like to know if it will be interpreted in a liberal sense to cover museums, they being in their character essentially educational institutions. If not, I would suggest that the subsection be amended to effect this purpose.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not think I can say to my hon. friend that contributions to a museum would fall within the scope of the present suggested amendment. Of course, if a university was building a museum, and somebody contributed to the university, that would be a contribution to a university; the same would be true in the case of a college or a school. The suggestion made to include the various worthy objects mentioned by hon. members illustrates the type of problem with which I have had to deal in widening the scope of the exemptions even to this extent. I think the house might well let us operate under this section for a year, and so get experience of how it works in its various ramifications; then with that experience behind us we might consider extending the scope of the section as time passes. Might I reinforce the suggestion made by an hon. member before the lunch adjournment, that probably we would make faster progress and
Income War Tax Act

the committee would have much more information before it if I were allowed to pass the resolution and then introduce the bill founded on it. It will be found to contain answers to many of the questions that I am now trying to answer. I think we would expedite business, it would be more convenient for the committee generally and would in no way restrict discussion.


William Alves Boys: I approve of the suggestion made by the minister. We will be in a position to discuss the details when we have the bill before us, and as he has stated, some of the questions which at this stage present difficulties would be cleared up if we had the bill at our disposal.


Mr. MATTHEWS:: I appreciate the difficulty under which the minister is working, because exemptions to the income tax present many ramifications and are becoming so numerous that they constitute almost the major part of the act. They will no doubt contribute to the difficulties encountered in the administration of the act. Three years ago in speaking on the budget I advocated that there should be exemptions in favour of educational institutions and hospitals. On that occasion I pointed out that the United States had made exemptions to the extent of about 15 per cent in favour of income payable to such institutions. The present suggestion recommends exemptions to the extent of 10 per cent. In spite of the fact that there will be difficulty in administration, I think the minister should give special consideration to the federated charities for community service which are operating in the larger cities. It is in the large cities that we find the greatest poverty, and because of that poverty relief is necessary. Unless exemptions are made and assistance rendered to the federated charities many poor people will find themselves in destitute circumstances. On that account and on account of the non-sectarian character of these funds, I think this point should be considered by the minister. In addition to that, if there is any difficulty on account of lack of uniformity in the collection and disposition of the federation funds, those difficulties might easily be overcome. There are not many federated funds; they are mainly in the larger cities, and I think at the request of the minister the collection and distribution of all these funds could be made uniform in the various cities.


Peter McGibbon: Before the noon adjournment the minister referred to donations to the Red Cross hospitals. Would any dona-
(Mr. Dunning.]
tions to the Red Cross be exempt, because they operate only about 27 or 28 hospitals, while they have many outposts which do a great deal of relief work?


Charles Avery Dunning: The Red Cross outposts, as I understand them, are in effect small hospitals.


Peter McGibbon: Some of them are not


Charles Avery Dunning: Any contributions for
that phase of Red Cross work undoubtedly would be exempted.


Robert Charles Matthews: Would the reference to churches include the Salvation Army?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Leslie Gordon Bell: The minister
made special reference to the Red Cross. Several of these institutions, such as the Red Cross are included in the federation of charities. I presume that where donations are made definitely to that institution, even although it may form one of the societies in the federated charities, exemptions will be granted.


Charles Avery Dunning: Any taxpayer who can produce a receipt from an institution the description of which falls within the four corners of this amendment will be entitled to exemption with respect to such receipt. Donations which are made for the support of Red Cross hospitals or outposts are manifestly donations for hospital purposes and would entitle the donor to exemption.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In the city of Montreal, in the Catholic community, charity is largely under the control of the Roman Catholic churches. It is possible for people to contribute through the church for the needs of the community. On the other hand, in the Protestant community, charity is very largely organized through social service agencies, and there is a federation in that city which is trying to provide for the Protestant section. That is the method adopted by the Protestant community. The Roman Catholic church is one united church; the Protestant Church is divided into a number of sects, and for the purpose of social welfare they have evolved this particular form of organization for the giving of relief. I do not think it is right that we should exempt the charities which come under the Roman Catholic church and refuse to exempt the charities which are trying to minister to the needs of the Protestant section in t'he city of Montreal. Such an arrangement does not seem fair to me. I have nothing against the Roman Catholic church, nor have I anything against the way

Income War Tax Act
they administer their affairs, but I urge that the Protestants and other non-Catholic elements who wish to carry out social service activities have a perfect right to organize in the way they think best. It does not seem fair then that they should be discriminated against in this way. No doubt this is a newer type of organization and covers a wider field, but there is just as much reason why we should give to the needy man or the hungry child as there is to give to the sick man or child. At the present time there is a clear case of discrimination in favour of certain established institutions and against those newer types of social service which are being evolved and which to my mind are more efficient t'han the older ones.


Ernest Lapointe: I think my hon. friend is absolutely wrong in his understanding of the practices in the Catholic church in respect to charities. My hon. friend evidently has more information on the subject than I have, because I know of nothing such as he has described. There are associations which correspond to the social service agencies about which my hon. friend has spoken. In the cities where there are those of the Roman Catholic faith we find the St. Vincent de Paul Society, and contributions are made to it more particularly by members of the Catholic church. It is however quite independent of the church and it is not under the control of the church. There is no such thing as the Catholic church distributing charities in the manner suggested by my hon. friend; I have never heard of it and I think I know as much about the Catholic church as does my hon. friend.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What about the collections for the poor which are observed by the Roman Catholic church? I do not pretend to be an authority in matters connected with the Roman Catholic church-


Ernest Lapointe: It is just another case of those discriminations about which some people dream.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am so informed.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh yes, I know you are.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am particularly sorry that any question of religious discrimination could have been injected into this discussion. I can assure my hon. friends that nothing was farther from my mind.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I quite agree with the hon. gentleman, but nevertheless it might work out in the way I have described.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have made careful inquiry and my information is that there is no discrimination so far as Protestant charitable societies are concerned. They are on exactly the same footing, as far as this measure is concerned, as any society under the aegis of the Roman Catholic church. That is to say contributions to neither one nor the other would be exempt under the terms of this act, but only contributions to the churches themselves would be exempt. I would rather withdraw this amendment than have it the occasion for any controversy as to religious discrimination. Were I of opinion that my hon. friend's statement as to discrimination was correct, I assure him I would withdraw it now.	,ij


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then I think the matter ought to be investigated before this is passed, because there is a serious question here. Anyone who knows anything of the charity work in the city of Montreal-and some years ago I had occasion to look into it very carefully-will know very well that there is a good deal of feeling in that city with regard to such matters, and I know there is a conviction that such organizations should be free to work out their own schemes. I do not want to take this occasion to go into the reports that have been given to me, reports of discrimination within the province of Quebec, and similar charges of which we often hear; we have nothing to do with that in this house, but I do not want this practice carried into the federal house. It does seem to me that it is quite possible that any donor may give to the Catholic church or to any individual Protestant church a sum of money, and receive exemption for that sum, and that the church may then use that money for whatever purpose it may wish. The church may use it for charitable purposes, for missionary activities, for the upkeep of the local church or for anything else. In the case of the Protestant communities, let me repeat that they carry on charity to a very limited extent through the local church. In recent years there has been developed this newrer type of organization through which a good deal of the social work among Protestant people is done.
Now this simply means that whereas in the Roman Catholic community donors can give to the church and the church can pass it on as it pleases-


Ernest Lapointe: But it is not done.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is also done to a limited extent in the individual Protestant churches; I know that.
Income War Tax Act


Mr. CANNON:: I do not know where my hon. friend got his information. I have belonged to that church for quite a number of years and what he is balking about mow does not exist.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Perhaps the Minister of Justice will credit me with knowing what is done in the Protestant churches.


Ernest Lapointe: But you are talking
about the Catholic church.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I say to a limited extent charity is carried on by the individual local Protestant churches, but never to more than a limited extent. To a very large extent the Protestant churches have turned over a considerable amount of that type of work to bodies which do not directly come under the church. In my own city I have no quarrel with the way things are organized, for under this community fund the beneficiaries may be organizations such as the minister mentioned, the St. Vincent de Paul Society, as well as other non-denominational organizations. I would urge that if a man does not choose to belong to a particular denomination, or to any denomination, he should still be able to contribute to the needs of his fellow men without being discriminated against. The churches have a prominent place in this country, but they have no monopoly in work of this kind. I am not speaking against the churches nor am I speaking against the hospitals; they both do excellent work. Undoubtedly the hospitals should be given this exemption, but I am pleading for another type of work which has come into prominence in more recent years and which is doing ju^t as good work as any of these other institutions, and hence should be recognized.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: There are two orders which are undenominational, so far as I know;
I refer to the Red Cross and the Victorian Order of Nurses. They are not covered by this amendment; that seems to be clear, from what the minister has said.


Peter McGibbon: The minister says they
are covered.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, I did not say that.
What I said was that in so far as contributions are made to either of these societies for hospital or school purposes, those contributions would be exempt.


Peter McGibbon: I submit that was not the answer given to my question.


Charles Avery Dunning: 
William Garland McQuarrie: This amendment seems to be quite clear. It states that donations to the extent of 10 per cent of the net income of the taxpayers to any church, university, college, school or hospital in Canada will be allowed as a deduction. Contribution to either of these two other bodies would not come under any of these headings.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes; the Red Cross runs hospitals. If my hon. friend wants to contribute to a Red Cross hospital he can get exemption for his contribution under this section.


William Garland McQuarrie: But isn't that drawing it very fine?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


William Garland McQuarrie: It seems to me it is,
because if you contribute to the Red Cross or to the Victorian Order of Nurses you do not say to them how that money is to be spent. They are performing very valuable service all over the country without regard to race, creed, religion or anything of that kind. They are doing splendid work, carrying on nursing services, educational work, public health and all that sort of thing. We have them all over Canada, and the funds with which they carry on are obtained by donation. I do not think that is the right system at all. I think the government should be contributing enough to allow these organizations to carry on their splendid work, but as it is the government only makes very paltry contributions to these organizations. Now, surely donations made to these orders should be exempt when they are doing purely charitable work. These men and women who are carrying on both these orders have themselves to provide and collect the funds and I think it would be a very little thing indeed to add these two orders to the classes set out in paragraph (b).


Charles Avery Dunning: I have had enough suggestions as to the widening of this paragraph from the committee, particularly from new relays of members as they came in, to illustrate the nature of the problem which I outlined this morning at the commencement. This exemption is experimental; it is new in the law. It is now fairly wide in its application, and I ask that the committee give us a chance to operate it and get experience under it. Then we can consider widening it. I am quite sure from the variety of suggestions which have been received that it is very apparent that to meet them all would be going very far indeed. I suggested a few moments ago that we could

Income War Tax Act
more easily discuss these resolutions on the bill, when hon. members had it before them.
I think it would be very much easier when we get the bill introduced.


Peter McGibbon: I just want to clear up
this matter, and perhaps the minister will forgive me if I am persistent. With reference to the Red Cross, to my mind there is no such thing as a donation to a Red Cross hospital.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, there is.


Peter McGibbon: No, I beg your pardon;
I happen to know something about that. The hospitals are bought and equipped by the local municipalities, and all the Red Cross does is to run them. The donations are solicited for the general funds, which may go to running a Red Cross hospital, which may finance outpost nursing services or other things in that category. I think the minister has been misinformed, because if you give a donation to a Red Cross hospital it does not go to the Red Cross at all; it goes to the local municipality which for the time being is erecting and fitting that hospital. All the Red Cross does is to operate it and pay the deficit or take the profit as the case may be. I would like the minister just to give us a ruling as to whether or not this would apply.


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course I cannot give
a departmental ruling; that is impossible, but I can say that personally I have contributed to specific objects. I appreciate what my hon. friend says; I believe it is generally true regarding the Red Cross. I submit that there is nothing to prevent the Red Cross or any organization which operates hospitals or schools as part of its regular work, from asking for specific contributions for those purposes, and giving receipts therefore, in which case the *givers would qualify for exemption.


Peter McGibbon: The Red Cross do nothing towards acquiring or equipping hospitals; all they do is to run them, take the fees from the patients, accept government grants and pay any deficits or take any surplus, as the case may be.


Charles Avery Dunning: They operate outposts
in our province.


Peter McGibbon: That is not the case in
the province of Ontario. I can assure the minister that I have had a good deal to do with that organization. All donations go into a general fund.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Mr. Chairman, before this
clause is passed I would like to go on record in saying that I rely fully upon the declaration of the hon. Minister of Finance, that this
clause is being introduced as an experiment, and I am confident that if there are any criticisms offered they will receive the attention of the minister.
Subsection 3 (b) agreed to.
On section 3, subsection (c):
That government or other like annuities to the extent of $5,000 be exempt from income tax.
Subsection (c) agreed to.
On section 4:
That corporate rates of tax be imposed on family corporations in respect of the interest therein of non-resident shareholders.
Section 4 agreed to.
On section 5:
That directors, officers or employees of a Canadian company who reside abroad shall be taxable in respect of the dividend and interest income received from the company in which they are employed.


Mr. SMOKE:: Mr. Chairman, I do not see how the government of the Dominion of Canada will be able to impose a tax upon a non-resident. It may be that the statute may provide that the company who pays the dividend or other remuneration to foreign directors, officers or employees will have to deduct the amount of the tax from suoh payment. Otherwise, how is the government to reach people residing outside of Canada for the purpose of imposing taxation?


Charles Avery Dunning: I wish my hon. friend
would wait until he has the bill before him.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6:
That any enactment founded on the foregoing resolutions shall be deemed to have come into force at the commencement of the 1929 taxation period and to be applicable thereto and to fiscal periods ending therein and to subsequent periods, except any enactment founded on resolution number one hereof, which shall be deemed to have come into force at the commencement of the 1939 taxation period and to be applicable thereto and to fiscal periods ending therein and to all subsequent periods.
Section 6 agreed to.
Resolution reported.



BOUNTY ON COAL FOR COKING AND SMELTING

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of forty-nine and one-half cents per ton on bituminous coal mined in Canada and converted into coke in Canada and used in the smelting of iron from ore, or in the production of steel.
Mr. MaaDONALD ('Cape Breton South): Mr. Chairman, as I intimated in my remarks during the budget debate, I intend to move
Bounty on Coal
[Stage Direction]
an amendment to this resolution to provide that the money paid out under this resolution shall find its way into the wage envelopes of the workers. I may say that I am very much interested in the success of this enterprise; all my interests and the interests of those I represent are bound up intimately with its success or failure. The slightest interference with the operations of this enterprise is felt in every store, in every office and in every home of Sydney. It is quite clear that if this company is not earning enough money to pay decent wages, then decent wages cannot be paid. I am sure that if the workers were convinced that this company was unable to pay them fair rates of wages, they possess the intelligence and fairminded-ness not to ask for them. However, the report of the receiver of that institution is to the effect that during the last three years the company's earnings over expenditures have been over $2,000,000 per year. The wages paid to these workers are not high enough to enable them to maintain a decent standard of living. As has been pointed out, they work unseemly hours; during one week they work thirteen hours per day, and the next eleven hours per day. These men are not unionized and are not permitted to organize. An employee who takes part in any attempt at organization soon finds his occupation gone.
In his remarks last evening the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cant-ley) seemed to resent the observations which had been made in this house on previous occasions, and I might say that I believe every statement he made was absolutely correct. The hon. member was president and director of the Nova Scotia Steel Company for twenty years, and during all those years there never was the slightest labour trouble in any of the operations which that companj' carried on at New Glasgow and Sydney Mines. However, Besco came in and purchased the plant occupied by the Nova Scotia Steel Company and since that time we have had numerous labour troubles. Why was there not trouble before that time? Because the hon. member for Picitou and others like him worked shoulder to shoulder with the men; they knew the men personally. When they passed off the scene, operations were carried on from Montreal, 1,000 miles away, by a body of men sitting around a table. They would have before them statements showing the operations of the institution and the sight of red ink on those statements they hated worse than they hated his satanic majesty. This resolution provides that the steel company is to get a bonus of fifty cents a ton on every ton of coal that 'Mr. Finlay MacDonald.]
enters into the manufacture of steel. I am holding uip both hands for it; it is a recommendation which was made by the Duncan commission and which we have urged and fought for in the house during the past three or four years. We give the government every credit for this action and I want to thank the minister responsible for introducing this resolution. I appreciate what has been done, but this is velvet; it is clear profit that is being handed to that company.
Where should this bonus go? Should it go into the pockets of the shareholders or into the wage envelopes of the men? In view of the modern conception of how corporations of this kind should be managed, there can be no two opinions on that point. I appreciate the difficulties surrounding any attempt to interfere with the tariff, but there is no difficulty in connection with this bonus system. This is a gratuity given by the government to that company.
Richard Burpee Hanson: No; from the country to the company.
Mr. MaoDONADD (Cape Breton South): Well, from the country to the company through the agency of the government. I am not disposed to take any credit away from the government; I want to give them credit for what they have done, but I should like them to come with me a little further and say that this amount is going, not into the hands of the shareholders or the executive of the company, but into the wage envelopes of the men who are helping to make the industry a success.
I am glad to see the Minister of Labour in his seat. He had a fair wage officer in that district and he is able to tell the committee to-day whether the men are working there under decent conditions, whether this thirteen-hour and eleven-hour day should be permitted to exist. He is able to assure the committee on that point. Will he not join with me in seeing that this degree of justice is done to those men? I have confidence enough in him to believe that he will. We have reached in the history of the country the stage where governments must recognize their responsibilities, and such a case as this where the men are unable to organize to protect themselves, the representatives of the people must step in and see, so far as lies within our power, that justice is done. I therefore move that the following words be added to the resolution:
And to provide that the money so paid or a portion thereof shall be devoted to the improvement of the position of the men employed in such plants either by way of increased wages. or shorter hours or both.

Special War Revenue Act


Charles Avery Dunning: Since my hon. friend started to speak, it has been represented to me by various members across the floor that there was some understanding that this matter should not be proceeded with to-day and I would not like to be in the position of even inferentially violating any understanding of that kind. I am quite prepared to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Mr. Mii.oDiOlNAIT.iD (Cape Breton South):
I did not know of any such arrangement.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: To what understanding does the minister refer? If the leader of the opposition did not want to have this matter discussed until he was present, that is quite satisfactory.


Charles Avery Dunning: It was represented to me that last night the leader of the opposition suggested that this bill be not proceeded with to-day.
Mr. W00DSW0RTH: Does that mean that the steel schedules will not be proceeded with to-day?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am prepared to hold them over. I am ready to proceed with any business, but if there was any understanding on the part of any of the leaders who are not present to-day that something should not be gone on with, I do not want to violate it.


Mr. CANTLEY:: That is quite all right.
Resolution (coal bounty) stands.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 310, to amend the Income War Tax Act-.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first and second times.
Mr. DUNNING moved that the house go into committee on the bill.


William Alves Boys: I think we ought to have the bill in our hands before we are asked to consider it in committee.


Charles Avery Dunning: The bill is ready for distribution.


William Alves Boys: But that does not give us the slightest opportunity of familiarizing ourselves with its provisions. The minister is familiar with them, but we are not.
Motion stands.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house again in committee of ways and means, Air. Johnston in the chair.
John Frederick Johnston: This resolution was
before the committee this morning. We are now considering section 4.
On section 4:
4. That section fifty-eight, as enacted by chapter fifty-seven of the statutes of 1929, sections fifty-nine, sixty, sixty-one, sixty-two and sixty-three be repealed and provision made that there shall be imposed, levied and collected upon every change of ownership consequent upon the sale, transfer or assignment of any share of stock of any association, company' or corporation, or any bond, debenture or debenture stock other than a bond, debenture or stock of the Dominion of Canada or of any province of Canada, an excise tax as follows:
(a)	Three cents for every one hundred dollars or fraction thereof, of the par value of a bond, debenture or debenture stock;
(b)	Five cents for every share of stock sold or transferred at a price over one hundred and fifty dollars per share;
(c)	Four cents for every share of stock sold or transferred at a price over seventy-five dollars per share but not more than one hundred and fifty dollars per share;
(d)	Three cents for every share of stock sold or transferred at a price over fifty dollars per share but not more than seventy-five dollars per share;
(e)	Two cents for every share of stock sold or transfered at a price over twenty-five dollars per share but not more than fifty dollars per share;
(f)	One cent for every share of stock sold or transferred at a price over five dollars per share but not more than twenty-five dollars per share;
(g)	One-quarter of one cent for every share of stock sold or transferred at a price of one dollar to five dollars per share, but not more than five dollars per share;
(h)	One-tenth of one per cent of the value of every share of stock sold or transferred at a price less than one dollar per share;
that the said tax shall be payable in excise tax stamps by the vendor, transferor or assignor;
that every person liable to collect or pay the said tax shall keep records and books of account;
and that any enactment founded on this paragraph four shall come into force on the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and thirty.


William Alves Boys: This forenoon I asked the minister whether he could not, opposite paragraphs (a) to (h) inclusive, give the prevailing rates under the former legislation.


Charles Avery Dunning: The present rates are-


William Alves Boys: It would be a great convenience if the minister would give us the old rates and the existing rates side by side.
Special War Revenue Act


Charles Avery Dunning: The old rates were one-tenth of one cent on shares of 50 cents and under; oner-quarter of one cent on shares between 50 cents and $1. The new rate on all shares less than SI will be crae-tenith of one per cent, calculated on the money total of the transaction, instead of the fixed rate of one-tenth of one per cent on the share value. That will cut the tax down very materially indeed. On shares from $1 to $3 the old rate was one cent; the new rate is one-quarter of one cent per share from SI to S5. The old rate on shares between $3 and $20 was two cents per share; the new rate is one cent per share on shares from $5 to $25. The old rate was three cents per share on shares between $20 and $100; the new rate is two cents per share on shares from $25 to $50, three cents on shares from $50 to $75, and four cents on shares from $75 to $150. On shares over $100 the new rate is four cents, and on shares over $150, five cents.


Alexander Duncan McRae: I might add to the minister's statement by giving some instances of the reductions as applied to certain companies. I have here a schedule which has been worked out for me by a reliable accountant, and I submit it as being approximately correct. The schedule covers thirty companies and shows a reduction from the old tax of 33 per cent on the shares of such companies as Noranda and International Nickel, increasing in the case of the penny stocks up to as high as 98 per cent reduction of the old tax. For instance, in Thomson-Cadillac the old tax has been reduced 96 per cent. The so-called penny stocks are reduced from 64 to 99 per cent. The average reduction might be said to be 75 per cent. In the higher priced stocks the reduction is from 33 per cent up to 50 per cent. The tax on Hollinger, for instance, selling at the present market price of $6.55, is reduced by one-half, while on Teck-Hughes selling at about the same price, $6.75, there is a similar reduction. I think that is a fair statement of the general application of this new schedule.
There is another matter that I would bring to the attention of the committee. It has to do with the question of the share tax in Canada as compared with the share tax in the United States. In that connection, exclusive of provincial tax I find that a stock such as Hollinger, selling at a price of $6.55 per share, carries a tax on a sale of one thousand shares in New York of $2, while the tax in Canada under this new schedule is $10.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does that $2 include the state tax in New York as well as the federal?


Alexander Duncan McRae: I understand so. It does
not include the provincial tax in this country. The $2 is the tax if the deal was made on the New York stock exchange. The other figure is exclusive of the provincial tax in this country. If my figures are correct, it would appear that the tax on a purchase of Hollinger in New York would be less than 25 per cent of the tax which would be charged on the purchase of the same number of shares in Montreal or Toronto. The point I want to put before the minister is whether by this tax we are not driving certain business to the New York stock exchange to the disadvantage of our own Canadian exchanges. I know that in my own city those connected with the stock exchange business feel that the taxes have already driven a great deal of business to 'Seattle. I oan quite appreciate that this amendment to the schedule will result in recovering some of the penny stock business 'for our Canadian changes, but when it comes to the higher priced stocks such as Noranda 'and International Nicked, I think the government should consider carefully whether the present schedule is not driving that business to New York.
As I am not clear on the point myself I would like to ask the minister this question: When an agency of a New York house in this country sends a transaction to the New York stock exchange to be executed there, does Canada get any revenue from that transaction or not?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have a great deal of
interest myself in the answer to that question [DOT]for quite frankly I have been trying to find [DOT]means in the interest of revenue of taxing [DOT]under the existing law transactions of that kind. I cannot say that, up to the present, within the short period the new machinery 'has been at work, that is being done. My hon. friend knows the machinery which has 'been operative through the Canadian exchanges. There is a very grave question as to whether we can do it, but the matter is being gone into at the present time.


Alexander Duncan McRae: I appreciate what the
minister says, and that brings home the point that I want to get before the house. It is this, that by this higher share tax in Canada we are driving our business to the American exchanges because a man trading in large blocks of Canadian stacks will make a very material saving in the tax alone by having the transaction executed in New York. I do not believe it is in the interests of Canada, and certainly it is not in the interests of those

Supply-Buildings-Quebec
who are engaged in that business in this country, to have to operate at such a disadvantage. You have the results. If you deal in New York, it takes money out of the country, takes the profit on the transaction out of the country, and the government as well loses the revenue. It seems to me that some method should be found of dealing with the situation. Whether a man buys shares through Canadian exchanges or through the New York exchange, in either case he uses exactly the same credit and should pay the same tax. I hope the hon. minister will find some way of dealing with the matter, otherwise I have reason to believe that a great deal of the business, particularly the large transactions, those which can get credit in New York, will drift to that exchange.


Charles Avery Dunning: Thank you.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 311, to amend the Special War Revenue Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first and second times.


PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr John9ton in the chair.
John Frederick Johnston: Vote 121, page 32 of
the estimates. When this resolution was last before the committee we were considering the item:
Quebec Citadel-Governor General's quarters -improvements, maintenance, etc., $17,000.


John Campbell Elliott: Mr. Chairman, at the last sitting
of the committee my hon. friend from York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) asked for information with regard to the expenses in connection with Rideau Hall, and I have had it prepared for several years back. I will send over to him a copy of the statement; also a statement relating to the railway department, which they tell me is all the information they have.


Peter McGibbon: I think, Mr. Chairman,
the house and the country would be interested in the information as well as the member for York-Sunbury.


John Campbell Elliott: I am quite sure of that,
and I should like to lay on the table a copy of the statement. My hion. friend suggested that there had been an increase in the last
few years over any other previous period, and I want to call his attention to that phase of it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, I have just had a chance merely to glance over this statement. It is confined entirely to Rideau Ha'll. My request referred to the whole institution. This does not cover one cent for work done on the Quebec citadel; therefore to that extent it is entirely misleading.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend will recall that on the last occasion when we were discussing the matter I gave a statement regarding the Quebec citadel expenditures. I want to be absolutely clear that I am giving him the information he asked for as reported in Hansard at the time. He then stated that the further information he wanted referred to Rideau Hall. At that time I gave him all the information we had with regard to the citadel. It is quite an expensive statement. Perhaps my hon. friend would prefer to have a little time to look it over. If so, we will let the item stand for the present and proceed with other items.
May I direct my hon. friend's attention to the fact that for the three years ending March 31, 1915, the expenditure was $453,743.20; for the three years ending March 31, 1930, $337,-264.38-a difference of $116,478.82. That is, there was that much more expended on Rideau Hall for the three years ending March, 1915, than for the similar period ending March, 1930. I think it is only fair to my hon. friend to say that the recent expenditures extend over four or perhaps five years. So I have looked into what the expenditure was for the four years ending March 31, 1916, and I find that it amounted to $527,864.17, while for the four years ending March 31, 1930, it was $463,911.92-or for the previous four years ending 31st March, 1916, an excess of $63,952.35 over the last four years. For the five year period ending on March 31, 1917, the expenditure was $608,384.47; for the five years ending March 31, 1930, the expenditure was $558,984.24-or for the five years ending March 31, 1917, an excess over the five years ending March 31, 1930, of $49,400.23.


Peter McGibbon: How much of that from
1913 on was due to remodelling Rideau Hall?


John Campbell Elliott: The remodelling started, I think, in 1914. But I find that in 1911 an extra $60,000 was voted for a cloak room and for some additions including a garage. Late

Supply-Buildings-Quebec
in that year an additional 850,000 was voted for furnishings and things of that kind. The other reconstruction to which my hon. friend refers was started about 1914.
Mr. MoGIBBON: I want to get the amount for reconstruction and the amount for repairs.


John Campbell Elliott: That is a matter of detail. Mr. McGIBBON: A very important detail.


John Campbell Elliott: In the statement I have
furnished it shows the total expenditure on the hall for each of those years, part as refurnishing and part as additions and reconstructions from year to year.
Mr. MoGIBBON:	I submit the country
will not be satisfied with that explanation.


John Campbell Elliott: I can give my hon. friend some information, although I cannot give it m detail; I have nothing more than what appears on the statement before me. The amount spent for maintenance and repairs in 1912-13 was $67,089.44; there is no amount recorded for expenditures on alterations and improvements. In the year 1913-14, $285,977.11 was spent for maintenance and repairs, and there is nothing shown for alterations and improvements.


Peter McGibbon: How much was spent
for repairs?


John Campbell Elliott: That is not separated.


Peter McGibbon: I submit that the house is entitled to have it separated.


John Campbell Elliott: I will give my hon. friend complete details, but it will take some time to segregate the amounts spent on buildings, furnishings, grounds, and various items of maintenance. I suggest that we would be in a better position to discuss the matter after hon. gentlemen have had an opportunity to peruse the statement which I have furnished in regard to Rideau Hall.


William Alves Boys: Would it be too much trouble to have prepared a statement in connection with the Quebec citadel along the lines of the one prepared in connection with Rideau Hall? Then they could both be put in Hansard.


John Campbell Elliott: It would take some time to prepare such a statement, because it dates back to 1871, at the time it was taken over by the federal government.


William Alves Boys: 1891, not 1871.


John Campbell Elliott: No, it was in 1871 that
the citadel was transferred.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We do not want to go back that far.


William Alves Boys: The statement I have in my
hand goes back as far as 1890 and 1891.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes; that statement deals with Rideau Hall.


William Alves Boys: Oh, yes, that is correct.


John Campbell Elliott: I should be pleased to
get further information for my hon. friends, but on a former occasion when we were in committee I gave to my hon. friend from \ ork-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) details covering a number of years. I understood that he was satisfied, as far as the citadel is concerned.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We have the details of the citadel for the last few years. I had in mind the cost in recent years of the whole institution. There is the question of Rideau Hall, the question of the citadel, the question of the private car and all that sort of thing. If you have the information concerning those matters tabulated and the whole thing carried into a gross total I would like to see the figures; the country also would like to have them.


John Campbell Elliott: Some of my officials have interviewed officials of the Department of Railways and Canals and we were informed that all the information they had was contained in the return which was asked for and tabled, and a copy of which I sent to my hon. friend this afternoon.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have not got it.


John Campbell Elliott: The return is contained in sessional paper No. 196.


Peter McGibbon: We are much obliged to the minister for the meagre information he has given. However I would like to have the total costs of this institution for the years ranging from 1913 to 1930. I would like to have also the capital expenditure separated from upkeep and running expenditures. I hope the minister will be in a position to supply this information before prorogation.


John Campbell Elliott: If my hon. friend will
look at the statement before him he will see that it supplies the information under the three usual headings, alterations and improvements, maintenance and repairs, and fuel and light. In the three columns are shown the appropriations each year. That is all the information I can give, unless it is the wish of hon. members that I set some one at the task of picking out the expendi-

Supply-Buildings-Quebec
tures for furniture, repairs to buildings, repairs to grounds, and so on. My hon. friends will readily understand that such a procedure would necessitate a great deal of detailed search.


Peter McGibbon: I suggest to the minister that he should set some one at the task. It is not the duty of hon. members in this house to act as a clerical staff, not even for the Minister of Public Works. The country is very much interested in this matter, and I think we should have information in connection with it.


John Campbell Elliott: I should be pleased to
supply the information, but my hon. friend must understand that the officials in the department are very busy and will continue to be so for the next few days. As a matter of fact the information he desires is contained in the Auditor General's report, to which he has access. I repeat however that if it is the desire of the hon. gentleman, I shall as far as is humanly possible attempt to provide the information. There is no doubt that this is a matter concerning which there has been recently considerable discussion, and it is important that the public should have the information to show what the exact position is.


Peter McGibbon: A few moments ago the minister told me he could not differentiate between the expenses for improvements and the charges for running expenses.


John Campbell Elliott: I say that I cannot give the information my hon. friend desires from the statement in its present condition. However by going through the vouchers it will be possible to learn what each payment is for.


Peter McGibbon: Surely the minister does not seriously expect members of the House of Commons to convert themselves into a staff to do that sort of thing. We are asking the minister for the information.


John Campbell Elliott: I have pointed out to my hon. friend that the Auditor General's report gives the desired details in connection with each item, and my hon. friend has access to that report.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The report of the Auditor General does not give that information. It gives the items and the amounts, but it does not give the details. If the hon. gentleman wishes to have a concrete example, turn to the item concerning the Federal District Commission as contained in the Auditor General's report, and he will find that there is very little detail concerning expenditure of millions of dollars.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend is under a misapprehension. The details quoted the other night by my hon. friend from Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) have been quoted time and again in regard to Rideau Hall, and those details -are set forth in the Auditor General's report.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Some days ago when
this matter was under discussion I expressed my disapproval of the ever increasing expenditures. It is not necessary to repeat at this time what I said on a former occasion, but I do wish to place on Hansard the total costs from 1916 to the present time. I shall give the details in connection with the year 1916, and for other years I shall give the total amounts only. In 1916 the cost of the Governor General's office was $147,416.65. The cost for Rideau Hall was $74,120.97; for telephone, $1,542.44; for the citadel, 84,168.26, and for cars, $11,500, making a total of $238,748.32. The totals for 1917 and succeeding years were as follows:
1917		 1918		 1919		$ 229,914 	 237,987 	 222,823
1920			 234,053
1921		 249.402
1922		 260.000
192.1		 260.247
1924 .		 295,319
1925			 263.941
1926			 235,710
1927			 292.381
1928			 576.496
1929			 441,093


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the kind of information we want.


John Campbell Elliott: Of course my hon. friend
can get it by applying to the same source from which my hon. friend from Mackenzie obtained it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think that is the kind of answer we should get from the minister. I do not know in the first place where to look for this information; I cannot spend my days and nights going through the Auditor General's report. It is the duty of the administration to give the information asked for in committee of supply. For instance, I never thought of looking for the expenses under the heading Governor General's office, which amounts to $147,000.


John Campbell Elliott: If my hon. friend will
pardon me-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not know why I should spend my days and nights digging out this information, and I am satisfied that when it is dug out it will startle the country.
Supply-Building-Quebec


John Campbell Elliott: I am sure my hon. friend from Mackenzie, who has obtained the information, will be pleased to point out to my hon. friend the source from which he obtained it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Thanks for the information.


Peter McGibbon: That is the kind of information we get from the minister. I say without hesitation that it is an insult to this committee for any minister of the crown to refer members on this side to any member of another group when we ask for information.


Milton Neil Campbell: I spent two whole days of good hard work in going through the public accounts in order to secure this information, and I am not sure that I have it all as yet. The more one examines into the public accounts the more one finds little items spread all through which one would not find in the first place. Office expenditures are split up into one or two votes; in some cases the expenditures on Rideau Hall are divided into two portions, one under capital expenditure and one under fixtures. Then there is the telephone account; you will find that in two or three different places in the book. There is the item of water, and other similar small items spread all over, so I say I am not sure these figures are complete.
<Ie Bellevue-public building,


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
nnn Anne
Mr. SHORT:: Is this a new building?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, this is a new building. Item agreed to.
St. Joseph d'Alma-public building, $28,000. Mr. SHORT: Is this another new building? Mr. ELLIOTT: Yes.


Lucien Cannon: This is in the lake St.
John area, where the new work is going on. Item agreed to.
Ste. Marie de Beauce-public building, $25,000.


Harry Bernard Short: Where is that?


John Campbell Elliott: That is in the county of Beauce. It is a new building.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ste. Martine (Chateauguay county)-public building, $15,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: How many new public
buildings are there for the province of Quebec this year?


John Campbell Elliott: If my hon. friend will
look at the estimates he will see that these are nearly all items for which there was a vote a year ago. There are very few really new items.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many are new?


Harry Bernard Short: They are all new buildings,
are they not?


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many are votes for
new buildings in Quebec this year?


John Campbell Elliott: I can count them and give my hon. friend the information.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Surely the deputy minister knows.


John Campbell Elliott: I will count them and give the information to my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	[DOT]
Public Works, Ontario-Brockville public building-installation of fittings, $4,000.
Peter McGibbon: Perhaps now when the
minister has his deputy before him, and in view of his statement that many of the items for Quebec were for works started last year, he can tell me whether he is going on with the wharf at Beaverton, for which an item was included previously.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, I shall be glad to
give my hon. friend the information which I have obtained since he asked the question this morning on the orders of the day. I find that in 1928-29 and 1929-30, the Patterson Construction Company of Brantford reconstructed a length of 151 feet 9 inches on the north side of the wharf. Extra work was done in providing a landing for small boats. The final estimate for this work was paid in August, 1929, and amounted to $4,243.72. A revetment wall on the south side for a length of 142 feet has been examined and reported on. The section is in a condition somewhat similar to the portion that has already been repaired. The town of Beaverton is developing this part of the harbour area for park purposes and the recommendation of the engineer is that this revetment wall eventually should be reconstructed. There is no amount in the estimates for it.


Peter McGibbon: Would the minister
promise that it will be in the supplementary estimates?


John Campbell Elliott: I could not make any
such promise, as my hon. friend knows.

Supply-Buildings-Ontario


Harry Bernard Short: When the public buildings
for Nova Scotia were being considered, I understand some of our members were away, and I believe there was one item left over in connection with which I should like to say a few words.


John Campbell Elliott: No, I think they were all
finished up, but I should be very glad to hear any remarks my hon. friend cares to make.


Harry Bernard Short: I notice in looking over the items for public buildings in Nova Scotia that you have not included a public building at Bridgetown, which I have spoken about in this house ever since I have been here. The minister promised last year that he would give the matter his very serious consideration. He has constructed a new building in the adjoining constituency which is represented by the hon. member for Hants-Kings; that building has been constructed in the town of Hantsport. where the postal revenue is some 82,500 as against a revenue of over S9,000 in the town of Bridgetown. The need of a building at Bridgetown was considered so important in 1925, that the predecessor of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King, Kootenay), visited that town and found the state of affairs in the public building so deplorable that he gave instructions to purchase a lot upon which to construct a new building. A very desirable lot was purchased in the centre of the town, but since that time nothing has been done. However, when one sees a town in the adjoining riding only about half the size and with about one-third the revenue receiving, as it did last year, a grant of $15,000 and this year a grant of $11,000, it is hard to understand why there should be such a difference. The supplementary estimates have not been brought down and the minister has an opportunity to put a sufficient amount in those estimates for the construction of a public building at Bridgetown.


John Campbell Elliott: I know it is unnecessary for me to say to my hon. friend that alll the representations which he has made during the past years have received the careful consideration of the department, and I only hope that he will be as happy when the supplementary estimates come down as he has been during the presentation of these present estimates.


Harry Bernard Short: That is encouraging.


William Alves Boys: I almost hesitate to take up any of the time of the committee, but as the minister has mentioned the supplementary estimates, I take this opportunity of mentioning two wharves at Barrie which are in a very bad state of repair. When I wrote to the distriot engineer about this matter, he informed me that there was no appropriation to take care of it. These wharves are absolutely dangerous and I fear that an accident will take place. I think an item should be provided in the supplementary estimates to cover the resheathing of these wharves, although I do not see why it could, not be taken care of by the general appropriation.
I would imagine that from $400 to $600 would be sufficient to make these wharves safe, and that is all I am asking for.


John Campbell Elliott: If the amount required is not larger than that stated by my hon. friend, I should think it would be possible to do that work out of the general vote. In order to avoid the necessity of further discussion as to what may be in the supplementary estimates, perhaps it might 'be well to mention that they are now at such a stage that there would be little probability of any change being made.


William Alves Boys: I imagine that two inch planking would be sufficient to do this job, and I do not think the cost would be more than I have stated. I am not criticizing the district engineer, but he replied to me that he could not get the money to do the work. I hope the minister will see that it is provided.


John Campbell Elliott: I will endeavour to see that the matter is attended to. From the statement of my hon. friend, I imagine that it can be taken care of out of the general vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Exeter-public building, $10,000.
Mr. M-oGIBBON: I feel obliged to direct the attention of the minister to the necessity of a public building at the village of Canning-ton. I trust the minister will give this matter his sympathetic consideration.
Item agreed to.
London customs house-renewal of clock, $1,500.
George Gibson Coote: That seems to be a pretty high price for a clock.


John Campbell Elliott: That is the cost of a clock of that type. The old clock has been in service for over thirty-five years, if my information is correct-of course, my memory would not carry me back that far and it has been found impossible to use it any longer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
252S
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Buildings-Saskatchewan
Ottawa-towards purchase of Daly building, $106,000.
George Gibson Coote: Are there any further payments to be made on the Daly building, or does this vote conclude them?


John Campbell Elliott: This is the final vote.


George Gibson Coote: While we are on this item, would the minister give the committee the cost of the Confederation block?
Mr. ELLIOTT': The contract price was $2,497,000, which was below our estimate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Penetanguishene-public building, $12,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: What is intended to be done with this vote; is it both to purchase a site and to complete a building?


John Campbell Elliott: For the purchase of a site.


Mr. THOMPSON:: For the site alone?


John Campbell Elliott: It is not expected that the site will cost that much, buit this vote is to cover the purchase of the site and the preparation of plans, so that we will be in position to let a contract.


Alfred Burke Thompson: The site has not been chosen as yet?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Toronto-customs house, $1,500,000.
George Gibson Coote: What will be the total cost of the customs house at Toronto, and when is it expected to be completed?


John Campbell Elliott: The contract price was
$2,057,000, and although good progress is being made it is not expected that the building will be completed before the end of the fiscal year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Windsor-public building, $100,000.
Mr. ROBINSON:: Would the minister give an explanation of what this covers?


John Campbell Elliott: The architects of the
Department of Public Works, in conjunction with architects of the Canadian National Railways, the Departments of National Revenue, Immigration, Post Office and others which will need to be housed in that building, are working on a plan which it is hoped will result in their agreeing upon a scheme for having under one roof the various government services required for the town of Windsor.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.,

Public building-Saskatchewan-Areola-public building, $12,000.
Milton Neil Campbell: I should like to ask the minister whether he has under his hand a report from an architect sent to Wynyard some time ago to inquire into the cost of erecting a post office at that point.


John Campbell Elliott: As my hon. friend will readily understand, the details that I have relate to the rather large number of items that are included in the estimates under consideration. I have no details with regard to any others.


Milton Neil Campbell: Has the minister given any consideration to the construction of a building at that point? The recommendations have been before him for at least four or five years. What consideration are they likely to receive?


John Campbell Elliott: They have been receiving consideration along with all the various other applications that have come into the department from different sources. I cannot say anything more than that.


Milton Neil Campbell: It seems to me that the town of Wynyard is not receiving the consideration it deserves. I have from the minister under date of March 3 last a letter which reads in part:
The situation is that there are numerous requests from all over the Dominion for the erection of public buildings and as the government has been endeavouring to reduce the national debt from year to year, it is not in a position to provide for as large a construction program as it would like.
I have a good deal of sympathy with that statement. I am not going to ask the government to spend more money than it feels is necessary, but on looking over the expenditures on post offices for the province of Saskatchewan, it appears to me that the town of Wynyard has not been given the consideration it deserves in comparison with other points. I have in my hand a return laid on the table on March 12, 1930, showing the revenues of various post offices in Saskatchewan and also the expenditures on public buildings in that province during the last three years. The average revenues for the last three years, that is, 1927, 1928 and 1929, for certain post offices are as follows:
Average
Post Office	Revenue
Battleford	$ 7,929
Canora	 6,334
Maple Creek	 9,409
Rosthern	 6,756
Tisdale	 8,035
Wilkie	 7,214

Supply-Buildings-Alberta
The post office at Wynyard shows an average revenue for the three years of $6,438. While nothing has been spent on the building at Wynyard considerable amounts are now being or have been spent on those other points, as follows:
Post Office	Expenditure
Battleford	$ 43,588
Canora	 29,500
Maple Creek	 30,727
Rostliern	 37,518
Tisdale	 32,545
Wilkie	 55,000
It seems to me that if these points are considered on their merits, Wynyard is deserving of some consideration on the basis of revenue. There are other points that are not showing the revenue that Wynyard exhibits and yet large amounts of money are being spent on them. The minister knows the need for a public building at Wynyard and I certainly think that town should receive more consideration than it has done in the past.


John Campbell Elliott: This is one of the places that have been receiving consideration. Various hon. members have pointed out the need for a public building there. The points that have to be considered are the facilities available and at a number of the places mentioned by my hon. friend we were unable to secure buildings that were at all suitable or even nearly as suitable as that in which the business is being carried on at Wynyard at the present time. At Lloydminster, as my hon. friend knows, we had to erect a building because the old one was burned down. All the circumstances of each particular case have to be considered and we have not been able to get an appropriation for a public building at Wynyard.


Milton Neil Campbell: The building at Wynyard is certainly not suitable for the accommodation required. The part of the building occupied by the post office and the only part they can get for post office use is very small and utterly inadequate to serve the needs ol the people.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public buildings-Alberta-Camrose-public building, $53,000.
Mr. LUCAS:: What progress is being made with the Camrose public building?


John Campbell Elliott: I think the foundations are being proceeded with, and the last report was that the work was going along very satis-iactorily.


William Thomas Lucas: I understood some time ago that there was a cessation of the work. Does the minister know about that, and what the cause of it was, and whether work is again proceeding?


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot give the details of the dispute, but it was some difference between the contractors and one of the subcontractors which caused delay for a time.
I understand that the work is now proceeding.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Is "this public building for a customs house or for both post office and customs house purposes, and what is the revenue from these two departments at Camrose?


John Campbell Elliott: The postal revenue for 1928-29 was $16,652, and the customs revenue $77,332.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Vegreville-public building, $37,000.
George Gibson Coote: Before the resolution for Alberta is reported, Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest to the Minister of Public Works that his department has owned some lots in the town of High River for some twenty years, and there was a vote passed for the erection of a public building in High River in 1914. The need for a public building there is sufficiently great, I am sure, for the minister to see 'that it is taken care of in the supplementary estimates. The present building is totally inadequate, and I do not think there is any other building in the town which could be secured at any price to house the post office.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public buildings-British Columbia-Dominion public buildings-improvements, repairs, etc., $45,000.
John Anderson Fraser: How much of that $45,000 that was appropriated last year has been spent?


John Campbell Elliott: The expenditure was $36,364.


John Anderson Fraser: What is the extra amount required for this year?


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend will understand that as the number of buildings throughout the country increases, the amount required for improvements, repairs and maintenance also increases.


John Anderson Fraser: While that may be very true, I would point out that the minister is not increasing the number of public buildings in British Columbia in proportion to the number being erected in other provinces.

2530	COMMONS
Supply-Buildings-British Columbia


John Campbell Elliott: I think my hon. friend will be fair enough to say that the province of British Columbia has fared pretty well, if not in public buildings in other ways, in recent years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Kimberley-public building, $18,000.
Mr. ESLING:: Is the building to be erected on the original site selected for that purpose? I am sorry the Minister of Health is not in his seat because I wanted to ask him a question in connection with this matter. He should be in his seat now.


John Campbell Elliott: This is not the original site. The town closed a road allowance or street, and an exchange was made with the town of Kimberley of the original site for the present site, which was thought to be advantageous.


William Kemble Esling: Why was the exchange made after the original site had been purchased?


John Campbell Elliott: My recollection is that the town offered to exchange a site which it owned but which was not available as a site for our purposes until a certain street or streets were closed. Negotiations were entered into with the town looking to the exchange of the original site for the site which the town owned, provided that the town of Kimberley would close this road or street, or whatever it was, so as to give access to the site that was being obtained. This exchange was recommended.


William Kemble Esling: I am glad that the Minister of Health is now in his seat. As a matter of fact, this is just one of the instances in which the Vancouver Sun, which hon. members know is a pronounced Liberal organ, charges the Minister of Health-he was the sole survivor of the last political wreck there -with the distribution of patronage in order that he might retain his seat. I think the transaction before us affords very fair substantiation of that charge. The facts are-the present Minister of Public Works, of course, does not know them-that the Minister of Health had a political friend who wanted to make a little ready money, and the Minister of Health, who goes on the public platform in British Columbia, tells the people that nothing can be done in or for British Columbia without his recommendation. Therefore we must take it for granted that he recommended the purchase of the property.


John Warwick King: When did the
minister ever make such a statement?


William Kemble Esling: In the city of Nelson. I
sat in the audience.

Mr. KING (Kootenay)): Never; no such statement was made.


William Kemble Esling: He received great applause
when he made that statement.


John Campbell Elliott: Did you cheer?


William Kemble Esling: I cheered, yes. The facts are just about like this, and I leave it to the house to judge the case. The minister had a political friend in Cranbrook, and that friend wanted to unload something on the government and so he sold them three lots for $5,500 on the recommendation of the Minister of Health, who had an order in council put through. Next year a vote for the construction of a building was put in the estimates. When it was known that the building was to be erected on the site purchased, the people of Kimberley, independent of party, Liberal and Conservative alike, all wired in protest to Ottawa against the construction of a public building on this site for the reason that the location was unsuitable, objectionable and away from the centre of the Itown. Now, $5,500 was spent for a site which was recommended by the minister, a site which was unsuitable and objectionable. It must be taken for granted, in view of that fact, that the minister's judgment of real estate is just about as poor as his political judgment. But the fact is that this property for which he paid $5,500 at the time of the purchase was actually assessed for $850. Let me emphasize that- $850 was the assessed value of the property that the minister recommended should be purchased by the government at $5,500. The people of the town objected, and it was only because there happened to be the end of a blind street available that the minister was able to make an exchange with the then provincial government, which was of the same political complexion as his own. That, in my opinion, bears out the charges in the Vancouver Sun that the Minister of Health merely uses his position for the distribution of patronage in British Columbia in order that he may retain his seat. I extend to the minister from British Columbia the very timely and courteous suggestion that if he has a chance to slip into the Senate by the grace of the Prime Minister he had better take advantage of it.


John Warwick King: Mr. Chairman, I
am not going to take up much of the time of the committee in reply to my hon. friend's statements. Two or three lots in Kimberley were offered to the department. Following the usual procedure, an official of the depart-

Supply-Buildings-British Columbia
meat went to Kimberley, and it was on his recommendation-not on the recommendation of the minister-that the property was bought.	*


William Kemble Esling: Will you just say-


John Warwick King: Order. You have
had your say; sit down.


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
need not worry about the possibility of the minister being returned to this parliament. He will have sufficient to do to look after his own interests.


William Kemble Esling: I always have.


John Warwick King: So have I. But
I want to put him straight because he has been going around the country making these statements, and they are not in accordance with the facts. The property was bought on the recommendation of the proper official of the department. As to its value, this was one of the cheaper properties offered for sale. The property was within a block of the centre of the city. It is true that the citizens desired the post office in the centre; but the property offered in that location or near it was not offered for $5,500 but for $16,000. This was considered to be too great a price to pay. However, as the citizens were very much interested in the proposed public building and desired to have it in a central location, it was found possible to exchange the site with the provincial government for a street end, and this brought the post office into a very good location. I was very glad to concur in the suggestion, and when my hon. friend goes to Kimberley, as I hope he will this year, he will see there the fine little post office building which stands to the credit of this government and of the minister.


William Kemble Esling: The post office building,
we admit, is a very creditable building, but it has nothing to do with this site. Notwithstanding what the minister says, he must admit that the citizens of Kimberley wired and wrote here protests against the purchase of that site as being unsuitable and objectionable. The minister cannot deny that he stood on the platform at Nelson and said that nothing could be done in or for the province of British Columbia without his recommendation, and I say that the purchase of these lots was not made without his recommendation. Why, does the minister think for one moment that the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) is going to do anything in British Columbia without oon-2419-160}
suiting him? It stands to reason that he would act only on the recommendation of his colleague. Having said that nothing can be done without his recommendation, he must accept responsibility for having paid $5,500 for a useless site purchased from a political friend of his, and, as I have said, that site was assessed at $850 at the time of purchase. He cannot deny that. I have the records.


John Warwick King: I have denied it.


John Campbell Elliott: May I say to my hon. friend that I am the one who must accept responsibility for the purchase of this site. I appreciate very greatly the advice and assistance of my colleague the Minister of Health in regard to any matter in the province of British Columbia or elsewhere throughout the Dominion. He was my predecessor in this office and I have the greatest respect for his judgment in regard to anything pertaining to this or any other department. But this site was obtained after the most careful inquiry and investigation, the same as any other site that is purchased for a public building, and I do not believe my hon. friend from West Kootenay will say for a moment that sites have been obtained for public buildings without the greatest possible care being exercised as to their selection and price.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Vancouver public building-to meet one year's interest at 5 per cent on mortgage of $400,000, $20,000.
John Anderson Fraser: How many more payments are due on this building?


John Campbell Elliott: It is not a question of annual payments on the building; it is for interest on the mortgage against the property.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public buildings generally-flags for Dominion public buildings, $5,000.
George Gibson Coote: I am just wondering if this is to purchase Canadian flags?


John Campbell Elliott: Is my hon. friend really wondering?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Experimental farms-replacements, repairs, improvements, etc., $100,000.
William Kemble Esling: Does the minister know
anything about the purchase or sale of land in connection with the experimental farm at Windermere, and whether that also was recommended by the Minister of Health?
2532	COMMONS
Supply-Buildings-British Columbia


John Campbell Elliott: I think my hon. friend will have to inquire from my colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) with regard to that.


William Kemble Esling: Does the minister say I must make inquiry of the Minister of Agriculture with regard to an item in one of his votes?


John Campbell Elliott: No; my information is
that there was no purchase made by this department at the point mentioned by my hon. friend.


William Kemble Esling: I have received a communication concerning the purchase of a parcel of land in connection with the experimental farm at Windermere, in the district represented by the Minister of Pensions and National health. The correspondent has not a very high regard for the land in question. In his communication he says that it is nothing but rock and roots, and that as a matter of fact the purchase of this land created some amusement among the residents of that community. The purchase was made a short time prior to the visit of the Minister of Agriculture, and the charge is made that in order to make the land presentable to the eyes of the minister the employees were given crowbars with which they dug holes along the roadway leading to the farm; then they were given instructions to cut fir trees and plant them in the holes, so that the minister might have the impression that what met his view was the natural landscape. I do not know whether that procedure was recommended by the Minister of National Health but I am informed that this tree-planting was done.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: That is a new
method of reforestation.


William Garland McQuarrie: I can see no appropriation in the estimates for an addition to the New Westminster post office. That matter has been discussed before in this house, and the addition is badly required. The business done in the office warrants the expenditure. When .the Postmaster General visited New Westminster he promised that we would get the addition; he said that it was absolutely necessary, and as a result, I believe on the ground of urgent necessity he recommended the expenditure. He made that statement in this house last session. The Minister of Public Works came along with his broadaxe and slashed it off. I now ask the hon. gentleman why he took that action. The Minister of Public Works and the Postmaster General have no doubt received communications from the Board of Trade, the city council and other organizations in New Westminster [Mr. Eslinjr.)
urging the absolute necessity for the construction of this addition. I know as a matter of fact that the business of the post office is seriously embarrassed at the present time, and in the busy seasons the present facilities are entirely inadequate. It is not necessary to buy a new site. The site is there; it is simply a case of erecting an addition which would not entail the expenditure of very much money. I remember of course that when the 'Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was in British Columbia he told the people that their difficulty arose from the fact that they did not elect enough Liberals.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Garland McQuarrie: That seems to be the policy under which the Minister of Public Works is proceeding.


John Campbell Elliott: Why?


William Garland McQuarrie: I wish to tell those
hon. gentlemen that the people in New Westminster, irrespective of their politics, are interested in this matter. They are not particularly anxious to spend the money, but they recommend the expenditure because they feel it is an absolute necessity. I would like to hear an explanation from the Minister of Public Works .as to why he lopped off the 'amount which was recommended by the Postmaster General.


John Campbell Elliott: I would like to say that
if my hon. friend has not been able to find in these estimates the item to which he refers, 'I am afraid it as not there; that is the best explanation I can give as to why he has not been able to find it. Representations have been made to the department in regard to the needs in New Westminster, as they have been made in regard to many other places throughout the Dominion.


William Garland McQuarrie: By the Postmaster
General?


John Campbell Elliott: Many recommendations
have been made by the Postmaster General which we have not been able to meet. When my hon. friend referred to the fact that the Minister of Public Works wielded a big axe he gave evidence of the fact that he does not know the Minister of Public Works as well as the Minister of Public Works might wish. For the information of the hon. gentleman I would like to say that the big axe is wielded by four men on the treasury board, and sixteen other men in the council. The result has been that many buildings which the Minister of Public Works considered necessary have not been erected, so that expenditures

Supply[DOT]-Buildings-Ontario
Repairs, improvements, additions and mainmay be available for dredging and various other public works. I am sure that even the residents of New Westminister would agree that some of these expenditures there have been even more necessary than thait which would be required for the erection of a new building at New Westminster.


William Garland McQuarrie: The Minister of Public Works seems to be in a humorous mood this afternoon, and his followers seem to think that he has been very clever.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: He has.


William Garland McQuarrie: I do not have to prove it; he admits it. He may be very clever, and it may be all right for this government to preach economy, but I want to tell the hon. gentleman' that the people out at the coast know what is happening in other parts of Canada. When they know that money is thrown away for parks, in the city of Ottawa, and that they cannot get sufficient money in New Westminster to carry on, they have good and sufficient reasons for dissatisfaction. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will not feel so happy after the elections; I do not believe he will.


John Campbell Elliott: Oh, I hope to feel much
better.


William Garland McQuarrie: And I do not think
his backers will feel so happy. He may tell us of expenditures which have been recommended by the Postmaster General and which have been disallowed by the treasury board, but I think if recommendation were made by the Postmaster General and the Minister of Public Works, New Westminster would soon have an addition to its post office. The minister may play his game of politics, but I do not think the people out there will appreciate his little joke.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rent9, repairs, furniture, heating, etc.- Ottawa public burnings and grounds-departments generally-char service, including $150 to E. Snowden for firing the noon gun, $400,000.
George Gibson Coote: What pay is given to charwomen who do service in the Ottawa public buildings?


John Campbell Elliott: They are paid $1.25 for
two and a half hours' work.


George Gibson Coote: Per day?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
tenance, $700,000.
William Alves Boys: Is any portion of this item
required for the pulling down of additional buildings in the city of Ottawa? If not, is there any provision in any of the items for such work?


John Campbell Elliott: The clearing which is
being done around the Confederation building will probably be completed this year. It is not however included in the present vote; it comes under a special vote.


William Alves Boys: I had in mind the buildings
in the vicinity of the old Russell hotel. I am instructed that there are more buildings to be taken down and further roadways and improvements to be completed. If this is a convenient time to answer my question, I would like to know what particular buildings are being destroyed. For instance, is the Ottawa post office to be removed under the present program?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


William Alves Boys: Are the buildings close to the Roxborough apartments to be removed, and what about the church north of that?


John Campbell Elliott: I think all the things to which my hon. friend has referred to are matters for the city, that is, with the exception of the post office. There is nothing in contemplation with regard to the post office coming down this year.


William Alves Boys: There is no doubt, I think,
that there is further work in contemplation. Perhaps it is not yet decided upon, but there is other work, is there not?


John Campbell Elliott: Nothing further provided
for by this department at the present time.


William Alves Boys: It is in connection with the
Federal District Commission, is it not?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


William Alves Boys: Take the buildings that were pulled down between the Aylmer apartments and the canal; was not that work done by the Department of Public Works?


John Campbell Elliott: That was under the
jurisdiction of the Federal District Commission, and the Department of Public Works did not have anything to do with it.


William Alves Boys: You provided the money for
it?


John Campbell Elliott: No.
Supply-Buildings-Ontario


William Garland McQuarrie: I should like to ask the minister if he thinks the treasury board would pass a little item for the cleaning and [DOT]restoring of some of the statues on the grounds of this building. Some of them are getting into a very disgraceful condition, notably the statues of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir John A. Macdonald. Something should be done to take care of them properly. Last session I drew the attention of the minister to the corner stone of the building, and he had the inscription renewed, which made a great improvement. Perhaps the proper official responsible has overlooked attending to the statues on the grounds.


John Campbell Elliott: What my hon. friend
refers to is very largely the oxidization from the sulphur fumes which come from across the river, and there is no way of preventing that.


William Garland McQuarrie: Surely they can be
cleaned up and looked'after.


John Campbell Elliott: No, it is the same as the action on the roofs of the buildings.


William Garland McQuarrie: But you can get at
them without much trouble. Do you say nothing can be done? They are in a disgraceful condition; surely something should be done to restore them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public buildings-Ottawa-new departmental building, $1,200,000.
John Anderson Fraser: What building is this?


John Campbell Elliott: That is the Confederation building.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ottawa-National Research Council laboratories and equipment, $1,500,000.
John Anderson Fraser: Where are these laboratories?


John Campbell Elliott: They are on Sussex street Item agreed to.
Ottawa-Addition to central heating plant, $130,000.


Mr. NEILL:: I should like to ask the minister if it is proposed to use pulverized coal in this addition to the central heating plant.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
(Mr. Elliott.]
Public Works-harbour and rivers-lower lakes terminal, $3,100,000.
Arthur Edward Ross: Will the minister
say if any of this grant is for the improvement of the St. Lawrence river leading to the terminal?


John Campbell Elliott: No, this is for the lower
lakes terminal, but the next item has to do with the channel.


George Gibson Coote: What is to be the storage
capacity at that terminal?


John Campbell Elliott: It will be 5,500,000 bushels.


Arthur Edward Ross: In 1928 when the minister made the decision in the house, he coupled with that the statement that this was being done on condition that the United States paid its share of the work in the preparation of the river. Has the minister received any assurance that the United States will do so?


John Campbell Elliott: The United States now
has in its harbours and rivers bill an appropriation for this particular work.


Arthur Edward Ross: For how much?


John Campbell Elliott: There is an amount of
$180,000, if I recollect aright, with regard to certain shoals in the channel, and a total amount if I am not mistaken of something around $1,000,000 for that channel.


Arthur Edward Ross: When the minister made that statement in regard to this selection he knew then, and he also knew when the work began, that he had not the consent of the United States. In July, 1928, the United States absolutely refused to carry out the program and I do not know what influences have been at work to secure even the small grant of $180,000. Will the minister tell us that he is sure of that $1,000,000?


John Campbell Elliott: In 1928, when that statement was made, there was an appropriation in the United States harbours and rivers bill providing for this work, oven to the extent of doing $65,000 worth of work in Canadian waters if the Canadian government did not feel disposed to do it. However, there were certain delays with regard to having the bill passed upon by congress, and a new bill was introduced a short time ago, just at the last session, making provision for the work in this channel.


Arthur Edward Ross: At what time in 1928 was that provision made in the United States?

Supply-Buildings-Ontario


John Campbell Elliott: At the time their harbours and rivers bill was presented to congress; it was prior to the time 'that our estimates were being considered. If I remember correctly, there was a distinct understanding-


Arthur Edward Ross: Why did the minister make the statement that it was on condition of the United States undertaking-


John Campbell Elliott: I did not make that statement.


Arthur Edward Ross: I have that statement right here.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend will find that the statement I made was that if satisfactory arrangements could be made with the United States regarding their portion of the channel, and those arrangements are being carried out.


Arthur Edward Ross: The hon. minister stated that an amount was included in their estimates, at the time our estimates were being prepared. In July, 1928, you had received an absolute refusal, and no statement to that effect was made in the house. We asked for the papers in connection with this matter, but we were told that because they contained important matters the minister did not desire to lay them on the table. Those papers have since been laid on the table and they do not contain anything which would have prevented their being brought down at that time. Until a few weeks ago the United States had given an absolute refusal to carry on this work. The hon. minister knew that at the time.


John Campbell Elliott: I know my hon. friend desires to be absolutely fair, but I think he is under a misapprehension when he makes the statement that there was a refusal on record at the time.


Arthur Edward Ross: I would ask that this item stand over until I bring the file down.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be very glad to do that.


Arthur Edward Ross: I will read the
statement of your engineers.


John Campbell Elliott: If there is any objection, I shall be very glad to allow the item to stand so that my hon. friend may read the files.


Arthur Edward Ross: I have the files in my office.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the item carry?


Arthur Edward Ross: No, I object to the item carrying, unless you intend to force it through.


John Campbell Elliott: I think my hon. friend will agree as to the necessity of this vote being put through. I will undertake to produce all the information, but I would suggest that he first allow the vote to go through.


Arthur Edward Ross: I do not require any information, I have it myself. That file contains communications from the engineers dated July, 1928, saying that the United States had turned down the proposition. I would not stop public works from going on, but I want to make the statement that I do not think the minister has played fair in this matter. We accepted his word that there were certain reasons why the papers could not be brought down, but since that time the papers have been secured and they contain nothing of the nature intimated by the minister. We accepted this proposition at that time on the understanding that the United States was going to do its share of the work in order to enable large boats to come down to this terminal. I submit that the minister was most unfair when he said that there were reasons which prevented these papers being submitted to the house.


John Campbell Elliott: I have known my hon friend for many years, and I know that there is no hon. member of this house who is more desirous of being fair. However, if he looks up Hansard he will see that the statement was made that no objection would be taken to my hon. friend or any other hon. member of this house looking at the correspondence, but that I did not think it advisable at that time to have it laid on the table.


Arthur Edward Ross: I will admit that the minister went just that far and said that if we wanted to force it we could look at the correspondence. I do not intend to prevent the progress of any great public work simply because my own constituency is concerned, but I contend that the decision was based on very unfair grounds. I do not claim that Kingston had everything in its favour, but the decision was made most unfairly. In 1928 the matter was left in abeyance because of the rush of closing, but this year the papers were brought down and they contain no valid reason for the minister's refusal to table them when requested. One of the large steamship companies has objected to going
Supply-Labour-Annuities

so far down the river, and has spent its own money in the building of an elevator at another point. That to me seems the strongest criticism and condemnation of the selection. With these facts before the committee, I will permit the item to go through.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
John Campbell Elliott: I think this completes the Public Works estimates.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would it be
agreeable to hon. members opposite to take up now the estimates of the Department of Labour? The Minister of Labour intends to leave town for two or three days.


William Alves Boys: I understood that Interior and Indian Affairs were to be considered next.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Department of Agriculture was mentioned, but as the Minister of Labour is leaving the city for a day or two, it would be preferable, if my hon. friends agree, to take up his estimates next.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR Labour-Annuities Act, $75,000.


William Alves Boys: I remember some years ago
this matter was under consideration and it was then hoped that the cost of annuities might be made a little less to those seeking to purchase them. The present minister may not have any record of what took place then, but at the time hopes were held out that some benefit would accrue along that line. Is there any hope that the cost of annuities to those seeking to purchase them may be reduced?


Peter Heenan: The information I get from the
experts is that owing to the increased length of life, there is an idea that we ought to increase the cost of annuities instead of decreasing it. At the present time no company can compete with the government in regard to annuities. There is at present no thought of decreasing the price.


William Alves Boys: I remember at that time the
financial position showed that some money was being made by the government. It was then freely admitted that it was not the desire of the government to make money by the scheme, but that the government wished, if possible, to furnish annuities at cost with perhaps a reasonable reserve against unforeseen contingencies. It would be interesting to the committee to have a statement from the minister as to the annual receipts, disbursements and surpluses.
{Mr. A. E. Hobs.]


Peter McGibbon: What has been the increase in the expectancy of life in the last three or four years?


Peter Heenan: I have not under my hand the information with regard to the increased length of life, but I think all insurance companies claim that the length of life is increasing. I am glad to know that too.


Peter McGibbon: They are not increasing the premiums.


Peter Heenan: Did my hon. friend wish a statement showing the number of annuities that are being sold to-day as compared with previous years?	[DOT]


William Alves Boys: Unfortunately I did not know that this was coming up or I might have looked up the debate of the year to which I refer. It was about six to eight years ago that this very feature was under discussion in the committee. It was then clearly shown that the department was making money and those in charge at that time were of opinion that if that situation continued there would be a possibility of reducing the cost of the annuities. Y e have had, I believe, no further statement in regard to the matter since then. If the minister can give reasons why there is no chance of reducing the cost but on the other hand a chance of increasing it, we would be interested in having them.


Peter Heenan: I shall be glad to give
my hon. friend a statement on Monday. It has been represented by the head of the insurance department that in the long run we shall probably lose rather than make money by this scheme. I have not the information at hand because I had not expected that this question would come up.


William Alves Boys: I do not want to press for
something the minister cannot supply. Apparently he has before him nothing to show the receipts and disbursements and whether or not the selling of annuities is profitable. If it is not profitable, it goes without saying that the cost should be increased; if it is profitable, the cost should be reduced.


Mr. GERSHAW:: Is sufficient care being
taken by those who are selling annuities to acquaint the applicants with all the details? There had come to my notice a case where an annuity was sold by the department, and the applicant, after paying premiums for a number of years, found that it meant something altogether different from what he thought at first. Is this phase of the question carefully watched?

Supply-Labour-Annuities


Peter Heenan: Of course I have no
knowledge of anyone misrepresenting an annuity to anyone. If I had, I should be glad to take the matter up, but I cannot understand why anyone should make misrepresentations. There might be some cases of misunderstandings. When we advertise annuities we ask that prospective applicants apply to the department for information, and we issue pamphlets giving the fullest information possible.


Mr. HEAPS:: Does this amount of $75,000
represent the cost of administering the Annuities Act?


Peter Heenan: It includes everything,
such as advertising, commissions, except, of course, the salaries of the permanent staff.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What is the amount of the
total premiums received per annum?


William Alves Boys: Is the minister able to give me the information now, or does he want the item to stand? I am absolutely in favour of government annuities; I think we should do everything we can to encourage them. I am glad to see that in connection with the Income War Tax Act there is to be an exemption of $5,000 in this connection. We want to do all we can to encourage the buying of annuities, but what I am anxious to see is that they should be made a little cheaper to the public. We cannot exercise any proper judgment if the minister is unable to give us information as to the extent of the business, the receipts, the disbursements and the reserve that is necessary to take care of future liabilities, having regard to the expectation of life and so on. These items are essential to an intelligent discussion of the subject.


Peter Heenan: I think I can give all information required except that.


William Alves Boys: Except what?


Peter Heenan: Information from the head of the insurance department representing that we are selling our annuities too cheaply; that we ought to increase the price in order to cover overhead expenses and things of that sort. I shall be glad to give that in detail on Monday. The statement is a lengthy one.


William Alves Boys: If that be the case, the situation has absolutely changed since discussion in the house when, if I remember correctly, the Hon. James Murdock was Minister of Labour. If that be so, we ought to know it because it is rather serious. Will the item stand so far as that information is concerned?


Peter Heenan: If the hon. member insists, we shall have to let the item stand.


Peter McGibbon: Will the minister give
us the comparative cost of government annuities with those of a company like the Sun Life? I went into this matter a few years ago and I found I could do better with companies like the Sun Life than with the government. If that be the case, it disproves to a certain extent 'the 'statement the minister makes that they are losing money.


John Anderson Fraser: There is some information
I desire with regard to this item which the minister may not have with him at present. In volume II of the Auditor General's report, part M-5, I find the following charge:
Amount required to recoup the Annuities branch on account of defalcations by W. J. Fleming, annuities agent at Regina (order in council P.C. 21-436, dated March 13, 1929, $1,282.05.
Can the minister give the details of that now, or does he want it to stand over?


Peter Heenan: I can give them now, but the question will probably be raised again. It was just a case where a man sold some annuities, collected the premiums and forgot to turn in the money, retaining it himself. We followed him until we found him, and prosecuted, with the result that he went to gaol.


William Alves Boys: Was there no security?


Peter Heenan: No.


John Anderson Fraser: That is just the point I want to follow up. Was this man not bonded by the department?


Peter Heenan: No.


John Anderson Fraser: I asked the minister a question earlier in the session and in reply he told me that he had made a return as required by the act of his officials who were bonded. I have that return. I have read it, and there is not a single official of the Department of Labour named in it, notwithstanding the fact that the minister said that that information would be in the return. I want to know what explanation the minister has for making an answer of that kind. I have the return here and will send it over to the minister if he would like to see it.


Peter Heenan: The appointment of agents on commission is a new departure in the last few years. We found that people were applying for annuities and nobody was following up these prospects. This particular man was the first one to default. He was not bonded. But after that every agent was bonded. My answer to question No. 4 of my hon. friend was, "No information."


John Anderson Fraser: But the minister is required by the act to make a return each year of the
Supply-Labour

officials who are bonded. I have the return before me, and there is not a single official of the department named in it.


Peter Heenan: All our permanent officials are bonded.


John Anderson Fraser: My question is not whether your officials are bonded. My point is that the minister is not making a return such as he is ordered to make to parliament so that the information may be available to hon. members.


Peter Heenan: I will let the item stand. Mr. FRASER: The minister will be able to give me more information when it comes up again?


Peter Heenan: Yes.
Item stands.
Combines Investigation Act, $30,000.


Peter McGibbon: In what state is the
A.B.C. investigation?


Peter Heenan: It is in the courts now.


Peter McGibbon: How much money was spent on it?


Peter Heenan: My hon. friend is speaking of the inquiry, not the court procedure?


Peter McGibbon: I was not limiting my question to the courts. I asked how much money had been spent on the investigation.


Peter Heenan: For the investigation,


William Alves Boys: That is what was spent last year?


Peter Heenan: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration, Employment Offices' Coordination Act, $17,000.
Mr. SIMPSON:: What has the Department of Labour to do with employment offices? I thought they were largely provincial.


Peter Heenan: We give them a subvention to help them to carry on.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fair wages and inspection, $15,000.
Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton):: What are the exact duties that these fair wage officers perform? We had one of them down in Sydney not long ago looking into the wages paid at the steel works. Has the minister received any report or finding from that officer?


Peter Heenan: Our fair wage officers have nothing to do with private industry. Their business is with public undertakings, to see [Mr. Fraser. 1
that the fair wage policy is carried out, and to investigate any complaints that may be made. There are times, however, when we use these officers as conciliation officers when there is danger of a strike or something of that nature, and they keep us posted how the negotiations are proceeding. Very often they are called upon to act as conciliators in disputes.


John Anderson Fraser: How many of these officers are there?


Peter Heenan: One in the maritimes, one in Montreal, one in Toronto, one in Winnipeg and one in Vancouver.


John Anderson Fraser: What territory does the officer in Vancouver cover?


Peter Heenan: He covers British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan.


Finlay MacDonald: With regard to the officer in Halifax, is there some labour trouble down there among the painters? Is the officer taking any part in that dispute, and if so, has he made any report?


Peter Heenan: That is the only strike we have in Canada to-day, the painters' strike in Halifax, and I hope within the next day or two it will be settled.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration, Old Age Pensions Act, $10,000.
William Thomas Lucas: I understand that when a pensioner under the act has any property he has to make an assignment to the government.


Peter Heenan: No. There is a provision in the act to that effect, but the federal government has no authority to take property from anyone, and I have been advised that neither does any province administering an old age pension act take property from anyone or require him to transfer it.


William Thomas Lucas: A case of that kind was called to my attention by one of the municipal secretaries, who was worried about the taxes on the property which he said had been assigned to the government. I have the assurance of the minister, however, that that is not correct.


Peter Heenan: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Technical Education Act, $2,000.
John Anderson Fraser: What is the significance of this vote of $2,000?


Peter Heenan: We have to carry on under the act another four years. We had a staff in connection with the $10,000,000 vote for

Supply-Labour
technical education, and this $2,000 is required to enable us to carry on until the balance of the vote is exhausted.


Mr. BRADY:: Does that $2,000 cover the cost for the nine provinces?


Peter Heenan: Yes, for travelling expenses only.


John Anderson Fraser: In the Auditor General's report I find a charge for hospital medical care for Mrs. Charles Caucutt, who sustained injuries while attending the employment service council meetings. What are the circumstances justifying a payment of this kind?


Peter Heenan: She was one of the lady delegates at that meeting, and while here engaged on government business, broke her leg here in the building.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Labour-salaries, $269,045; contingencies, $30,000.
John Anderson Fraser: How many employees has
the minister in 'the department at present?


Peter Heenan: There are 136.


John Anderson Fraser: The minister is asking
for an increase?


Peter Heenan: Yes, six.


John Anderson Fraser: How many were in the
department when the minister took charge?


Peter Heenan: I cannot state the exact
number, but we have a few increases owing to the extension of the work of the department, such as old age pensions, annuities, conciliation, and so on. I hope next year to be in a position to ask for a couple more fair wage officers.


John Anderson Fraser: There is a departmental
solicitor?


Peter Heenan: Yes.


John Anderson Fraser: Is that a new appointment ?


Peter Heenan: Yes.


Henry Elvins Spencer: To what extent are the
public taking advantage of annuities?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That item is
held over.	.


John Anderson Fraser: What other important
departmental officials have been appointed by the minister?


Peter Heenan: The minister has not appointed any; the Civil Service Commission has. It appointed the solicitor for the department, the chief conciliation officer, and the fair wage officer in Halifax.


John Anderson Fraser: When the position of chief conciliation officer was created by the minister was the senior wage investigator given the position?


Peter Heenan: No, a new man came in.


John Anderson Fraser: What was the justification for bringing in a new man when there was already an experienced officer in the department who had been carrying on the work for years?


Peter Heenan: It was advertised and
thrown open by the Civil Service Commission. We have got probably one of the best gentlemen in the whole Dominion for the position, as results will show.


John Anderson Fraser: What is his name?


Peter Heenan: Major S. Campbell.


John Anderson Fraser: Were his qualifications
superior to those of the men who had been carrying on the work before?


Peter Heenan: It is not altogether qualifications that count in conciliation work; temperament and experience are the essentials. This gentleman had a great deal of experience in negotiating wage agreements and acting on committees for labour men long before he came here.


John Anderson Fraser: Was he appointed over
the heads of the men in the department because he had a wider experience than they?


Peter Heenan: To my notion the present gentleman has a wider experience than any other officer.


John Anderson Fraser: Was that the reason for
his appointment?


Peter Heenan: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I notice the minister's
private secretary is getting $4,080, and there is also an allowance of $600.


Peter Heenan: That is not for the
private secretary; it is the secretarial allowance.


John Anderson Fraser: Was there a secretary in
the department when the minister took charge?


Peter Heenan: Yes.


John Anderson Fraser: What were the travelling
and incidental expenses of the minister himself for the year ending March 31, 1930?


Peter Heenan: About $2,700.


John Anderson Fraser: Does that include automobile expenses and all other private expenses of the minister?


Peter Heenan: That is the amount of
the minister's own private expenses, $2,700.


John Anderson Fraser: Including travelling expenses?


Peter Heenan: All travelling expenses.
Supply-Labour


John Anderson Fraser: Chauffeur and automobile
expenses?


Peter Heenan: No.


John Anderson Fraser: I should like to have a
statement including those expenses. My friend suggests aeroplane expenses as well.


Peter Heenan: The expenditures out of
contingencies for the whole department were as follows:
Salaries	$ 5,203
Travelling expenses,	 4,162
Telephone and telegrams	 7,635
Printing and stationery	 6,874
Sundries	 5,101


John Anderson Fraser: Evidently the minister has not understood my question. What was the amount the minister expended in connection with his personal expenses for the year?


Peter Heenan: I gave my hon. friend
my own personal expenses-$2,700.


John Anderson Fraser: Does that sum include the minister's travelling and automobile expenses, and all similar items?


Peter Heenan: No, it does not include
automobiles; it includes only my personal expenses.


John Anderson Fraser: Does it include the minister's travelling expenses?


Peter Heenan: Yes.


John Anderson Fraser: His travelling expenses
were $2,700?


Peter Heenan: Yes.


John Anderson Fraser: Does it include his automobiles, the renewal of his automobiles, repairs, sundries and gasoline?


Peter Heenan: No, that is additional.


John Anderson Fraser: It includes all his travelling expenses?


Peter Heenan: Yes, in Canada.


John Anderson Fraser: In or out of Canada-I
want to have all the information.


Peter Heenan: Yes.


John Anderson Fraser: 


Peter Heenan: Yes.


John Anderson Fraser: May we have the other
item as to automobile expenses?


Peter Heenan: That is part of the S2S,000.


John Anderson Fraser: Do I understand that the
expenses of the hon. gentleman in connection with the discharge of his duties as Minister of Labour amount to $28,000?


Peter Heenan: No, no.


John Anderson Fraser: What is the cost to the
Dominion of Canada of the Minister of

Labour in connection with the discharge of his duties? That is what I am trying to get.


Peter Heenan: I can tell the hon. gentleman that there is a salary of $10,000, $4,000 indemnity and $2,700 travelling expenses. I have not the automobile expenses before me. It is all included however in the item of $28,000.


John Anderson Fraser: As I understand the minister-
.Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


John Anderson Fraser: If hon. members insist upon interrupting, they will be here just that much longer. The longer they shout the longer it will take to pass the item. I wish to have a correct answer to my question. May I infer that the minister costs the Dominion of Canada $50,000?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Peter Heenan: I do not know what my
hon. friend is asking. If there is any information he wishes to have we may go into all the items thoroughly. I may tell the hon. gentleman that it cost the people of Canada $2,700 last year for the travelling expenses of the Minister of Labour, and for that sum he travelled about 40,000 miles, at an average cost of seven cents a mile. He went here, there and everywhere, when any dispute arose. In addition he visited the mines and other places at the request of the miners; he visited different industries to see the conditions under which men were labouring, and in all he covered about 40,000 miles.


John Anderson Fraser: I have before me an excerpt from the report of the Auditor General showing the expenditures for the year ended March 31, 1929. In that year the expenditures were as follows: Salary $10,000, indemnity, $4,000, personal expenses, $2,600, minister's automobile renewal, repairs, sundries and gasoline, $2,301, and expenses to Geneva, $6,691, making a total of $25,592. As far as I can learn from the Auditor General's report, that is the answer to the question I have addressed to the minister.


An hon. MEMBER:: Then why did you
ask it?


John Anderson Fraser: The figures I have quoted
are for the year 1929; I want information for the year 1930. Can the minister give me, either now or at some future time, a detailed statement for 1930, to correspond with the one I have given for 1929?


Mr. BANCROFT:: The hon. gentleman
stated that last year the cost was $50,000 Did he multiply by two the expenditures for the year 1928-29?	[DOT]

Questions


John Anderson Fraser: No, I did not multiply
anything. I added up the figures which the minister gave me across the floor of the house and the result was very close to S50,000.


John Gordon Ross: Has the hon.
member any objection to that sum of money being spent in the Department of Labour?


John Anderson Fraser: No, not at all. I am trying to get an accurate statement of what the Minister of Labour cost this country; I am not objecting to the expenditure in any shape or form.


Leland Payson Bancroft: I would ask the minister to tell us how many strikes there have been in Canada during the last year.


John Anderson Fraser: I do not know what that
has to do with it.


Leland Payson Bancroft: I directed my question
to the minister, not to the hon. gentleman across the floor.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the house adjourns
I wish ito lay on the table a copy of the convention between Canada and the United States for the preservation of the halibut fisheries of the North Pacific ocean, Behring Sea, signed at Ottawa on May 9, 1930, in respect to the Dominion of Canada, by the plenipotentiary named therein.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 6.20 p.m.
Monday, May 26, 1930